This blog is not yet rated

Film ratings are an enigma. The Motion Pictures Association of America (MPAA) rates all movies that are submitted and there are benefits and disadvantages to the ratings given. It's hard to imagine a time when movies weren't broken down by content-signifiers, but in 1984 a term called PG-13 was bandied about following the release of Gremlins and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Those movies were on top of the list of films that were considered too dark and scary for PG, but didn't deserve an R. As a result PG-13 came to be, and while it sometimes doesn't do anything but let you know that someone might say "fuck" once during the film, it has its uses. The R rating wasn't in existence until the late '60's after movies like Bonnie and Clyde and The Wild Bunch were released. There just wasn't a need for it before then.

There is a gray area for all ratings, but the problems that arise for the public are the differences between PG-13 and R, and R and NC-17. NC-17 came about because the rating of X was never copyrighted. Since it was never copyrighted, pornographic films started using the X rating, and XXX rating - which is just a gimmick and doesn't really exist, to convey to the public that their films had staunchly adult material in them. Because the MPAA didn't want to have anything to do with the pornography industry, they changed the rating from X to NC-17. This has lead many people to believe that NC-17 means that the film in question has gratuitous sexual content, but that is not always the case.

The issue with NC-17 and its perception of sexual content is encouraged through the MPAA's actions, even though they vehemently deny NC-17 as being a rating solely to connote high sexual content. NC-17 could be slapped on a film just for large amounts of graphic violence...but the MPAA and their ultra right-wing conservative Christian value system always views sexualized content as being worse than violent content. Therefore, a film is very rarely given an NC-17 rating due to its violence, but often given NC-17 due to its sexual content. On this basis it's easy to understand why people think that NC-17 is a synonym for "graphic sex".

Most people don't want an NC-17 rating for their films because that limits their audience severely. It's normal to want your film to make money, so re-cutting it and re-submitting it for another rating is perfectly acceptable. However, the MPAA is vague about what needs to be done in order to re-submit a film. Different filmmakers have different experiences and differing opinions on the MPAA's policies. Kimberly Pierce had a lot of trouble with the MPAA when she submitted Boys Don't Cry. On the other hand, Eli Roth has nothing but good things to say about his treatment by the MPAA in regards to Hostel and Hostel Part 2. This is the issue with the MPAA: their treatment of violent films and sexual films is too divided. The MPAA told Eli Roth exactly what to do to Hostel Part 2 in order to get an R rating, but they were not specific at all when it came to Kimberly Pierce's Boys Don't Cry. This disparity is because the MPAA regards the subject matter of a film like Boys Don't Cry as worse than the content of the Hostel films.

Don't get me wrong, I love Hostel Part 2. Love it. But it's a much worse movie than Boys Don't Cry simply for its motives. Boys Don't Cry is an R-rated movie, but it shouldn't have been put under the microscope like it was, and it shouldn't have garnered an NC-17 rating at any time. There is a great documentary about the MPAA called This Film Is Not Yet Rated. You can rent it from netflix, and every so often it's played on the IFC channel. The movie shows scene side by side that are basically the same, but are rated differently by the MPAA. These scenes are of a sexual nature, and depending on the sexuality on the screen, the movie is rated one way or another.

Take for instance a scene wherein a man pushes a woman up against the wall as they fuck. It's not rape, just upright-against-the-wall-fucking. That movie was rated R it's first time around. A different movie that happens to have a scene shot in much the same way, but with two men, one up against the wall, was rated NC-17. I'm serious when I say, the scenes are lit the same, shot from the same angle, and they last similar lengths. The same problem is shown to arise with movies that have sexual scenes of women receiving pleasure. A movie with a sex scene of a woman going down on a man is rated R, a movie with the man going down on the woman is rated NC-17. (The oral sex is kept off-camera, these are regular movies, not porns.)

A great example of the inconsistency that arises within the MPAA's system is Scarface's rating. Scarface was submitted and it received an X rating. (It was pre-NC-17.) A specific scene was pointed out that caused the rating to be so harsh. Brian De Palma re-cut the scene and resubmitted it about 5 different times, and they always got the X rating. De Palma re-submitted a last time with the film in its original state, before any cuts had been made, and it was given an R. So the version you watch today is the version that was first given an X. So obviously, content doesn't matter, the MPAA just wants you jump through hoops...or maybe desensitization occurred.

Which brings us to The Dark Knight, as good a movie that has come out in the past five years. Enough has been said on why the movie is so goddamned brilliant and amazing, so I won't waste your time with that, but The Dark Knight is rated PG-13. It is the hardest PG-13 I've ever seen. I know what a PG-13 is allowed to show, in a ball-park way, and never feels like anything short of a "hard R". Anything could've happened in that movie. I was not aware of any boundaries for violence while I watched that film, yet a 13-year old can go see it by himself, but that same 13 year old cannot see There Will Be Blood which had no nudity or graphic violence of any kind, yet is rated R. If you've ever got some free time, check out imdb.com and see what ratings other countries have given to our films. Many European countries rate by age, 12/12+, 15/15+, etc. It's interesting to see what France allows its 15-year olds to watch, while we restrict that content to 17 years and up. And it's nice to know that the rabbit can get in to the NC-17 movie, but that dog-giraffes can only see G-rated fare.