Usefulness of the MPAA

I'm doing a research paper in my English class dealing with whether or not the MPAA is still a reliable alternative to government film censorship, and I thought it would make an interesting topic for discussion here on MoFo. So what are your thoughts on the MPAA? Does it require reform? Has its prestige diminished to the point where it requires replacement? Is it an unjust form of censorship to begin with? Comment away.

__________________
"Puns are the highest form of literature." -Alfred Hitchcock

I think calling it an "alternative" to censorship is a misnomer. It doesn't censor, it classifies. That businesses make decisions based on that classification matters, but it can never really rise to the level of genuine censorship, thankfully.

I think having a rough idea of what's in each film is a useful tool, but a) it seems pretty clear that its rating methods are fairly capricious as-is, and b) there are lots of private entities that do a pretty good job breaking it down. You could make a very good case that it isn't that necessary, and an even better one that it should probably be a bit more consistent about its rating methods.

The only word of sympathy I'll offer is that, as the owner of a forum with actual rules on it, I can appreciate how difficult it is to draw lines about what is and isn't acceptable. There is no way to do so in a way that can't be made to look foolish in some cases. I assume the MPAA dislikes making specific, public "rules" for content for exactly this sort of reason; it sounds silly to say, for example, that two f-bombs are acceptable, but three aren't. But that's an unfortunate byproduct of any attempt to grade content.

I think, over time, people are going to care about ratings less and less, though. There's a good chance neither reform nor formal abolition will really be necessary, because it'll simply cease to be relevant.

It's OK as long as it keeps itself in its place. It's far better than the Hays Code. The thing I don't like about it is that in some ways theatre owners and video outlets act as if they have more authority over what my children or students are allowed to watch. I realize that some parents believe the MPAA is knowlegdeable and makes their lives simpler concerning their kids, but I disagree because it makes lazy parents who allow a bunch of nobodies make decisions for them and their families. Even so, I currently see no better solution because individual towns are always going to have their own rules about what constitutes appropriate viewing and what doesn't. If you don't have an MPAA-type organization, there will be more censorship. Just look at the current "war" on social/"moral" issues in the Presidential campaign.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

The ratings board over here in Canada are more lenient, take the recent controversy about the documentary "Bully". It got an R rating, for what? Some language. While over here in glorious Canada, it's got a PG-13 rating. While each province does have their own rating system: Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba all gave it PG-13.

People are signing petitions, getting politicians to help out, so many things to get this film a PG rating, so that kids can see it, and they should.

All I can say is, thank GOD I lived in Canada, cause when I was a kid I could watch soooo many R-rated films cause over here they were only 14A. The MPAA is a joke and is too conservative. I don't see the point of someone other than your parents telling you that you cannot see whatever movie, for whatever reason.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Yes, but is it too conservative for the US? That's the question.

I'm with you on this one. I'm glad I live in England, over here the ratings system is similar to America but is pretty lenient with the ratings.

'PG13' doesn't exist over here, we just call it PG.
As far as I can tell it basically means anyone can watch, but anyone 8 years old and under should have adult supervision but it's at the discretion of the parent/s.

Found this on the web:

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/

Edit: To add to that, I went to see Jurassic Park by myself when I was only 11, it's a PG rating in Britain and the cinema didn't even bat an eyelid when I asked for a ticket.

__________________

Ok, here's exactly why we need something like the MPAA. Because, as a parent myself, I don't want to have to watch every film my kid watches before he sees it! You say it's up to me to decide what my kids watch, but if I have no measure, even something as goofy as the MPAA can be, then I can't make a decision of what my kids should watch! What do I do if I want to take them to see a film in the theater? Go watch it first, then pay again to take them later? That's insane. As flawed as the MPAA is, I personally need a rating system of some sort.

__________________

I feel like the MPAA puts too much emphasis on the things they're trying to censor, and I shouldn't have to say how dumb that is. That's besides the fact that they're arbitrary by their foundation and haven't really been challenged by anyone else because they're self-appointed as the method to which all rating will be judged by a line of pompous christian women.

I was mistaken, there's no PG-13 in Canada either, just PG, then it goes to 14A.


I'm not against a ratings system, that informs parents of the type of film it is, what's involved in it and what not. But to block people from seeing it, that's the issue. Just go online, look at what "content" is in a film and make a judgement call. Post on messageboards like IMDB asking what the content is if you can't find any. There are other solutions.

I've never seen them "censor" anything. They just have a strict set of guidelines that make little sense to anyone. I wouldn't call what they do censorship.


This doesn't work at all, though. One person may find certain things alright for their 8-year-old to watch that I don't or vice versa. One person's 8-year-old may be more mature than mine or vice versa. At least with the MPAA I know what I'm getting with almost every film.

I'm not saying it's a perfect system, but I am saying that it works for people like me.

MPAA is obviouly not a perfect system, as I mentoned earlier, but I'm not sure how the alternative would be better. As it is, I understand why we have it, but I'd certainly take the job to fix it if they offered it to me.

How do you know what your getting with every film when they obviously have different guidelines on how they judge films? Again, I point to Bully. PG in CANADA, R in the STATES. There are two more classifications in Canada 14A and 18A that are before R. They classify that film in the same area as a film like the SAW films, where people are being tortured, mutilated and killed.

I don't see the common ground at all.

This documentary might interest you, Hitchfan.

Well, embedding has been disabled but you can watch it on youtube.

__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

2/3 of the film is insightful and interesting.

I live in the US, I don't have to worry about what a film is rated elsewhere. The MPAA may have an odd way of doing things, but I know what I'm getting with a PG-13. I know my kid can watch anything with a PG rating. I know, based on the R-rating, that I don't want my 8-year-old watching Bully, no matter what the message may be. He's not mature enough to watch it yet. I also know that my 14-year-old can watch it, and most R-rated stuff. Again, it's not perfect, but it works fine for people like me.

Yes, they essentially force many directors to edit out scenes that would cause them to get an X rating. Obviously the directors don't have to oblige but no director wants an X rating, and it's always for something incredibly stupid. That documentary Lime posted shows it.

Actually, that's not the MPAA censoring the film, it's the theaters. The MPAA just does what they do. It's the theaters that won't run the films if they get too harsh of a rating. It's the theaters that are censoring the films.

Yeah, that's not censorship, and it makes actual censorship seem less insidious when the word gets misused like that.

Nobody makes theaters abide by the ratings, and no film has a right to be shown in any specific theater. A privately-owned theater refusing to screen a film is no more censorship than it is when I decide not to play a movie in my living room.

And if you start defining censorship as something which can be self-inflicted because you're anticipating someone else's freely-chosen reaction to a work of art, then anything the artist does with an eye towards achieving any reaction from their eventual audience would qualify, too. Pretty soon you're chasing some imaginary notion of artistic purity free from outside influence of any kind.

But your 14 year old CAN'T watch it, according to the MPAA and won't be able to, unless someone 4 years older is with him.

I don't see why that would change his point. It just means either a) he uses them for films that aren't in theaters any more, and/or b) it helps him decide which movies he can take the kid to.