Through My Lens

The MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) is responsible for the ratings on the films we see in theaters. According to the MPAA’s website “The ratings are intended to provide parents with advance information so they can decide for themselves which films are appropriate for viewing by their own children.” The Board makes the decision based on drug content, language, violence, and sexual content because these are issues parents are concerned about. Because the MPAA claims to be a useful tool for parents, I’ve researched how film ratings affect families — from the time children are young, until they’re old enough to make their own viewing decisions.

Media is pervasive in our culture. When a child comes into the world, it is practically a blank slate, uninfluenced by the media in all its forms. It is not long however, before the child is placed in front of a TV and subject to the content on the screen. Maybe it starts out with an animated movie, or an educational learning video. As the child grows, he starts to make his own viewing decisions, based upon what his parents deem trustworthy—maybe a superhero movie or a slapstick comedy. More violent in nature than the G-rated films he watched as a child, but still relatively “harmless.” At this age most children start to become desensitized to violence in films. Maybe they even start repeating crude jokes they heard in films. Before long, they are at the age when they want to go to movies with their friends—movies that may or may not be approved by mom and dad. This is where the rating system is supposed to serve as a guide for parents.

When children reach their teen years, parents rely on the film ratings in order to judge what movies the child is allowed to see. The rating system states that PG movies may include brief violence or nudity, but no drug content. Therefore, it serves as a caution to parents, but does not prevent any child from viewing the film. A PG-13 film “may go beyond the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, adult activities or other elements.” This is where the lines start to get very hazy, making it difficult for parents to decode the ratings. Some PG-13 films have very little unsuitable content, (take, for instance, Son of Rambow, rated PG-13 for “some violence and reckless behavior” 2008) while others bridge on an R rating (including The Dark Knight, rated PG-13 for “intense sequences of violence and some menace” 2008). R-rated films are defined as anything dealing with “adult material.” This includes “adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements.” No one under age 17 is permitted in an R-rated film without a parent. However, some films, such as Slumdog Millionaire and The Fall receive R ratings based on insinuated violence and nothing else. How do these films differ from the “family friendly” Prince Caspian (2008), which received a PG rating in spite of epic battle sequences including off-screen throat-slitting and decapitating? The answer has a lot more to do with the studios decisions and the MPAA’s appeals system than the content itself.

Commonly, parents put way too much trust in the ratings system. They need to understand that the MPAA is a lobbying association, and it has its faults. It was never intended to be a net that catches everything children aren’t supposed to see. That job lies solely on the parents. I believe rating should be about more than just the content itself, but on the context in which it is presented. I think parents should carefully review the films their children watch, taking the context into careful consideration. Darren Aronofsky’s film Requiem for a Dream is an excellent example. The film contains a large amount of drug content, language, violence, and sexual content. However, these things are presented in such a way that they ultimately destroy the characters. The film is hard-hitting and realistic in its presentation of these elements, as evidenced by its original rating of NC-17. But what better way for a parent to teach their young teenagers about the destructive nature of drugs and the depravity of a life centered on them.

The MPAA is a large organization with power over every major film company. I believe that film ratings should be done on a smaller scale. I think we would benefit from localized film ratings — assigned by the theater at which a film is playing. After all, the theaters are the ones with the responsibility of enforcing the ratings, and they know their audiences better than the MPAA. On an even smaller scale, I believe that parents should be held responsible for what their kids are watching. When the MPAA assigns ages to ratings, they are unable to take individual differences into account. No two children are the same, and what may not bother one 13-year-old, may be disturbing to another 13-year-old.

Because of the inconsistency of film ratings by the Board of Reviewers, the importance of context over content, and the individual differences between children of the same age, I believe it is the responsibility of every parent to actively be involved in what their children watch. If parents teach their children through sound, individual judgment, the children will then be able to pass it on to their children, causing future generations to rely less on the MPAA. In the future, if enough parents take control over censorship for their own children, the MPAA will lose its power over cinema and audiences.