LIFE IS NOT RATED PG-13

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

Movie ratings amuse me. Whenever I see a movie poster, I always look at the rating box. In the old days, the rating box was simple: It just listed the rating (G, PG, PG-13, R or X), plus the general description for the rating. For G, it said "General Audiences." For R, it said "Restricted Audiences."

Now the rating box is a little more complicated. It still gives the rating and the general description. But it also gives "reasons" why the movie earned its rating. For example, it might say the movie is rated "R" because it contains "Nudity, Some Sexual Content and Drug Use." Or it may say the movie is rated "PG-13" for "Some Language, Adult Situations and Scary Images."

I know why there is a rating system. The Motion Picture Association of America started the system in order to help parents decide whether they should take their children to the movies. If a parent sees "R" at the bottom of a movie poster, then he or she would know not to take 6-year-old Johnny to see it.

But the rating system does more than "protect children from unsuitable content." I have written that it can also perform a political function by limiting access to a film if the "raters" do not like its message. An "R" rating, for instance, substantially reduces a film's potential audience by reducing the number of theaters that will show it. That, in turn, makes it more difficult for a film to reach a broad audience. In sum, raters can influence an artwork's communicative outreach by tacking on harsher ratings, even when they are not really warranted.

And who are these raters? What criteria move them? Put simply, they are private Americans with relatively little tolerance for "unconventional" ideas, language, themes, images or messages. They also have a very squeamish moral sense. Sex and nudity put them off more than violence. Breasts are more threatening than explosions and killing. If a movie even remotely strays into "controversial" ground, they will rate it "R." A straight make-out scene might only generate "PG-13." But a gay one would definitely yield an "R;" or maybe even "NC-17" if it is graphic enough. And if you dare to use the word "fuck" once in your movie: Forget it; that's an "R" for you. Hey, you could always opt for "fudge" to save your
box office.

What explains this hypersensitivity? Is it really all about the children? Why should movies that deal with "real-life things" earn harsher ratings than meaningless fluff?

Consider this: I recently saw a movie poster with a "PG-13" rating because it contained "Some Smoking." Say what? Smoking? Since when did smoking become a taboo subject? Do we really believe that our children will turn into criminals because they see someone smoking a cigarette onscreen?

I mention this for three reasons. First, I do not like the moral hypersensitivity in the movie rating system. Second, it is just not possible to shield children from every single allegedly "bad" thing in life. Third, there is little correspondence between what happens in movies and what happens in actual human experience.

Children see smoking all the time. They do not need to be 13 to know that people smoke. In fact, if their parents smoke, they probably have known about smoking since the moment they could form memories. Even if their parents don't smoke, it does not take long to see someone else smoking outside. Smoking is everywhere. Sure, it's not good for your health. But it's part of life. There's no sense morally rebuking a movie simply because it shows something that millions of people do every single day. And there's even less sense in attempting to prevent children from learning about it: Chances are they already know.

There is so much about movies that is totally unrealistic, even in movies that claim to portray reality. Movies are a fascinating medium because they lead viewers into a dimension that closely resembles reality. Yet on reflection, it is clear that they are not real--not even close. Life does not have snappy dialogue, segue cutscenes or a melodramatic soundtrack. It does not have a set run-time, either. Put simply, there is a wide range of human experience that will never appear on a movie screen. And even the most banal things--like going to the bathroom or sexuality--often earn harsh scolding from the raters.

We do and say things every day in our lives that would lead to an "R" rating or worse. Just getting undressed to get in the shower pushes us into "NC-17" territory. The human body, in other words, is a taboo subject. And movies are supposed to represent reality? How could they when they don't even show the most basic things that people do and say every day?

Movies are artificial. They do not represent reality. In that light, it is foolish to rely on them to form impressions about life because there is so much about life that they never portray.

Movie ratings are artificial, too. If anything, they simply measure the moral qualms of a few squeamish Americans. It is too bad that the raters have such a strong influence on what millions of people see on movie screens.

All I know is that my own life is not even close to PG-13. It's been NC-17 since before I could even talk. If you've ever been naked in your life, you're rated "R" at least.

Movies might spare the faint of heart. But life doesn't. This shit is rough.

MICHAEL MOORE IS RATED "R" : APPARENTLY, COGENT SOCIAL COMMENTARY IS FOR RESTRICTED AUDIENCES ONLY

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

I still have to watch Michael Moore's new movie, Capitalism : A Love Story. To prepare myself for his latest offering, I went back to the catalogue and watched Bowling for Columbine (2002). It made me laugh and cry all at the same time. But this time I noticed something interesting about the movie that I never considered important before: It was rated "R." The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) said it deserved an "R" rating because it contained "Language and Some Disturbing Images." That piqued my interest. Then I noticed that Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) and Capitalism : A Love Story also were rated "R."

I recognized at once that the MPAA does not like Michael Moore. Bowling for Columbine did not even remotely deserve an "R" rating. Its "disturbing images" were no more than stock news footage showing gun violence in America and abroad. There was no bloodshed. By the MPAA's reasoning, virtually every nightly newscast in the United States should be rated "R" for "some disturbing images." So should almost every National Geographic Channel documentary and World War II show. And the "language" that earned the movie an "R" was this: A single use of the word "fuck" by Marilyn Manson during an interview about violence in American society. I could make only one conclusion from this: The MPAA did not like Moore's "provocative message" about American society, so they "pulled power on him" by slapping an "R" on his movie.

It is no small thing for the MPAA to dish out "R" ratings. "R" ratings reduce a movie's potential audience by up to 83%. They dramatically weaken its chances to speak to millions. As a documentary, the movie intended to reach a broad audience base. By all objective measures, the movie's content should not have warranted an "R." But the MPAA obviously felt uncomfortable with Moore's message, so they took action to automatically minimize its potential impact. The MPAA projects "authority" by vindicating "American values," like obedience, patriotism and respect for social hierarchies in an unequal commercial system. Michael Moore wages war against those values in every movie he makes. It is no surprise that the MPAA--as a corporate entity--jumped at the chance to take petty revenge against Moore. Michael Moore is a corporation's worst nightmare. He is the archetypal populist gadfly. He speaks all the words corporations try to suppress. What better way to stymie the gadfly than by restricting the number of people who can hear his words?

Michael Moore is a controversial figure. People either love him or hate him. Anyone with a trace of conservative blood generally detests him with homicidal passion. Moore haters say he "distorts the truth," "gets his facts wrong," and "sensationalizes issues," all while "being rude" and "intruding on people's privacy." Many say he "just lies."

But Michael Moore never intrudes on anyone who doesn't deserve to be pilloried. He "fights the power" in the purest sense. He only castigates those who use power over those who do not. He does not ridicule the weak. He is not afraid to call powerful people on their hypocrisies, nor is he afraid to uncover the injustices that poison American life. Naturally his targets resent his efforts; the truth always hurts. Typically, his targets respond that he only tells "half the story" and "says things inaccurately." Still, Moore's impact flows from his conceptual strength. His messages are effective because they broadly contrast principle with practice. That effectiveness does not depend on rigorous accuracy. As long as the basic ideas work, so does the film.

Power does not like exposure. The MPAA is an institution of power. It is only natural that the MPAA would use its institutional authority to strike at Michael Moore. After all, Michael Moore exposes and embarrasses power in every movie he makes. But why is the MPAA so powerful? Why is it so arbitrary? It is not a governmental institution. If it were, it could never pass judgment on artistic works consistent with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Only State actors must abide by the Constitution. Private actors--like the MPAA--can ignore it all they want. In essence, then, the MPAA is nothing more than a collection of powerful private individuals who get to pass judgment on artistic works for any reason they want. And they don't even need to explain why they judge as they do. Unlike judicial officers, they don't even need to reference laws and precedents to support their conclusion. They can just say: "I gave it an 'R' because I didn't like it and I think I heard the word 'shit' in it."

So why do filmmakers submit to the MPAA's ratings? Simple: Movies must have ratings to enter mainstream distribution. Without a rating, no commercial movie theater will show a film; it will be doomed to arthouses and college campuses. This might satisfy fringe directors and hardcore artists. But most artists want as many people as possible to hear their messages. The only way to really "spread the word" is to obtain mainstream distribution. And the only way to do that is to submit to the MPAA's asinine review board. That is why every director struggles to appease the MPAA's private censors. Even then, if the MPAA board does not like the director or his message, it will find reasons to restrict his audience with a harsher rating. That is what happened to Michael Moore.

I think this is really shameful. In essence, the MPAA channels artistic expression in this country to conform with the authority-serving values of a private committee. Artists willingly pay tribute to those values because they want to reach the broadest possible audience. And in some cases, the committee will do its best to restrict a filmmaker's audience no matter what the filmmaker concedes. Again, this is what happened to Michael Moore. The committee simply does not like his messages, so it branded his movies with "R" ratings to prevent more people from seeing them. Only bias and prejudice can explain why Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 received "R" ratings. A documentary that shows mildly violent stock news footage and broadcasts one expletive should not be deemed "unsuitable" for people under age 17.

I really don't think Michael Moore cares whether the MPAA rates his movies. He is going to say what he wants to say no matter what. He knows many people will categorically oppose him simply because he is Michael Moore. Yet I find it despicable that the MPAA can dare to call a movie "restricted" when it merely collages images that we see on television news broadcasts every night. American life, I suppose, is rated "R," too. Or maybe "NC-17" would be more like it.