Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: R ratings and under 17?

This is topic R ratings and under 17? in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=003074

Posted by Andy Bundy (Member # 9567) on 11-17-2017, 10:48 PM:

Hello all,

So I'm wondering about the gray area of movie ratings. At my theater tonight, my manager let in two under 17 unaccompanied girls to see an R rated film. She was thinking I was overreacting when I objected to them being admitted. Am I in the wrong on this? What are the repercussions for knowingly allowing underage kids into R rated films without parents?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-18-2017, 09:05 AM:

It depends on the licensing jurisdiction, and whether they find out about it. 17-year olds vary from those who could sit through I Spit on Your Grave without batting an eyelid, to those who would be traumatized by The Lego Movie (and not just because of how bad it is). My gut feeling would be that if a 17-year old is so interested in a particular movie that they're willing to make the effort to go to a theater to see it, they're probably well aware of what they're going to see, and the chances of it doing them any harm are minimal.

However, some cities and other licensing authorities have a reputation for playing things totally by the book, and will send some fake customers in to check up on you once in a while. It's a judgement call based on knowing your town and knowing your audience.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-18-2017, 10:00 AM:

How far under 17 were they? If they were teenagers, there's probably no problem...but if they're younger than that, you could get complaints from the OTHER moviegoers, especially if they're playing with their phones throughout the movie.

But legally? Probably no issue, unless the locality has more restrictive laws.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-18-2017, 11:20 AM:

The ratings are only a SUGGESTION from the lobbying arm of the motion picture industry (the MPAA). The ratings are copyrighted, so there are no laws that the MPAA will allow to be attached to them. Legally speaking, if you let a 16 year old into a movie with her parents, you are just as liable if you let her in unaccompanied. The movie would have to be legally adjudicated to be obscene for minors, which requires arrests and lawyers and judges etc.

So, what Mike says. Legally you have nothing to worry about.

Posted by Andy Bundy (Member # 9567) on 11-18-2017, 11:45 AM:

Thank you all for your responses. Growing up, it was always inferred that it was a hard and fast rule. I guess I never thought to look into whether it's a law or not. I know we have our NATO membership sticker that says "We card for R and NC-17" so I figured it's on the same lines as carding for alcohol sales.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-18-2017, 12:27 PM:

quote: Martin McCaffery
Legally you have nothing to worry about.

Statutorily, you have nothing to worry about.

Although MPAA Ratings have no force of law, the minor's parents can still sue the theater.

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 11-18-2017, 01:04 PM:

The rating system has an interesting history. I recently read a book (I think it's a dramatization of actual events) about early Hollywood ("Tinseltown: Murder, Morphine, and Madness at the Dawn of Hollywood," William J. Mann) that had quite a bit about the establishment of the Motion Picture Production code (Hays code) by the industry to avoid the federal government creating laws regarding content. The Hays code, established in 1930, was replaced by the current MPAA code in 1968. It's interesting to watch pre-Hays movies.

Wikipedia has a good article on the MPAA code at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_America_film_rating_system#Replacement_of_Hays_Code .

An article on the Hays code is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code .

Harold

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-18-2017, 01:14 PM:

TCM has published several DVD collections of infamous pre-Code movies (the ones that provoked the industry into coming up with the Production Code in the first place). Baby Face is a classic example, and hilarious (despite quite a morally conservative ending).

The British censorship system has an even more bizarre back story. Its origins are in safety legislation designed to keep audiences safe from nitrate fires. Local authorities (cities and counties) were given the power to license cinemas (or not) depending, the lawmakers intended, on whether they were safe or not. But these authorities quickly started to use that power to censor films, by threatening to pull the licenses of any cinema that showed movies they disapproved of.

The industry responded by creating the British Board of Film Censors in 1912 - a completely private company that had no legal power whatsoever until 1984. Their certificates were purely advisory, but almost all local authorities quickly attached a condition to their licenses stating that cinemas could only play films that the BBFC had passed, and to the age groups it had passed them for. For cinema exhibition, that remains the case to this day, though in the 1980s the BBFC was given direct legally binding powers over "video recordings" (which today includes games and other digital media).

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-18-2017, 01:51 PM:

quote: Randy Stankey
Although MPAA Ratings have no force of law, the minor's parents can still sue the theater.

And lose

Yeah, it would be expensive to both parties, and people have sued for less. As the ratings claim to be an advisory for parents, the easy counter argument is that what movies the kids go to is between them and their mommy. As long as the kids behave, it is none of the theatre business.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-18-2017, 03:02 PM:

Understood.

My point was about being dragged into a lawsuit and the amount of trouble that would arise from it.

A potential plaintiff would have to prove that the theater had a duty to act, that the theater breached that duty and that such a breach caused harm.

Since MPAA ratings have no force of law, the matter of duty is in a gray area.
Since the matter of duty is undefined, it would be hard to prove a breach of such duty.
The concept of harm is a completely unknown for many reasons.

Therefore, such a lawsuit would be a big, hairy mess... something that nobody would want to deal with. It would be best to avoid the problem in the first place.

Posted by Donald Brown (Member # 5427) on 11-18-2017, 03:35 PM:

I recall attempting to enter the Airport Cinemas in Hyannis, Massachusetts to watch "The Last American Virgin", which was rated R, when I was in my late teens or early twenties. I was refused admission when I couldn't produce proof of age. Subsequently, I wrote a letter to the local Better Business Bureau outlining my experience. Their reply stated that admission requirements were at the discretion of the theatre's management and that I had no recourse through the BBB with my complaint.
As time passes, there are increasingly less teens who attend the Skowhegan Drive-In Theatre, which I operate in central Maine, and those who do enter without adult supervision are all old enough to drive.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 11-18-2017, 05:43 PM:

oh this recalls the glory days of my teens and the 80's when a number of movies mostly horror didn't get an MPAA rating but went with the generic - 'No One Under 17 admitted' - theaters in DC were so lax, I remember seeing 'Day of the Dead', 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2', 'ReAnimator', 'Demons' et al, without a single theater carding and realizing it was a ticket sale.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 11-18-2017, 09:07 PM:

Realistically the enforcement of the MPAA ratings is up to the individual theatre - or company. The ratings system is completely voluntary and theatres have no legal obligation to enforce the ratings. Because the MPAA is not connected with movie theatres, they wouldn't even have a recourse against a theatre if they choose not to enforce the ratings.

Traditionally the MPAA has purposely left the definition of each rating somewhat vague to avoid any specific interpretation of what "Parental Guardian" means. This means a theatre could reasonably argue that simply giving the teen permission to go to the theatre constitutes "accompanying parent or adult guardian".

One of the problems with the ratings today is the definition of what content leads to a given rating has failed to keep up with the times. We're trying to limit kids going to R rated movies, but these kids have virtually unlimited access to similar content through Netflix, cable/satellite, and other viewing options. And some of the content which leads to a given rating really isn't as objectionable as it was 20-30 years ago.

My theatre company has always had a bit of a middle of the road policy on the ratings. For R rated movies we require anyone under the age of 17 - or without an id - have their parent with them to buy their tickets. The parents only have to stay with them if the person is under high school age.

Over the years this has become increasingly contentious both with teens and parents. It's virtually unheard of to have a parent say they appreciate us not admitting their teen. For that matter it's rare to have a parent be grateful when they try to take a young kid to an R rated movies. The only people who seem to care are the senior citizens who are glad we are not letting kids see the movie. That's not to say parents aren't making this decision at home and trusting their kids to obey their wishes. It's just not happening at the theatre.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-18-2017, 09:34 PM:

quote:
oh this recalls the glory days of my teens and the 80's when a number of movies mostly horror didn't get an MPAA rating but went with the generic - 'No One Under 17 admitted' - theaters in DC were so lax,

Sounds like you just missed the Exorcist. I was a senior in HS then (in Springfield, VA). Those were the days of exclusive engagements and it had an exclusive run at a downtown DC theatre. Anyway, the DC city council decided that no one under 17 (or 18, I forget) would be allowed in to see The Exorcist, despite it's R rating. So, of course, lines were around the block. And when it finally opened in the burbs, it was a just plain R rating and everyone was going to it.
Not sure if it was playing at the theatre I was an usher at, or another in the chain, but I know I saw it without a parent.
And yeah, saw my first "X" movies in DC with no problem (Performance and the original release of A Clockwork Orange).

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 11-18-2017, 10:25 PM:

Exit to Eden was banned in Saskatchewan when it first came out because of a scene where a woman was spanking a man with a hairbrush.

Sexual Violence. Not Allowed.

After a great outcry the banning was lifted a week or so later and the movie was classified as Restricted. After that Saskatchewan was the only place in the world where Exit to Eden made a killing. I remember selling tickets and the line-ups were out of this world. I remember one old lady who came in and said, "Is this the movie that they banned?" I said yes, and she said, "Oh good" as she put her money on the counter. [Smile]

I never saw her again after that, before or since.

I was told that, before they un-banned it, one theatre chain that had theatres in both Saskatchewan and Alberta was organizing bus tours to take people to the Alberta theatres to see it.

Posted by Donald Brown (Member # 5427) on 11-19-2017, 06:20 PM:

In the late '70s, an Argentine film called "Snuff" made its way to Boston. While I can't recall whether "Snuff" was unrated or rated X, the release aroused such controversy for scenes alleged to feature an actual murder, that Boston Police officers were stationed at the theatres exhibiting it to supervise age restricted admissions. That's publicity the distributor couldn't buy!

Martin: In my early teens, I persuaded my grandmother to take me to "A Clockwork Orange", part of a Stanley Kubrick retrospective! While my exposure to such content briefly endowed me with
what one might call middle school screen cred', my grandmother exclaimed her shock at the experience until her final days nearly three decades later!

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-19-2017, 06:29 PM:

After a double feature of Joe and Easy Rider, my mom quit taking me to R rated movies. Eventually me and a friend figured out we could take the buses downtown (no Metro in those days) and see whatever we wanted at the Rep and Art theatres.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 11-19-2017, 07:11 PM:

quote: Frank Cox
After a great outcry the banning was lifted a week or so later and the movie was classified as Restricted. After that Saskatchewan was the only place in the world where Exit to Eden made a killing.

This reminds me of a story where Red Bull, the energy drink company, made a killing in Germany, after some retailers pulled Red Bull's version of Cola off the shelves, because it was found to contain traces of cocaine. Obviously, the traces were so minute, you'd need to drink such amounts, you'd probably die from other side effects before the effect of the cocaine would kick in.

There wasn't much effort in pulling it off the shelves though, most of the inventory had already been sold. Oce it hit the news, a massive buying frenzy of the stuff erupted.

People always want what they can't get. It's actually one of the more profitable marketing tactics around, you only need to ask Apple.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-19-2017, 09:22 PM:

Creating a moral outrage scandal is an almost guaranteed way to enable a mediocre and/or overly pretentious movie to perform at least respectably at the box office. There was a spate of them in Britain in the late 1990s: two I particularly remember are Crash (1996, David Cronenberg) and Romance. Both were effectively high class pornos, which the BBFC passed uncut because they accepted claims that they were actually art.

The popular press identified a bandwagon to start rolling in both cases, and the end result was a few conservative cities banning them, and lines around the block at arthouses to see them in the places where they played. I remember having to turn customers away from the opening night of Romance, but so many walked out from boredom during the actual show that there can't have been more than 30 left in the 350-seat house by the time the credit crawl started. By the Sunday, the word was around town that the pic was two hours of pretentious BS, and it was playing to nearly empty houses.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-20-2017, 12:35 AM:

Every year we have a handful of parents who drop off their kids for R-rated movies and drive away. The kids then come in the door. Sometimes they produce a permission note, which we don't accept. Then they want to call Mom or Dad on the phone, which we also don't accept. (The only thing we'll accept is a human body coming in the door and giving permission.) Sometimes they'll call Mom or Dad, who then show up at the office in somewhat of a huff, saying that it's OK. It's ALWAYS OK. I don't think anybody has ever hauled their kid away, at least not more than one or two times in my years in the business.

Then the next R-movie we play, the same thing happens again with the same kids. I say, "Your folks have to come in and give you permission EVERY TIME because it's always a DIFFERENT MOVIE." And then the parents will come in and say "can't we just say it's always OK?" I say "That would be a bookkeeping nightmare for us, so no, you can't do that."

Sometimes I say "The best thing would be for you to go in and watch the movie with the kids." It's fun to compare who has the more horrified look when I suggest that -- the kid or the parent.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 11-20-2017, 12:34 PM:

I remember the outcry over the graphic violence of 'Saving Private Ryan' and even though none of the board of CARA had a problem with it, they obviously gave it an 'R' rating, but some more sensitive movie goers and theaters decided that no one 'under 17' were allowed regardless of being accompanied by a parent/adult guardian - that didn't last long.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-20-2017, 02:57 PM:

Heck any standard horror (or Deadpool) movie today has way more graphic violence than SPR did. I guess it was more painful to watch in that because it was depicting real events.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 11-20-2017, 03:10 PM:

I did have one old guy walk out of SPR shortly after I started the show. On his way out he told me, "I was there and I just decided that I don't want to see it again."

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 11-20-2017, 03:17 PM:

in terms of TV 'American Horror Story' really has gone the extra mile in terms of explicit violence - the extreme gore would give the MPAA a conniption fit - add every curse word uncensored on FX, parents would parental lock this at a heartbeat.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 11-20-2017, 03:40 PM:

I remember when we played The Last House on the Left (2009). The rape scene in that movie was one of the most disturbing I have ever seen in a movie. Despite warning parents about this, none though it was a movie they didn't want their teenage daughters or sons to see. A few made a joke of promising to cover their kid's eyes. In my opinion this was FAR more disturbing than the violence in Saving Private Ryan.

Another incident that stands out was I had a grandmother bring 4 teenage girls to see Hostel. The girls were probably 13-14. After the show the grandmother comes out and complains about the nudity in the movie. She didn't care at all about the violence, just the topless women. If she had had boys with her I might have understood more. But she's complaining about the girls seeing the same thing they see everyday in the mirror. Absolutely floored me.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-20-2017, 04:57 PM:

Best complaint I ever got was an old guy who came out during My Big Fat Greek Wedding.
He stood at the concessions stand for a few moments and then said to me "That movie is filth doubled over."
At first I thought he was kidding, but he went on about how they were in bed together even though they weren't married! That even when he was dating, he'd never bring his wife to something like that (his wife was, of course, in watching the movie with no complaints [and it does lead me to wonder about the dating techniques of his youth]).
I really wanted to say to him "You don't own a television, do you?" but decided discretion was the better choice.
Moral of the story: There's always someone.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 11-20-2017, 09:20 PM:

^ [face palm]

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 11-20-2017, 10:32 PM:

There's a case where I think a theater can be successfully sued. If a theater posts the MPAA Ratings Chart and some theaters in my area do just that, the rating for "R" rated movies says "Under 17 Requires Parent or Adult Guardian". And the rating for NC-17 says "No One 17 and Under Admitted".

That's making a statement that they won't admit patrons as per those statements. If they do, they've violated their own stated policies and I have to think that if a parent sued if their under 17 child was admitted, they just might win the case, especially if they can prove harm, not that I've ever heard of anyone doing so.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-20-2017, 11:59 PM:

All R-rated posters say "Under 17 not admitted without parent" as part of the logo, yet theaters are free to interpret the policies as they wish, so I don't think that would hold water either. If anything, it might result in a law requiring theaters to post their actual policies regarding R movies. (Which might not be a bad idea -- I recently outlined our policy on our Facebook page.)