Unrestricted: the ratings game - motion picture ratings - Editorial

Christian Century, Dec 8, 1993 by James M. Wall

MY ROUTE TO the commuter train station takes me past an elementary school. The streets are usually full of children and of cars stopping to unload young passengers. Each day as I drive by I visualize a second-grader darting across the street, oblivious of oncoming traffic. I drive defensively, watching for the child that I know someday will dash in front of my can The thought focuses my attention on a single concern: protect the children.

The ratings board of the Motion Picture Association of America and the National Association of Theater Owners was created out of the same concern-to protect children, in this case, from films that are emotionally unsuitable. Many filmmakers and most film critics seem not to have absorbed the board's message. The ratings that appear in ads and preceding the opening credits of all rated films (G, PG, PG13, R, NC-17) are there for parents and children, not for critics or filmmakers. As the rating moves from G toward R, the films are increasingly adult in content and attitude. NC-17 means that no children under 17 are allowed. Adults who take young children to see an R-rated film are doing so in spite of the warning from the ratings board that the picture is intended for adult audiences and should be seen by children only if accompanied by an adult. In effect the industry is saying to parents: this film is not recommended for younger children, but if they do see it, they should at least do so with an adult.

The 12-member ratings board is funded by fees paid on each film rated. Board members are parents who have no connections to the film industry. They do not judge a film's artistic attributes. What matters to them is that parents be warned about a film's suitability for children. It is not a perfect system, and it is run by imperfect people. It is also entirely voluntary. (Most countries enforce their ratings through local laws. )

The makers and distributors of A Perfect World, a new film directed by Clint Eastwood and distributed by Warner Brothers, have just gone through the ratings process in a way that ignores the children in their audience. And though they may not know or care, their approach could threaten the voluntary nature of the ratings system.

To get some sense of the adult nature of A Perfect World you need only pay attention to its advertising campaign. The print ads feature Kevin Costher, who plays an escaped convict, and T. J. Lowther, a seven-year-old, walking together, buddies against the world. The TV ads include a scene with Lowther gleefully sitting on top of a station wagon as the car drives at top speed down a highway.

A Perfect World has appeared in a season in which the public has finally begun to display some concern about child abuse and about violence among and against children. For example, a Senate resolution calling for a stronger definition of child pornography passed with almost no dissenting votes, not even from the usual liberal champions of free speech. Nevertheless, Eastwood and Warner Brothers launched a vigorous and finally successful campaign to obtain a PG-13 rating for their film after the ratings board had placed it in the R (restricted) category. The PG and PG-13 (parental guidance) ratings are only cautionary categories: a child of any age may attend without a parent.

The rating system provides for an appeals process: an appeals board has the authority to sustain or overturn the decision made by the ratings board. But unlike the ratings board, which is made up of parents, the appeals board is composed of industry professionals. Major studios and distribution companies send representatives from various levels of their firms, depending on the importance of the film seeking a change in the rating. They constitute half the appeals board. Theater owners make up the other half.

According to a report in the Hollywood Reporter, after a hearing for A Perfect World the R rating was sustained, but on a technicality the film was granted a second hearing. The film's producer argued the case at the first hearing and lost; Clint Eastwood showed up for the second appeals hearing, smiled his famous smile, and won. The picture is now in release with a PG-13 rating, which Eastwood and Warner Brothers obviously feel will be to their financial benefit. The financial and critical success of Eastwood's R-rated Unforgiven suggests that an adult film can make money if it has merit. But in the case of A Perfect World, greed overruled such logic.

Until earlier this year appeals hearings were held in New York, away from the immediate influence of the industry. In a surprise move this spring, MPAA and NATO shifted the hearings to Hollywood, a move supporters of the system fear will make it much easier to overturn the rating board's decisions. Famous and familiar faces can easily be on hand to argue that their works of art deserve the widest possible audience. Forget about protecting the children.

The ratings board is currently chaired by Richard Heffner, who administers the board from his New York office (he is also a professor at Rutgers University and a public television talk-show host). Heffner has held this position for almost two decades, but according to a recent interview in the New Yorker, his contract expires in June. If Heffner is not reappointed, and if his successor is seen as a West Coast industry insider, confidence in the professionalism and independence of the ratings system could erode.