DVD Watch: This Film is Not Yet Rated

This Film is Not Yet Rated, directed by a very visible (a la Michael Moore) Kirby Dick, is a perceptive, if not revelatory look at the MPAA's rating system for movies. I've always considered the rating system somewhat loathsome, especially because of the changes filmmakers must make to accommodate the system. Although his criticisms of the MPAA hit the mark, Kirby Dick doesn't emphasize that some of the worst problems with the system are due to reactions to the rating system, rather than MPAA policy.

In 1990, the MPAA tried to do the right thing and instituted the NC-17 rating - an "adults only" rating that was meant to bypass the stigma of the X rating, which had been co-opted by the pornographic film industry. These efforts were almost immediately sabotaged by national video rental chains, many theater chains, and newspapers, all of which refused to distribute or promote NC-17 movies.

The second crisis (and probably more damaging from an artistic perspective) occurred in the mid-1990s, when theaters were pressured into strictly enforcing the R rating. Before this crackdown, theaters were effectively allowed to create their own local standards for admission into R rated movies, and often based admission on how old or mature a teenager looked, and might even apply different standards for different movies. The new enforcement regime, along with Hollywood's dependence on the teenage market, created enormous financial pressure to make PG-13 movies with content pushed as far to the edge of R as possible.

As a result, we currently have a rating system with effectively two enforcement (as opposed to advisory) categories: the unrestricted admission G's (G, PG and PG-13) and R. I don't include the NC-17 because it means that the film is virtually banned (although through no fault of the MPAA). I don't understand the usefulness of three advisory categories (especially as hard to differentiate as G and PG, and as mind-bogglingly broad as PG-13), when so much more detailed information is available in alternative media.

Kirby Dick doesn't really give us many proposals for reform beyond the laudable desire to make the process more open. However, even an open system will have its moments of arbitrariness as lines will have to be drawn somewhere. Since no system will seem fair to everyone, the main goal of ratings reform should be to minimize the consequences of inevitable bad decisions.

So what are the main problems with the current rating system?
1. NC-17 is a stigmatized rating
2. Strict ID checking for R-rated movies have created pressure to make PG-13 movies, because they are the only movies that teenagers can get into without an adult. However, a PG-13 movie must also be watered down enough for unaccompanied 9-10 year olds.
3. Both number 1 and 2 result in commercial cliffs (into an NC-17 or R rating) that can represent financial suicide.

The simplest solution is to increase the number of enforcement categories and soften the blow of slipping a category in the ratings. My proposal is to divide the R rating into a soft-R and a hard-R with their own enforcement criteria (Soft and hard do not necessarily refer to the state of genitalia in these movies, but they could!). The exact enforcement criteria are arbitrary, but I can imagine a soft-R requiring children 12 and under to have a parent present at the box office , and a hard-R banning children under 12 and requiring parental accompaniment for under 17s. The most objectionable PG-13 movies (crude comedies and violent fare) and softer or ennobling R movies (the Matrix, Schindler's List) could be in the soft-R category, while harder core R's (Kill Bill, Gangs of New York) and most NC-17 movies (Requiem for a Dream) would go to the hard-R category (and I won't have to see people taking their 4 year olds to these movies anymore). The most severe NC-17s (Short Bus) would remain NC-17, because certain corporate entities need something to ban in order to demonstrate their moral standards to the public.

Finally, on a personal note some of my best movie experiences (Hair, Network) were the result of being admitted underage. I recall that I went almost straight from 11 years old, qualifying for the child price, to 17 years old. I never could find a movie theater that would let me do both at the same time.