I was just reading a thread on reviews about 'The Princess Diaries' and the question about whether the film should have gotten a 'G' rating was raised.

This reminded me about a problem that I believes exists with the ratings system and how this impacts on movies.

Don't get me wrong. I think the rating system is a lot better than censorship however perhaps there is room for improvement.

From comments I have read here and elsewhere, the 'G' rating (General Exhibition) has acquired something of a negative image in recent years. As I understand it, often film producers deliberately add in some bad language or violence so as to avoid a 'G' rating due to the perceptions that people have about that rating ie that it is kids stuff.

I think that a well designed ratings system should encourage rather than discourage the avoidance of things like foul language. That is not to say that sometimes there is not a place for such things in films but I would really like to see more better quality films that are simply great and one does not notice the absence of violence etc.

'Spotswood' was a great film but was rated PG. Would it have been any less a great film had it been made for a G classification?

A lot of people here seem to have like 'Moulin Rouge' (M). Could it have been made as successfuly as a G film? Why not?

I don't claim to have the answers but it would be nice to see that ratings system work in such a way as it still assist patrons with their movie choices but doesn't affect the way that movies are made.

My suggestion would be to take a leaf out of Television's book here.

How about if there were to be two ratings

(G) - General Exhibition

and

(R) - Restricted Exhibition

An R rated film would be rated the same way as it is currently. All other films would be G rated but extra information would be provided where that film contained bad language, Violence, sexual themes etc

Eg

Bambi might be rated simply G

Moulin Rouge might be rated G (s)

Lethal Weapon might be rated G (l,v)

s= sexual themes
l= language
v= violence

I think this sort of a system gives more information to viewers but would not necessarily cause film producers to unneccessarily add in violence, language etc.

Can we come up with a ratings system that still informs patrons but does not distort film making decisions?

cheers Peter

Later they added GP that was eventually changed to PG and the M rating was phased out entirly

The age limit was increased to 17 on the R rating

In 1984
PG-13 Was introduced to quiet the people because to much was getting into pg rated films without warning...now movies that would have been rated what I call simple R's are falling into this catagory...

here is some interesting trivia for those who may not know.....
in 1969 Midnight cowboy won best picture it was rated X at the time later re-submited and received an R rating.

When Star Wars was first rated it was given a G rating....Lucas did not like the rating because it was considered the kiss of death at the box office. So he shot a scene that showed the aliens arm on the floor after it was cut off in the cantina scene. Re-submited the film and got the PG rating.

the first PG film produced by the Walt Disney company was 1978 The Black Hole.

I think we need to leave the rating system like it is.

My complaint about the system is that there must be something wrong with the people who rate the movies. Maybe we are a little to conservative, but a few of my fellow managers and I agree that Shrek should have been PG-13. Give me time and I will be able to think of other examples that, in my humble opinion, were rated too low.
 

U - Universal - "Suitable for all" (Pokemon, Lion King etc)
PG * - Parental Guidance - "Some scenes may be unsuitable for young children" (Knights Tale, Cats & Dogs)
12 - No person under the age of 12 will be admitted (Moulin Rouge, Planet of the Apes, A.I.)
15 - No person under the age of 15 will be admitted (The Fast and the Furious etc)
18 - No person under the age of 18 will be admitted (Scary movie, Hannibal etc)

* For PG films, the parent or guardian must be present when the ticket is purchased, or some other form of consent given (telephone call from the parent, letter etc), and the content of the film "should not disturb a child aged around eight or older".

There are two additional certificates for video/dvd releases, UC and R18. UC means Universal - particularly suitable for Children. R18 is for - well, porn basically. Only available through licensed sex shops and outlets.

Sometimes video releases have a higher rating than the theatrical release, "because of the increased possibility of under-age viewing recognised in the Video Recordings Act, and of works being replayed or viewed out of context. Accordingly, a work may receive a higher age classification on video, or require heavier cuts." Taken from the British Board of Film Classification website www.bbfc.co.uk

Shrek was mentioned earlier in this thread. In my opinion, the jokes in Shrek were way above the understanding of the children watching it, so therefore would cause no offenceto them. They were an "in-joke" for the parents.
 

I think that you may be missing the point here.

If, as has been posted, a 'G' classification is regarded as the kiss of death this causes film producers to change their films to become more unnecessarily violent, sexual or foul-mouthed than they would otherwise have been.

The point is that the system that is designed to reduce exposure to these elements for those patrons who do not want those elements is leading to the production of more films with those elements than would otherwise have been the case.

The reason for this is that the category without these elements (G) has been associated with either childrens or poor quality films.

There is a need for find some way to provide a ratings system but to make a system that encourages the making of better rather than worse films. Any film that includes violence, language etc simply for the sake of seeking a particular rating is, in my opinion the worse for it.

cheers Peter

 

Last fall we played both "Best In Show" which was rated PG-13 and "Billy Elliot" which was rated R. Because all the TV commercials and trailers and ads showed cute dogs for Best In Show, many parents thought that it would be appropriate for small children, even though it was rated PG-13. Same parents were shocked by the first scene of the film where two charcters are discussing their sex life and its effect on their pooch with a therapist. Meanwhile, Billy Elliot rates an R apparently just for excessive use of the F word in the MPAA's judgement. Nevermind that given the setting of the film and the working class nature of the characters the language was appropriate and representative. It was also spoken in a heavy accent and practically undecipherable to most audiences. As a theatre owner I had compliants on both pictures.

This summer two foreign language films received ratings that I thought were inappropriate. Miramax's "The Closet" was rated R for a single scene of two people making love on a production line and a male butt going up and down. Meanwhile, Sony Classics "The Road Home" a Chinese-film recieved a G rating, though it was never intended for children. Some parents brought their kids just because it was rated G. In both these instances, I believe the rating system, which requires companies owned by companies that are members of the MPAA, is utterly useless. Kids aren't interested in subtitled French films and subtitled Chinese films won't hold the attention span of most kids. So why rate them? Films intended for and marketed to people 18 and under (which includes all major studio releases) should be rated, but do we really need to rate films that mostly appeal to those 25+ with college degrees? I certainly don't think so.
 

Air force one was released as an R rated film but hollywood tried to get a PG-13 Rating out of it with no luck...

Yes at the time that Star Wars came out G rated films were dropping in revenue at the box office and Lucas new this....but he was not thinking that this movie was going to be a huge anything at the time of it's release....he was hoping he would make back the money invested into the production

Keanu Reeves: "You're just a freaking stupid school teacher.."
(Or something to that respect)

I think the ratings are good as is, but the flexibility issues should be standardized.
 

Just look at what has happened to television!

Anyhow, a year or so ago I saw a tv interview with the head of the ratings board (I forgot his name)who was kindasorta in hot water because of a very controversial movie that received a R rating and many people felt that it should have been X. Anyhow, the interviewer asked this guy if he personally saw the film before giving it an R rating, and he of course said no. This guy then went on to defend the rating because of the nature of the profanity and violence--that it was meant as an artistic form, etc!