quote:

---

The "R-Card"
Allows teens to watch R-rated movies

This card lets teens watch R-rated movies without an adult
Teenagers may soon be able to get into an R-rated movie without a parent being with them. A movie theater in Illinois is testing what's called an "R-Card".

It's a picture ID that allows a teenager to watch a movie with an R-rating.

To get the card, parents have to go to the theater with their child to sign up.

"I think it would be good because then your parents don't have to tag along with you to every single Rated-R movie you wanna see," said Michelle Fleischman.

Right now the GKC Theater chain is the only company testing the "R-Card" idea. That company owns 30 theaters in the upper Midwest and says other chains are showing interest in the program.

---

Great, just what we need: more noisy teens in R-Rated movies.

AJG
 

---

Posted by Juan Urias (Member # 1990) on 01-26-2004, 02:37 PM:
 
and just like that they will come out with fake id cards.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-26-2004, 03:40 PM:
 
Sounds like a terrible idea. The "R" rating is intended to suggest that "under 17 must be accompanied by a parent or guardian." "Accompanied" means that said parent or guardian is supposed to sit with the minor during the film. If a theatre wants to enforce the ratings system, then it should follow the guideline as suggested. Otherwise, why even bother with the "R" card? Might as well just ignore the ratings entirely.

At least now the kids know which theatre is the best one to go to for watching "R" movies (forgeries will be an issue...it's amazing what kids can do with laser printers these days!) and the adults know which theatre to avoid if they want to actually enjoy the film.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-26-2004, 05:38 PM:
 
There's already an "R Card." It's called a driver's license. If you're going to check a card, check that one.

All this is, is a ploy by one chain to get kids to go to that chain because it's easier/faster to get in by flashing that card. Meanwhile the kids will be printing up and trading those cards faster than a politician's spin machine.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-26-2004, 06:33 PM:
 
If that idea comes to Oklahoma, I'm sure I'll get asked by a few people to make R-cards for them. I have a parody of the R-rating mark on the rear window of my pickup: "off limits to kids under 17 just to make them scream and cry." That's kind of how I felt about the R-rating when I was under 17.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-26-2004, 07:59 PM:
 
What a stupit idea! The PhotoShop boys will cream their jeans on that one. Cha-Ching!

Besides, I think the "R" rating should be lowered to 15. Kids nowadays are much more "in tune" to the ways of the world and are much "smarter" than those of 10-20 years ago.

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-26-2004, 08:58 PM:
 
Yes but the "R" rating isn't JUST to protect young eyes from "objectionable" content. It's also a way to exclude underage kids from "adult" movies and interrupting others.

Having a way to bypass the exclusionary effect of the "R" rating would nullify the effect.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 01-27-2004, 03:37 AM:
 
I agree with you all. If this goes big, it just throws out something the R rating was meant to do: keep younger children out of movies that have been 'deemed' unsuitable for them. Personally, I say the rating system should be thrown out because it really means nothing anymore, and this is just a sign of that fact. Who is Jack Valenti to say that my child shouldn't see Whale Rider or Schindler's List? I'm big on Freedom of Speech and censorship, and the whole idea of a movie rating system attempts to play as a parent of sorts: guiding us what movies are deemed suitable. Some would say an R rating helps deter noisy teens from a film, but if they really want to get in, they will. With this R card, it would be even easier to do so. I say get rid of the rating system and censorship of films, let art be art, and have theater chains grow some backbone and throw noisy patrons out without a refund!

AJG
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 01-27-2004, 09:50 AM:
 
The problem with the Ratings is not the ratings themselves. It is the fact that parents, and I am not saying all parents, fail to realize that they are ment to help them make decisions in reguards to what they want their children to see. It is not a form of censership since it is not censoring anything. This ratings system was very benaficial in the 70's but after the video explosion and cable television becoming widespread, parents have taken the attitude of well they can just see it at home when I am not there. It's not the ratings fault or the theaters fault for that attitude. It's the wide spread use of the rated media that has caused these situations.
 

---

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 01-27-2004, 12:33 PM:
 
R-Card, is a dumb, dumb and dumber idea.

In my neck of the woods, most parents could care less if their kids see R rated films. The only content they are remotely concerned with is explicit sex or full nudity.

Let the buckets of blood and limbs fly, and the f word burn holes in your ears, and they don't care. And I'm in a realitively small town.

We catch much more grief from parents about keeping kids out of R films by far, then the kids seeing them.

Then there's the lady that called me and reamed me out because she had just taken her 7 year old son to see The Rookie, and she just couldn't believe it was rated G. That means it's a kids film, according to her. I politely sent her the official explaination of the G rating, and for the life of me, never determined what was in the Rookie she found offensive.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 01-27-2004, 05:38 PM:
 
Outwardly, the ratings system may not be censorship, but when films get edited down just to meet a rating, then it does become censorship. Take the film The Fast and the Furious for instance. It had a few seconds trimmed out of it because it wanted to get a PG-13 rating instead of R. Why should a filmmaker have to do that just to meet a rating and help draw in a bigger audience? Same thing goes with a film like Eyes Wide Shut that had digital alterations in America to get an R rating. This is censorship.

AJG
 

---

Posted by Kyle Watkins (Member # 986) on 01-27-2004, 07:15 PM:
 
I belive its dumb idea also, mostly because of people be making them up at home. Is this a free thing or is there a charge for it. I think they should re-do the rating system. Think they should have a PG-16 or something, just because they say the F-word a few times, its has to be a rated R. then again i know some theaters do care about the rating system.

Kyle
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 01-27-2004, 07:32 PM:
 

quote:

---

Take the film The Fast and the Furious for instance. It had a few seconds trimmed out of it because it wanted to get a PG-13 rating instead of R. Why should a filmmaker have to do that just to meet a rating and help draw in a bigger audience? Same thing goes with a film like Eyes Wide Shut that had digital alterations in America to get an R rating. This is censorship.

---

quote:

---

It [the ratings system] is not a form of censership since it is not censoring anything.

---

quote:

---

I say get rid of the rating system and censorship of films, let art be art, and have theater chains grow some backbone and throw noisy patrons out without a refund!

---

quote:

---

have theater chains grow some backbone and throw noisy patrons out without a refund!

---

That would be nice, but I doubt you'll see it anytime soon at your local chain outlet.

We have a very short list of conditions under which a patron may leave with a refund... doctors that get paged, customers that get sick, patrons who change their minds and leave BEFORE the show starts. Otherwise, refunds are usually not negotiating items here.

We want our customers to enjoy themselves here, and because we assume they came here to watch a movie without being distracted by other patrons, we keep pretty close tabs on how things are going in our auditoriums. We also happen to enforce the "No Outside Food & Drink" policy that's posted on all theatres in our area. THAT one really gets some people wound up, leading me to believe that the policy is not as strictly monitored elsewhere

Of course, this results in occasional irate customers, and we have to be prepared to deal with their anger, not only at being tossed, but also usually because we don't give them their money back. I've been threatened over $5.00 and a tub of popcorn. I've had the sheriff's department out on several occasions to "encourage" people to leave, and I've dealt with vindictive patrons siccing the BBB and the local health department on me. These things are manageable because one of 3 people will be speaking for the ownership of the company; my wife, my oldest daughter or me. I'm comfortable with how a particular situation will be handled because we have a short list of people in authority. If an issue were actualy to land in court, I'm fairly confident of our position, based on the years we've spent cutting & pasting the way we do things here.

On the other hand, if I were still running a chain, I don't think I could see giving managers anywhere near that much lattitude. There would be too much liability for situations under which I wouldn't have much, if any control. The odds that all managers in a chain the size of a "Regal" would consistently handle these kinds of situations per corporate policy are probably not good, so I can see why a chain would have more of a "hands off" policy toward disruptive patrons.
 

---

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 01-29-2004, 11:28 AM:
 
A couple of years back I was working in a very problematic Cinemark in KC. We would, on an average Saturday night, throw out 150 kids, sometimes many more than that, without refunds. We had a zero tolerance for disruption. You disrupted our theatres, you were out. You entered an R-rated theatre even though you were underage, you were out. You show jumped, you were out. It was rather draconian, but, the theatre went from being wild, rough and losing money to being calm, quiet and profitable. Management changed, as did the approach to crowd control, so, now, the theatre is back to wild and rough.
 

---

Posted by R. Andrew Diercks (Member # 1725) on 01-29-2004, 04:17 PM:
 
"R" cards are a HORRIBLE idea. I'm just glad to see that most of you here agree with my feelings on the rated "r" policies. I don't feel like such a hard ass. If only for the behavior issues, enforcing it is the only way to go.
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 01-29-2004, 07:53 PM:
 
In another thread I mentioned the appearance of the Villa Theatre in a TV show. They "resurrected" the exterior of the building just long enough to shoot the opening scene of this week's Everwood. The scene is all about how a 16 year-old kid wants to buy two tickets to The Last Samurai so he can go on a date with his older girlfriend. The guy at the box office turns strict and denies the purchase, even when the older girlfriend attempts to buy a ticket for the 16 year-old.

It makes the guy at the box office look a bit petty and hard-nosed about the whole thing. On the other hand, I was silently cheering for a theatre employee who refused to be pushed around by a patron. And, of course, you tend to get in less trouble if you have a posted policy and you just stick with it, no matter who's begging for an exception. The people who complain with soon learn to just go elsewhere.
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 01-29-2004, 08:39 PM:
 
If the theatre has a significant incidence of parents accompanying their children to R features when the parents would rather not see the movie (or if the theatre permits, parents buying tickets for their children and then leaving), then the "R card" seems a reasonable way to save some effort for the parents.

The argument against it seems to be that it will encourage more underage kids to see R films. Whether or not it would really do that depends a lot on the local dynamics. In some localities, few theatres enforce the ratings at all. In others, its a big deal.

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 01-30-2004, 12:44 PM:
 
"the "R card" seems a reasonable way to save some effort for the parents."
I don't intend to save any effort for the parents, it's their kid, thus their repsonsibility to know that child is seeing. Which lots of parents simply DO NOT understand these days.
We are not friggin babysitters! Hey I can dream can't I.
 

---

Posted by Nate Lehrke (Member # 1460) on 06-09-2004, 04:55 PM:
 
This has been coming back in the news. The cards have started to be passed out. Saw it mentioned on my local news as well. Anyone know of any other chains doing this?

quote:

---

Controversial Pass Lets Kids Into R-Rated Films Springfield, Ill.-based GKC Theatres (search) has started distributing a photo ID card to teens 16 years old and younger so they can see R-rated titles without an adult. This parent-approved pass, which costs just $2 and allows kids to see every R-rated flick from “Kill Bill” to "Shakespeare In Love," has started a debate over convenience, parental responsibility and movie content.

Some parents see the card as an easy way to get around having to accompany their under-aged kids to R-rated movies, while others are disturbed that a theater chain would essentially circumvent the rules. Normally, people have to be 17 or accompanied by an adult to see an R-rated film.

“[It’s] less of a pain because I wouldn't have to go,” said Patricia O'Connor from Point Pleasant, N.J., who has three sons, two under the age of 17. “But I wouldn't want Shane (her 13-year-old) walking into just any R-rated movie because some of the material is very inappropriate."

O'Connor’s 16-year-old son Justin, on the other hand, sees the license to view as the next best thing to buttered popcorn and over-sized boxes of candy.

"I think it is a great idea because it is nothing new to me,” he said. “I see all of it on TV anyway, so I don't understand why my parents have to go with me to see it in a movie theatre."

The current movie rating system regulates films based on their level of profanity, violence, sexual content and drug use. Some critics have argued that the R-rating is too broad, pointing out that it includes everything from historical films such as "Troy" and "Schindler's List" to ultra-violent flicks like "Pulp Fiction.”

O'Connor said she’s been shocked at what makes it into an R-rated film. She recently rented “Monster,” the Oscar-winning Charlize Theron (search) movie about a prostitute who goes on a killing spree, and was taken aback by some explicit scenes. In this case, she said she was glad she was with her 13-year-old son while it was playing.

"First I told Shane to cover his eyes, but eventually I was like, 'Shane, get out of here!,'" O'Connor said. "I would not want him watching that on his own."

Jack Valenti (search), the longtime president and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America (search), said R-cards take away too much parental control.

"All R-rated films are not alike,” he said. “It is the parents' responsibility to make specific judgments about R films — and wrong to give a blanket endorsement to all."

But according to James Whitman, the GKC theater chain's director of operations, there haven't been any complaints from people participating in the R-card program. 

"From what I can tell, the people who have them like them and the parents are trying to use them responsibly," he said. "We're not being inundated with kids whose parents are giving them access to everything that comes on the screen."

So far GKC is the only theater network to offer the card, which Whitman said he came up with after parents complained that they wanted to let their kids see R-rated movies but didn't want to sit through the films themselves.

Currently the theater chain has issued about 700 R-cards — most in central Illinois — and plans to offer them throughout the 22-city chain by the end of the year.

The motion picture and theater owners associations are pressing GKC to abandon the program, but some parents think the cards are a good idea.

Joyce Needham, of Peoria, Ill., said she discusses every movie "before and after" her 16-year-old grandson uses his R-card. She said that whether kids have the card or not, they'll find a way to see what they want.

"I just think communication is the answer and trusting the child," Needham said. "If you can discuss what's going on in this world, you're better off than letting them find a way to do it on their own."

---

quote: Nate Lehrke

---

"I think it is a great idea because it is nothing new to me,” he said. “I see all of it on TV anyway, so I don't understand why my parents have to go with me to see it in a movie theatre."

---

For an outfit like Regal?.... seems like it would be too much trouble for the income it might represent.

For myself, personally... I don't care as much about whether Mrs. X's little Johnny gets to see an R picture in my theatre as I am whether Johnny will be engaged enough by the film to sit quietly and watch it... no yakking... no cell phones... no unsupervised romps through the theatre.

If a person, old enough by the VOLUNTARY rating guidelines, buys a ticket here, he/she should be able to watch the picture, undisturbed by someone I've let in because I've decided to interpret my admission policies.

Therein lies the problem. An "R" card lets in the youngsters, but puts the burden of monitoring them on you. You might have a zero tolerance policy... one problem and you're out. However, for every one of those cards you hand out, there's the potential for one disruption that shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Horrible idea! Someone's out there for the buck.
 

---

Posted by Andrew Shingleton (Member # 2257) on 06-10-2004, 02:07 AM:
 
From an outsider's perspective (being I'm not in America), I think that the R rating is far too loosely defined. There's easily room for it to be split into two more groups, or possibly even three groups. There's no room for teen friendly movies that aren't so full on that they need restrictions, but aren't exactly suitable for young children either.

As an example of how broad the American R rating can be, compare The Matrix and Fight Club. In America both films were put in the same category of an R rating. In Australia by contrast, The Matrix was rated M (standing for mature) which recommends that the movie is not suitable for children under 15 but carries no restrictions. Fight Club was rated R18 which is a legally restrictive category preventing anyone under the age of 18 from being present in the auditorium for the duration of the film (which is interesting when you have 17 year old ushers, but that's another story ).

I'm not saying that Australia's system is better or worse (one problem with ours is that unlike the US system ours is legally binding and we have to enforce the classification board's decision regardless of whether or not we agree with it). But if there was more scope in the American system it might allow for better rating parity when films are released internationally, and would also hopefully prevent the studio's from making cuts for financial reasons rather than artistic ones.

That aside, I don't think these R cards are a good idea. The purpose of requiring parents to accompany children under the age of 17 is so that if any issues or themes are in an R rated film which may be upsetting or confusing to children then their parents would be able to explain them. If the parent hasn't actually seen the film then they're limited to how they can respond since they don't know the exact circumstances brought up in the film.
 

---

Posted by Nate Lehrke (Member # 1460) on 06-10-2004, 02:31 AM:
 

quote: Andrew Shingleton

---

Fight Club was rated R18 which is a legally restrictive category preventing anyone under the age of 18 from being present in the auditorium for the duration of the film

---

I would like if these ratings were made law or swept away. I don't agree with them but do enforce them; if the government made it illegal I would have a lot less arguments with parents. But than again, the government is already involved enough in our lives.
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 06-10-2004, 02:58 PM:
 
My thought on all this is that parents these days seem to be looking for a quick way out of parenting thier kids. They don't want to be bothered to see an r rated film with thier kids, and don't mind the after affect of thier poor grades in school, thier miscreant behavior, the fact that they are experimenting with drugs and alcohol, etc.

I was not allowed to see any rated r movies until I was old enough to see one on my own. I would beg and plead with my mother but there was no relenting. When I was 17 I went and saw my first rated R film. It was "The Osterman Weekend". Not the best film in the world, and I wondered what all the fuss was about.

You see, having been sheltered from the onslaught of movie violence and other odditied until I WAS OLD ENOUGHT TO PROCESS IT PROPERLY, kept me from all kinds of problematic behavior. I knew plenty of people who got whatever they wanted, including the R rated films. And they were ALWAYS into pot, beer, bad grades, telling your parents to go to hell and fuck off, you know, stuff like that.

Parents are now shirking thier responsibility of raising thier children to not just be good upstanding citizens, but in giving them the opportunity to be a child, and to learn right from wrong. There is not ONE SINGLE RATED R MOVIE that is going to do that for them. In fact, there is not one movie of any rating that will do that for them.

My daughter, who is 8, just started to see pg-13 movies this year, as long as both her mother and I agree on the movie. It must be more story oriented, the violence no more than what is on the news, and the movie must give some kind feeling of thought process, you know, give you something to think about.

We recently took her to see Hidalgo. She was very silent for hours after that film. She didn't want to talk about it, but seemed very happy about the experience. Later, she said she really did like the movie, and it just took some time for her to digest all of the happenings of the movie.

I am sick and tired of parents "allowing" thier kids to see these films, on thier own, and without supervision. They are not there to see a movie, they are there to be stupid. And stupid they shall become. And they become a drain on the rest of society.

I am all for governmental regulation preventing the exploitation of minors in public places. I would not put so much requirement on movie theater managers, but I would put more emphasis on PARENTS, where it belongs. If a minor is found in a rated r movie on thier own, not only should the minor be cited and sent before a juvinile authority, but the parents should also be made to answer for the lack of required involvement in thier childs life.

These kids are not wards of the state, and not wards of the movie theater either. If we continue down this spiraling whole, society will crumble. We must take our kids out back and whip the shit out of em before its too late.

My kids have done thier share of bad stuff, and they were severly punished for it. In thier latter years, they are much more eager to impress thier parents than to ignore us and tell us to go fuck ourselves.

Thats the way it is folks. Accept it and do something about it.

Ciao

Dave
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-10-2004, 04:13 PM:
 
Dave, that's one of the best posts ever made on Film-Tech.

I for one would welcome having the ratings turned into a "law." Compare to the liquor laws. The bars can say, "Sorry, we can't serve you because we could lose our license." They have the law to lean on. Whereas the rating system being voluntary, has no teeth in it.

I would love to be able to say, "Sorry....it's ILLEGAL for your kids to see this without your supervision" and that would be the end of it, no ifs ands or buts.
 

---

Posted by Gunnar Johansson (Member # 1661) on 06-10-2004, 05:14 PM:
 
That´s the way it is in Sweden, and it doesn´t seem to work out to bad.

We have allowed for children, 7, 11 and 15. If you are a parent (or guardian) you can bring your kid to "the next level", i.e. a 10 year old can see the movie rated for 11, if accompanied by an adult. This applies to all ages except 15. No matter if your parent is there do you get in. And it´s the law. There´s a sign on the door saying that you may be requested to show ID.

I saw Harry Potter 3 today, in a matinee (I was stupid and wasn´t thinking) and next to me was a kid who was probably not old enough to see it, but his mommy was there and covered his eyes in certain sequences. Seemed okay. Now all the older people behaving badly, and the LOUD candy bags is another thing...
 

---

Posted by Julie Havlin (Member # 2465) on 06-10-2004, 11:08 PM:
 
Call me a cynic, but I can imagine that this R card is some sort of studio influence as a way to increase gross for R films, as well as endear the theatre to any studio for booking privlidges.
As mentioned previously, many films are cut down to get that PG-13 rating so they can get the young teenager's $.

I absolutely agree that R is far too broad a rating. Anyone here see the Australian comedy "The Castle" from 1998 (or so)? Wonderful film, and very family-friendly in my opinion, except the f word is used about 4 times, and as a way to expressing anger, not an adjective, hence an R rating. I talked many families into see that, and they all loved it.

And the thing that really irks me about parents and R rating is the comments I get all the time at my theatre.
"Why is Film A rated R?"
Well, it has some sex scenes in it.
"Oh no, I don't let my kids watch movies with sex in them. Why is Film B rated R?"
That has an extreme amount of violence.
"No sex? OK"

Why is sex censored more than violence by most parents? It's okay to watch a guy get blown open, but no T&A?

What happened to make love, not war?
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 06-10-2004, 11:15 PM:
 

quote: Julie Havlin

---

Why is sex censored more than violence by most parents?

---

quote: Julie Havlin

---

Why is sex censored more than violence by most parents? It's okay to watch a guy get blown open, but no T&A?

What happened to make love, not war

---

quote:

---

BY CHRIS HEWITT
Pioneer Press

Hollywood's R rating is supposed to mean "Restricted." But, for many teenagers who want to see "Fahrenheit 9/11," it means "Rules are made to be broken."

Michael Moore's R-rated anti-President Bush, anti-Iraq war documentary was the No. 1 movie last weekend, raking in $21.8 million, 100 times as much as Moore's previous film, "Bowling for Columbine," did on its opening weekend.

"It did very well everywhere in the Twin Cities. Suburbs, too," said Hugh Wronski, city manager for Landmark Theatres, which had "Fahrenheit 9/11" on three screens. Wronski said "Fahrenheit" sold out "almost all" of its showings over the weekend.

A good chunk of that money undoubtedly came from teenagers who — encouraged by Moore on his Web site — watched a movie they were supposedly restricted from seeing. (A picture of the crowd at Minneapolis' Lagoon Theatre is posted on Moore's Web site, www.michaelmoore.com.)

"I want all teenagers to see this film. There is nothing in the film in terms of violence that we didn't see on TV every night at the dinner hour during the Vietnam War," Moore wrote on his site. "I trust all of you teenagers out there will find your way into a theater to see this movie."

Find their way in, they did. "Fahrenheit 9/11" was rated R for brief scenes of wartime brutality, including a beheading, and because of a 12-letter curse word used repeatedly by a soldier in an interview. Moore unsuccessfully appealed the rating, which states that, "Under 17 requires accompanying parent or guardian," but a check of several area theaters reveals that many under-17 moviegoers will have little trouble getting into "Fahrenheit 9/11" or any other R-rated movie.

"The R rating doesn't bother me," said Alex Cortes, 16, attending an afternoon showing of "Fahrenheit 9/11" alone at the Regal theaters in Eagan. "I knew I was going to see it one way or another."

The way he saw it? Alex, who lives in Eagan, simply bought a ticket to "Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story" and slipped into "Fahrenheit 9/11" instead. There's nothing illegal about that, although theaters frown on it, and, ironically, it takes money out of Moore's pocket, since "Dodgeball" gets credit for his ticket sale.

"It's a voluntary system. It does not have a legal backing at all," said Phuong Yokitis, director of public affairs for the Motion Picture Association of America, which devised the ratings system in 1968. "Theater owners are in partnership with us to make it an effective system, and my understanding is that the vast majority of them do cooperate."

The Eagan theaters certainly do. Numerous signs warn underage patrons they will be asked to show IDs. Greg Boone, who just turned 17, was also at the Eagan theater Friday, watching "Fahrenheit 9/11," his first legit, unaccompanied-by-parent-or-guardian R-rated movie. But Greg, a Burnsville resident, has used a variety of methods to get into restricted films.

When he wanted to see "Kill Bill, Vol. 2," Greg asked a friend to buy the ticket ahead of time and drop it off at Greg's workplace. When he went to the since-closed Burnsville theaters, IDs were never checked. When Greg went to R-rated movies at Lakeville, management there required his mother, Joan, to sign the back of his tickets, giving him permission to attend.

"I thought that was a good idea," Joan said. "I appreciated it. I think it's an individual choice, really, about whether children should go to R-rated movies, depending on the child and their knowledge."

For Mike Gaudette, a 16-year-old from Mound, it depends more on where you go.

"The Mann theaters in Plymouth won't let you in if you're under 17, but, sometimes, the theaters in Delano don't check," said Mike, who has not seen "Fahrenheit 9/11" yet but plans to.

Mike said his parents don't care if he goes to R-rated movies, as long as he clears them in advance. Sometimes, movie theaters help with that — when he attends R-rated movies at the Waconia Theatres, they call home to check that it's OK with his folks.

Other times, that's not necessary. "It's easier to get in if you hang out with people who look older than you. Then, maybe you won't get carded. If you go with younger people, they're way more likely to ask for ID," said Mike, who has attended "lots" of R-rated films.

Even ID checks aren't foolproof. Alyssa Diamond, 16, of Minneapolis was carded when she went to see "Troy," but the ticket-taker let her in, anyway. "I didn't know if he was illiterate or just didn't care," she said.

The latter, probably. Alyssa, who works at the AMC Southdale theaters, said she has so little trouble getting into R-rated movies that she's often not even aware of a movie's rating.

"Like, with 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,' I didn't even realize it was rated R. But if I told my mom I was seeing the movie, she wouldn't care," she said, who offers a tip: "If you just ask really nonchalant and have a confident attitude, most theaters won't bother you."

Alyssa said it does bug her to see parents bringing 10-year-olds into "hard-core, violent, R movies," but she doesn't see any reason to bar teenagers from them. In fact, she has a different way of using the ratings system than its originators intended.

"You can kind of tell what's going to be in a movie by the rating," she said.

"Yeah," agrees Cedar Schimke, 16, Minneapolis. "G is just going to be a kids' movie."

"If it's G, basically, you need to pay me to see it. And if it's PG, it will be corny," Alyssa said. "PG-13 is where it gets better."

---