Anyway, the MPAA sucks for its very strange choices on film ratings. I really got pissed off with their PG-13 call on "The Ring." I believe this film should have been given an R rating.

Why would I be pissed off about it? Well, let's just say the R rating kind of cuts down on the idiot mis-behaved teenager element. A group of middle-school aged girls pretty much ruined the showing I attended of "The Ring" for everyone in the theater. These chicks were screaming loudly at anything the slightest bit scary just to get attention and disrupt the show. Had the movie been R-rated, the girls would have had to stay home and mind after their zits instead.

That's a short version of the story. I wrote more about the incident over in the film reviews section.

Anyway, I'm now hoping "The Two Towers" and a few other films I want to see come back with strong R-ratings. The shit those kids pulled was far more annoying than crying infants and ringing cellphones.
 

The MPAA is nothing but !

I forgot the movie in question but I remember the interview...it was on "60 Minutes" or a similar show a few years ago.

Anyhow, they were interviewing the head of the MPAA...some old fart whose name I forgot.

The heated topic was a film that should have been rated "X" but was rated "R". Even though the film was more than sexually explicit, the excuse for the "R" rating was that the sex was done as an "artform". The head of the MPAA was then asked if he had personally viewed the film prior to oking the "R" rating. He answered no. When asked how he could rate a film w/o watching it, he shrugged his shoulders and said that he relied on the opinion of his subordinates...
 

For the most part the Ontario rating is more indicative of a picture's content than the US rating. The most obvious example right now is Secretary -- rated R in the US and R in Ontario. An R rating in Ontario means "Restricted to Adults 18 and Older". In other words, no kids or teenagers, period.
 

quote:

---

Had those girls been in Ontario, Canada, they never would have been able to get into The Ring by themselves.

---

HA! That's funny!

Try proving that someone is not 14 years old when they want to buy a ticket. Not too many 14 year olds have ID... it ends up your judgement against their stubbornness to see the film. Unless the staff/management of a theatre really feels that a film should have gotten a Restricted rating then most aren't really that adamant on not admitting kids that 'might look' 14. Of course an 8 year old with five bucks in their hand wouldn't be sold a ticket.

quote:

---

An R rating in Ontario means "Restricted to Adults 18 and Older". In other words, no kids or teenagers, period.

---

Now this is true. Many theatres (even multiplexes - wow eh?) will have an usher at the entrance to the actual auditorium to check ID.

A funny story: I started applying for a Projectionist Apprentice License every 3 months from the time I was about 10 years old. I repeatedly had my application returned because I did not meet the age requirement. Non-the-less, I still projectioned a majority of the time at a twin (running changeovers). The owner was always there and had a First Class license. So one night the theatre inspector walks into the booth right in the middle of a changeover. I'm ready to tell him that "I came upstairs for ice, noticed that the changeover was coming up and that the projectionist was downstairs on the phone with his wife.", when he tells me that it looked like I knew what I was doing and to just make sure that I don't run any restricted movies since I wasn't 18. So I handed him the envelope of trailer censor certificates, he says looks good and leaves.

So, why even HAVE a rating board if it ultimately means nothing?!

------------------
Better Projection Pays!
 

Why to keep Jack Valenti (the old fart head of the MPAA) employed, of course.

But here's my take on this -- yeah, we can complain about the MPAA rating, but it really just boils down to bad, sloppy theatre management. Exhibitors continually cut costs and the first place they go is to cut projectionists, next it's adequate staffing of "the house." It's the "I'm in the concessions business; I don't care what goes on in other parts of the theatre, including the booth" syndrome. Years ago ushers could actually be found INSIDE the auditorium. Their job was to be aware of any potential situations just like the one Bobby described. Uncivil patron behavior was quickly dealt with. In many multiplexes, I'll bet those with the designation of "usher" haven't even a clue as to why they are called that because you never will see one of them in the theatre proper, either "ushering" or doing anything else for patron comfort, least of which would be to quell misbehaving, giggling females of their own species.

The patron shouldn't ever be forced into admonishing people who are creating a disturbance. It's the EXHIBITOR'S responsibility to not only show the film, but to provide a comfortable, well policed environment in which to see the film. It's HIS responsibility to make sure there are no unruly patrons disturbing his customers as much as his responsibility for keeping the theatre heated in winter, air conditioned in summer. Unfortunately it too often comes down to -- you buying a ticket, spending more money in an airy, well lit concessions area, and then you're left to your own devices in the bowls of one of the dark holes off the side of the lobby, never to see a theatre employee again (even in the projection booth). This is cinema done wrong. And you need to complain about it -- loudly. For me, it is just as much a reason to demand my money back as if there were a major problem with the picture or sound.

One of the things I have taken to doing now that I've got my cell phone is -- before I go to the cinema, I make note of the telephone number of the manager's office. Most times this is given on the theatre's automated phone line. Then I note what screen number I am entering, not just the title over the door. If I find something really disturbing (picture, sound OR obnoxious patrons) I will call that number and tell the manager to get someone down to theatre #n and fix it. In a big 'plex, especially after the last show starts (which are the shows I usually attend), calling the manager can be a lot more effective than wandering aimlessly about a cavermous building trying to find theatre personnel. Seems that after the last show starts, that's the time some alien spacecraft must come and suck up the entire theatre staff. Usually there are none to be found, or if you do find someone and explain the problem, they are still so dazed from escaping the aliens that they just stare at you like a deer caught in headlights.

Then, you can always better your odds by going to movies at off-peak. I hardly ever go to a theatre on the weekends any more. People just no longer know how to be civil -- I've learned to go where I can encounter the fewest number of them. I go to movies on Monday, Tuesday nights, last show, or the first show during the day. That lessens your chances of having to sit with morons. Then again, that's for the popular films; luckily for me, my tastes run to the films that very few of the zit-infested populous would be caught dead at.

Frank
 

The appeals board is made up of industry members.
 

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
 

Young girls screaming in a theatre is not a flaw of the ratings system - it's a flaw of their own personal behavior and the lack of control of the patrons by theatre management. They could just as well be screaming at the sight of some teen star in some teenybopper movie.

From a behavioral standpoint, the biggest problems are probably males aged 18-22, who can get in to see any film anyway.

From my own personal perspective, I think the ratings system is flawed in that it cares much more about sex and nudity than it does about violence. And then there's also the game that most filmmakers don't want a PG rating because teens won't go to see the movie, so they actually increase the level of sex, violence or questionable language to achieve at least the PG13 rating.

But for those who do want to limit what their kids should see via the ratings, what it all really comes down to is whether any given PG13 film should have been rated an R instead, since I don't think anyone is arguing that there are G-rated films that should have been PG13 or R-rated films that should have been PG13 (with the exception of Woodstock, in which many of the people who attended the festival could not see the film in theatres, since it was rated R.) And I really don't think there have been too many errors in that regard, although I do remember being a little disturbed by the references to oral sex in Parenthood (PG-13) while sitting with my mother and my daughter, who was 12 at the time (although my mother was far more disturbed than my daughter). However, I suppose one can make the case that if they didn't understand the reference, it couldn't do any harm and if they did understand the reference, it couldn't do any more harm.

As far as the MPAA is concerned (and the 60 Minutes interview), the head of the MPAA is Jack Valenti. And Jack Valenti does not actually rate the films - there's a committee for that. And I'm fine with that - I trust the parents on the Board a lot more than I trust Jack Valenti. I do not expect Jack Valenti to sit there and rate films.

I've previously posted the guidelines that the MPAA uses to rate films (I think it may be in a thread about the UK ratings systems.)

The problem is the same with critics. They feel a film some way, which isn't another person's way.

When I was a teenager, Iwent to see 2 films which I normally wasn't legally old enough to see in a theatre: William Friedkin's excellent "To live and die in L.A." and "Nine and a half Weeks". I saw these when I was 15 and I normally had to be 16 to be allowed to see them. Honestly, none of these shocked me. I think there's nothing better than simply "Parental Guidance". Please, stop trying to think how this or that person will react to the film and set ridiculous ratings like 13, R, 16, 17 or whatever they're called depending on your country...

I believe that Jack Valenti has done a terrific job with the MPAA. It was not easy getting all the exhibitors and all the distributors to come up with the original code letters and meanings.

Once the ratings were in place many of the local censor boards were closed down. (Boston was the worst) followed closely by the Catholic Church with their "C" for condemned.

P.S. A "C" rating drove me to the "Martini's"

Which led one wag to comment, after Valenti became head of the MPAA, "I sleep better through movies better knowing Jack Valenti is my president."
 

A-I -- General patronage
A-II -- Adults and adolescents
A-III -- Adults
A-IV -- Adults, with reservations (an A-IV classification designates problematic films that, while not morally offensive in themselves, require caution and some analysis and explanation as a safeguard against wrong interpretations and false conclusions)
O -- morally offensive

I have been Catholic for all of my 46 years and don't remember anything about a "C" rating, but maybe it existed in the past and has been changed to "O."
 

It has been 1535 days since the last post.