This should be the last post of this blog, and since it is a class assignment and my professor tells us what to do, he has told us that this post can be the paper that we wrote on this topic.
So this is the link to my paper. Hope you enjoy!
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Separation of Religion and Morals?
While I haven't looked at the ratings and the system from an unbiased side-line point of view, I have tried to provide good factual and objective evidence for what I'm saying. Not totally objective, I know, but in my opinion close.
But as the title might suggest, I am going to shift gears a little bit and address the problem with the ratings from a religious standpoint, as I consider myself a religious person, and one with an opinion. Or why even write about this topic?
Like I stated in my first post, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (many would call me a Mormon), and am a strong follower of the faith. My belief (key word here being "my," meaning that I am not voicing the opinion of each and every member of my church) is that movies that are rated R are strictly off-limits. For some people this poses a problem, as they see many of the movies that receive this rating as very informational, educational and historically accurate. That's actually probably true, especially for movies like Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down, etc., or so I've heard.
These movies may be just the most informational and educational movies ever created, but for people with certain standards, it's hard to play referee for every single movie and decide if he or she should lower a standard "just this once" or "just cause it only has one bad scene." The truth is, it's practically impossible to do that, so people with these kinds of standards and values end up simply avoiding these movies altogether.
I think that the ratings should be revised for these reasons of standards. If the ratings were based specifically on the content of the movie, it would be much easier to say whether or not it would be worth seeing. That's what I think, and if this doesn't happen I think it will contribute to greater separation between religion and morals (random side note to end off with).
But as the title might suggest, I am going to shift gears a little bit and address the problem with the ratings from a religious standpoint, as I consider myself a religious person, and one with an opinion. Or why even write about this topic?
Like I stated in my first post, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (many would call me a Mormon), and am a strong follower of the faith. My belief (key word here being "my," meaning that I am not voicing the opinion of each and every member of my church) is that movies that are rated R are strictly off-limits. For some people this poses a problem, as they see many of the movies that receive this rating as very informational, educational and historically accurate. That's actually probably true, especially for movies like Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down, etc., or so I've heard.
These movies may be just the most informational and educational movies ever created, but for people with certain standards, it's hard to play referee for every single movie and decide if he or she should lower a standard "just this once" or "just cause it only has one bad scene." The truth is, it's practically impossible to do that, so people with these kinds of standards and values end up simply avoiding these movies altogether.
I think that the ratings should be revised for these reasons of standards. If the ratings were based specifically on the content of the movie, it would be much easier to say whether or not it would be worth seeing. That's what I think, and if this doesn't happen I think it will contribute to greater separation between religion and morals (random side note to end off with).
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
The Filmmakers
In trying to decide why some movies seem to be so misrated, I decided that it comes down to two things. The ratings themselves, as I have talked about, and also the choices of the filmmakers.
Filmmakers have their own agendas, and money is one of them. They want to make money, and they want their movies to be popular. I'm not criticizing them, because that's their job and any one of us in our job is trying to make money. But the thing is, these filmmakers are trying to tweak their movies so that they can attain the rating that they want.
For example, if I produce a movie and want it to have a PG-13 rating (I use this because the line between PG-13 and R is so disputed) but it comes back with an R rating, I'm not going to release it as R. I'll take it back to the drawing board, take out a second or two of film and then re-submit it.
That's really very hypothetical and an explanation that just barely scratches the surface, but that's how I see the methods that the filmmakers use to revise their movies.
Filmmakers have their own agendas, and money is one of them. They want to make money, and they want their movies to be popular. I'm not criticizing them, because that's their job and any one of us in our job is trying to make money. But the thing is, these filmmakers are trying to tweak their movies so that they can attain the rating that they want.
For example, if I produce a movie and want it to have a PG-13 rating (I use this because the line between PG-13 and R is so disputed) but it comes back with an R rating, I'm not going to release it as R. I'll take it back to the drawing board, take out a second or two of film and then re-submit it.
That's really very hypothetical and an explanation that just barely scratches the surface, but that's how I see the methods that the filmmakers use to revise their movies.
Monday, March 29, 2010
What to do, what to say (or change)?
The way that movies are rated is quite interesting, but I think that the way that the ratings are meant to be used is even more interesting. Here's the thing, I think that most of the people who pay any attention to the movie ratings (me included) (and excluding people outside of the US, because it is the Motion Picture Association of America) expect that the ratings are to give us an idea of what's contained in the movie (violence, language, etc.).
The ratings, though, are to inform movie-goers of who they should bring with them to the movie, not to tell what people can expect once they get to the movie.
A suggestion that I have to solve this is to make the ratings tell the contents of the movie. The filmmakers would still be able to choose what he or she puts in the movie, but they would be obligated to disclose the content of the movie, letting the people know what kind of violence is in the movie, or how much hard language is in it as well.
Movies are not simply rated too lightly all of the time. Sometimes they're even rated too heavily, simply because of one small word or kick that doesn't have anything to do with the movie many times. Many R-rated movies had a lot of historical foundation and are very educational movies, and because of gory reality they are rated R.
This is the biggest suggestion I can give for the MPAA, to include the content of the movie, and to rate it according to that. I think that would fix a lot of the frustration with movies.
The ratings, though, are to inform movie-goers of who they should bring with them to the movie, not to tell what people can expect once they get to the movie.
A suggestion that I have to solve this is to make the ratings tell the contents of the movie. The filmmakers would still be able to choose what he or she puts in the movie, but they would be obligated to disclose the content of the movie, letting the people know what kind of violence is in the movie, or how much hard language is in it as well.
Movies are not simply rated too lightly all of the time. Sometimes they're even rated too heavily, simply because of one small word or kick that doesn't have anything to do with the movie many times. Many R-rated movies had a lot of historical foundation and are very educational movies, and because of gory reality they are rated R.
This is the biggest suggestion I can give for the MPAA, to include the content of the movie, and to rate it according to that. I think that would fix a lot of the frustration with movies.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Why all the fuss? A Movie Jury
So if the ratings system keeps movies in check and keeps movie-goers informed, why is there such a stink about it? Why do so many people complain that it isn't as effective now with the changes that we've seen in society? It seems to me that if there are so many people commenting on and criticizing the current system, there must be something wrong, right?
Well, that's a call that everyone can make for themselves, especially since this blog is not going to change the world and cause thousands of people to storm the MPAA and demand change. The reason that I say that it's up to each person to decide for themselves is because of the way that I see the system.
The way that it all works is that there is a board of 8-13 people, parents from around the nation who have no connection with the movie industry (the raters on the board become part of the Classification and Ratings Administration (CARA). They watch the movies and decide the best ratings, based on certain requirements. This seems logical, seeing as parents are mostly the ones who are concerned about the ratings.
What comes to mind when thinking about this is a movie jury (and this is the way that I see it). The case and verdict (the rating) are ultimately decided by the jury (the ratings board), then presented to the judge (the MPAA), and finally told to the defendant (the filmmaker). A court jury, though, makes one decision out of two options, and the "movie jury" makes one decision out of five options.
Five is really not that many, but there is one key difference between the jury and our "movie jury." The court jury is working under strict guidelines set by the law, guidelines that MUST be followed under penalty of the law. The line between guilty and not guilty is many times a very fine one, but it is more or less clearly defined. The lines between the options for the movie jury (between the ratings), though, have become very blurred especially in the last few years.
Sometimes juries make mistakes and we can't blame them for that, and it's the same with the ratings board. They can't be blamed for the blurred lines of decision, but the lines are blurred nonetheless. So the change doesn't necessarily need to be made in the system, but in the guidelines of the system and their implementations. A jury is making a big decision, but because they have so much information and so many guidelines, they can take the blame for a poor decision. The movie jury has a big decision to make, but they have limited guidelines and so don't seem so blamable.
The board isn't to blame, they are just the decision-makers who have to base their decisions on blurry guidelines. The ratings are what need to be changed.
Well, that's a call that everyone can make for themselves, especially since this blog is not going to change the world and cause thousands of people to storm the MPAA and demand change. The reason that I say that it's up to each person to decide for themselves is because of the way that I see the system.
The way that it all works is that there is a board of 8-13 people, parents from around the nation who have no connection with the movie industry (the raters on the board become part of the Classification and Ratings Administration (CARA). They watch the movies and decide the best ratings, based on certain requirements. This seems logical, seeing as parents are mostly the ones who are concerned about the ratings.
What comes to mind when thinking about this is a movie jury (and this is the way that I see it). The case and verdict (the rating) are ultimately decided by the jury (the ratings board), then presented to the judge (the MPAA), and finally told to the defendant (the filmmaker). A court jury, though, makes one decision out of two options, and the "movie jury" makes one decision out of five options.
Five is really not that many, but there is one key difference between the jury and our "movie jury." The court jury is working under strict guidelines set by the law, guidelines that MUST be followed under penalty of the law. The line between guilty and not guilty is many times a very fine one, but it is more or less clearly defined. The lines between the options for the movie jury (between the ratings), though, have become very blurred especially in the last few years.
Sometimes juries make mistakes and we can't blame them for that, and it's the same with the ratings board. They can't be blamed for the blurred lines of decision, but the lines are blurred nonetheless. So the change doesn't necessarily need to be made in the system, but in the guidelines of the system and their implementations. A jury is making a big decision, but because they have so much information and so many guidelines, they can take the blame for a poor decision. The movie jury has a big decision to make, but they have limited guidelines and so don't seem so blamable.
The board isn't to blame, they are just the decision-makers who have to base their decisions on blurry guidelines. The ratings are what need to be changed.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Reasoning Behind It
Okay. So now that we got the history behind us, the fun part is next. Though this is the part that could actually be more difficult to discuss. Simply because from here on out, most of what I will say will be opinions and personal commentary, which is usually one-sided and harder to substantiate, especially about a topic like this one.
So at first glance, the philosophy of the ratings system seems to be to provide a way for everyone, especially parents, to gauge what quality a movie is, and what they should be aware of in choosing the movie. That seems to be the consensus at second glance, too. And at third glance, and so on.
In my opinion, the ratings have proven to be helpful in choosing movies and gauging quality. We generally know the different requirements of the ratings and what will be in the movie if it's PG compared to R. So the basic principle makes sense, but really in the last years especially the ratings have started to become somewhat blended together so that there is gray area left between each one. This isn't so apparent between G and PG movies, but I think that between PG-13 and R-rated movies the line is becoming increasingly blurry. As well, it seems that the requirements of a PG-13 movie are seeming to become more relaxed than before, and things are passing into these movies that shouldn't be there.
So the philosophy behind the ratings system is a very good one. Ideally, it should keeps movie producers and the movie's content in check. At the same time it is supposed provide a system that parents and normal people can look at and make educated entertainment choices.
Now whether or not this is actually what is happening is up for debate, but that still has yet to be decided. And talked about in future posts.
So at first glance, the philosophy of the ratings system seems to be to provide a way for everyone, especially parents, to gauge what quality a movie is, and what they should be aware of in choosing the movie. That seems to be the consensus at second glance, too. And at third glance, and so on.
In my opinion, the ratings have proven to be helpful in choosing movies and gauging quality. We generally know the different requirements of the ratings and what will be in the movie if it's PG compared to R. So the basic principle makes sense, but really in the last years especially the ratings have started to become somewhat blended together so that there is gray area left between each one. This isn't so apparent between G and PG movies, but I think that between PG-13 and R-rated movies the line is becoming increasingly blurry. As well, it seems that the requirements of a PG-13 movie are seeming to become more relaxed than before, and things are passing into these movies that shouldn't be there.
So the philosophy behind the ratings system is a very good one. Ideally, it should keeps movie producers and the movie's content in check. At the same time it is supposed provide a system that parents and normal people can look at and make educated entertainment choices.
Now whether or not this is actually what is happening is up for debate, but that still has yet to be decided. And talked about in future posts.
Monday, February 15, 2010
How it all began
The method of rating movies and the ratings themselves have been under close scrutiny, especially in the last few years. I believe that this scrutiny has come because in the last 40 years, since its creation, the method has only undergone minor changes, not really taking into account the world that has been changing around it.
On November 1, 1968, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) introduced a new way to structure the classification of movies in American society. It was going to be a voluntary ratings system, in which filmmakers would submit their films for rating by a review board, and if they liked the rating that the movie got, it would continue on in its journey to the theaters. But if the producer did not like the rating that the film got, it would go back to the editors and they would cut and edit whatever needed to be taken out or changed so that it would achieve the rating that they originally planned for. This is how it is still done today. (As a side note, many of the editors and producers, when they go back to the editing room, figure out the bare minimum that would allow the movie to receive their desired rating, and that's what they take out. They have their agendas and they're going to do what's best for them)
Even before this voluntary system, though, the Hays Production Code was being used, a code that regulated what could and could not be showed on the new moving pictures, which were first showed in 1927. Up through the 1960's this code was used, although it had been continually revised to be more and more rigid as filmmakers produced movies with higher levels of promiscuity. For a good amount of time the code did its job, regulating and limiting the content of movies. But eventually producers found ways to get around the code and avoid the regulation that they were being put through. Click here for a more detailed description of the production code and its provisions.
The voluntary ratings system started with four ratings:
-G - for general audiences, all ages admitted
-M - for mature audiences - parental guidance suggested, but all ages admitted
-R - restricted, children under 16 will not be admitted without an accompanying parent or adult guardian
-X - no one under 17 admitted
Eventually, because of the perceived nature of the M rating, it was changed to GP (general audiences, parental guidance suggested), and then a year later to PG (parental guidance suggested). And later, the PG rating was split into two ratings, PG and PG-13, giving a greater level of separation for intensity levels. Also, the X rating became a much heavier rating than originally intended by the MPAA, so it was changed to NC-17, allowing parents to know that it was a movie that they would not want their children to see.
Along with the changes to the ratings themselves, the way that they were used were revised as well. Instead of just being a letter to look at and make a blind decision on the movie, along with the ratings was put a description of why the movie was rated the way that it was. This allowed parents to make more educated decisions on the type of movies that they would permit. A full description is now available to anyone at each movie theater by phone or at the box office, in some movie reviews and also at www.mpaa.org.
Also, read a more in-depth description of the history of the current ratings system on the MPAA's website.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)