A history of violence: film ratings and how they affect art and profit

A history of violence: film ratings and how they affect art and profit

Dec 12

You’ll often hear directors or producers claim they are angling their yet-to-be released film for a ‘PG,’ ‘PG-13,’ or ‘R’ rating; you occasionally see the ‘NC-17 kiss of death’ mentioned in revenue reports; and you sometimes read in reviews ‘this bloody R-rated film …’ Something that ostensibly started as a way to protect children from disturbing images has spiraled over the decades into an institution of power dominating the film industry, especially in America. Ratings systems are different all over the world, and some are sillier than others, but the American one is particularly silly, which is a shame given how much power it wields over the success of a film.

For the purpose of this article I’m going to focus on the differences between the American and Australian systems of classification, how they are different, and how they affect the films they are slapped onto.

First, the American ratings system: the Motion Picture Association of America runs a 10 – 13 member board that sits down and watches every single movie and decides which of the following categories it falls into: G for general admission; PG indicating some material may not be suitable for children; PG-13 stating that some material may be inappropriate for children under 13; a sudden jump to R–children under 17 must be accompanied by an adult when viewing the film; and then NC-17, in which no person under 17 is admitted under any circumstances.

The first problem with American ratings is that they are entirely voluntary. Studios can choose whether or not to submit their films to the MPAA, and can retract their films and make edits in order to downgrade the rating. In practice the vast majority of films are submitted for rating, but if a service designed for the protection of children is not mandatory, there’s something wrong with it. In addition, the ratings are not enforced by law, so it is up to the cinema manager’s discretion who gets to watch the rape and torture and whatnot.

The second problem is the social stigma associated with ratings. Cinema chains and video rental stores often refuse to even carry NC-17 films, and only two NC-17 films since the rating’s inception have cracked the $10 million mark. So rather than release their work indiluted for the masses, artists are sometimes required to go back to their film with the cutting tool and remove some of the nastier parts of their films just so people can actually see the damn thing. Usually it’s a few seconds (8 in the case of Saw; 40 in the case of Scream) that need to be shaved in order to drop from NC-17 to R–the emotion of the scene is usually the same, the actual depiction of the violence only is made shorter.

Another problem is the way sexuality is rated harder than violence–sex and nudity are deemed less natural and more disturbing than brutal, horrific, unsolicited violence (only in America, right? I blame the fundagelical right). Nudity of any kind is immediately hit with a PG/PG-13, and “sexually-oriented nudity” gets an automatic R; violence only qualifies a restricted R when it is “persistant or realisitc.” The last problem is that filmmakers know exactly how many f-bombs constitute an R instead of a PG-13; exactly how many throat-slits differentiate R from NC-17; and how many naked breasts bump an R to an NC-17–and write their screenplays and devise their shots accordingly.

And now the Australian system of classifications. The Office of Film and Literature Classification (a government-mandated and -run office, which goes to show that Australia at least takes the safety and emotional well-being of children seriously) classifies pretty much everything: films, videos, TV shows, and video games, and comprises the following classifications: G, PG, M (equivalent to PG-13), MA15+ (under 15s must be accompanied by parent or legal guardian–no older brothers or uncles allowed–this is enforced by law) , R18+ (nobody under the age of 18 can legally catch a glimpse of a single frame of an R film–17-year-old ushers cleaning the theatre of an R film are legally obliged to wait until the end of the credits to begin doing their job) and X18+ (porn–only availably in the tiny state around the nation’s capital, Canberra).

The main problem with this classification system is most evident in video games classifications, which only go up to MA: any content that exceeds the maximum classification (R18+ for films, MA15+ for games) is Refused Classification, and is deemed illegal to sell, distribute or own. It’s as though the government thinks adults aren’t capable of deciding for themselves whether they can handle content, and therefore refuse to change legislations to allow beyond-R films and beyond-MA games to be sold. Dozens of games a year are banned because one man–an Attorney-General in South Australia–is single-handedly blocking the paperwork on a draft R18+ classification for games. If one man can do this, there is something wrong with the system and the democracy behind it.

So now we know what we’re talking about, let’s look at some examples. In America, The Matrix is R–anyone under 17 must be accompanied by an adult (not necessarily a parent–different from Australia’s laws), while in Australia, the same film is rated M–anyone of any age could purchase a ticket to the film or rent the DVD. This seems weird to me–especially because in America the film is rated for “Sci-fi violence and brief language.” How is sci-fi violence different from everyday violence? Violence is surely violent no matter when or where it takes place. And although I guess you could call Keanu Reeves’ utterances ‘brief,’ I’m pretty sure most scenes of the film contain more than brief language–sometimes lots of it. In Australia we just get a “Medium level violence” message, maybe with a “Low level coarse language” disclaimer–see how specific and concise we are, and how silly and arbitrary you are? It gets worse.

American Pie was originally rated NC-17, and was edited for an R; in Australia sexual activity only gets an R18+ if it is unsimulated and / or violent. The harmless frat jokes of American Pie warranted the relatively mild MA15+ (MA is the same as American R, but the age is lower–hence, mild) here. The first few Saw films were slapped with NC-17s, and then were desperately re-cut for an R; here, they all sailed through with MAs (remember they don’t even show the foot being cut off–that would probably have earned an NC-17/R18+). Then there’s movies like Goodfellas and Casino, insanely violent movies that are restricted to over 18s here, and available to anyone over there as long as an older brother watches with them. To children, sex is icky and awkward, whereas violence is disturbing and potentially psychologically-scarring–shouldn’t movies with high-impact violence be given the higher classifications?

The original cut of Team America: World Police was rated NC-17. For what? For depictions of sub-Thunderbirds quality puppets having sex. Not only are these puppets unrealistic, it takes place in a comedic context–and yet the MPAA saw fit to slap the highest possible rating on the film because of it. The filmmakers trimmed a few seconds and–hey presto–the film got an R. The puppet sex scene is still in there, and is still hilarious, so how do the few seconds gouged out of the film really warrant the higher rating?

Another thing that bugs me is the difference in violence between PG-13 and R, and the way filmmakers specifically devise their shots and choose their special and visual effects accordingly. The gunplay and violence in the Indiana Jones films is cartoony and fake, and gets a PG here, and a PG there (the first one was originally R, but Spielberg made cuts to it–remember Spielberg suggested the compromise PG-13 rating to the MPAA after the second Indy film ruffled a few parents’ feathers); Spielberg’s later film Saving Private Ryan shows sutained, realistic violence for extended periods of time, and deservedly gets an R there, an MA15+ here. Ryan’s violence is only different from Indy’s in that it is realistic. The point I’m making here is that in reality, violence is horrific, bloody, and ultimately helps nobody, and should be kept from people of young, impressionable ages until they’re old enough to handle it–but film is allowed to cut corners and show bullets entering and murdering people as long as there’s no blood spray or horrific screams of pain, and manages to get screened to people of all ages. This distortion of reality is desensitising to real violence, and is also downright untrue of real life circumstances.

It’s sad that flimmakers have to aim for PG-13 or R violence, and can’t just make a movie without thinking about the rating and how it’ll affect profits down the line. Movies should be about art, or at least transporting us to another reality for a couple of hours; instead the MPAA has bred a weird culture where death and violence don’t really mean anything–one shot from James Bond’s gun and the baddie goes down silently, bloodlessly, like a video game target: faceless, nameless, emotionless.

Violence should definitely be classified harder than sex, a perfectly natural (in fact, vital) aspect of life, and should usually be classified harder than drugs (drugs ruin lives, and most movies that deal with drugs show exactly how those lives are ruined–drugs are rarely glorified like violence). The MPAA seems to have it all backwards, letting violence fly through on lower ratings while any sexy-time going on gets slammed with an R or an NC-17 kiss of death. In Australia it’s a lot more serious–it is overseen by the government, after all–and a bit more balanced, though still not without its flaws.

But with movies such a big part of American culture, and films influencing increasingly larger audiences, special attention should be paid to the way films are classified there. I know you can’t shift the paradigm of a nation overnight, but America’s morals have been so backwards for so long that it’s about time films and the filmmakers behind them were given a fair go, and expected to deliver more emotionally-engaging, less sanitised-violence trips to alternate realities. If a multi-billion-dollar, popular, influential cultural cornerstone showed more humane, realistic morals, maybe people would catch on and stop supporting things like war and violence and capital punishment–because unlike in the movies, pain hurts in real life.

Would you like to know more?