The Responsible Movie Industry

My first impression of the MPAA rating system is similar to a Sesame Street video entitled, “Sing Yourself Sillier at the Movies.” This video depicts Telly Monster and Oscar the Grouch as ‘Siskel and Ebert’ type movie critics. In Sesame Street’ own special way of connecting a child’s world with adult humor (lately to the extreme), we can see the problem of the MPAA. Lovable Telly rated every movie as Wow’s and grumpy old Oscar rated every movie, except the last one, as Phooey’s. As I sit watching this video, I am drawn into the paradox of the MPAA. The Movie Industry produces all kinds of films, at exorbitant cost, knowing that if consumers do not pay to attend these films they will lose a lot of money. This situation is not conducive to objective ratings of movies and television and in many cases will be subjected to the moods of the ratings committee (The Classification and Ratings Administration,“CARA”). This committee consists of twelve members under the direction of the MPAA and the NATO (National Association of Theatre Owners “NATO”), and these committee members may have no movie industry connections.

The movie rating system has been in effect for thirty-two years. This is a volunteer system that weighs heavily on parental control. The movie industry opinion is that the system works because of this longevity, but I question the value of this longevity when this system is the only system of control. Jack Valenti, President and CEO of the MPAA have this to say about the rating system in an address to the Board of Directors of the MPAA (MPAA, Jack).

For almost 32 years, we have been monitoring parents’ reaction to movie ratings. In the latest of annual surveys conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation of Princeton, New Jersey, just completed three weeks ago, the rating system received an all-time high in parental endorsement! 81% of all parents with children under 13 found the rating system to be ‘Very Useful’ to ‘Fairly Useful’ in helping them choose the films they want their children to see. Nothing lasts 32 years in this unfaithful, volatile marketplace unless it is providing a benefit to the people it aims to serve, in this case, parents. Note: The FTC in its own independent appraisal of movie ratings found that 81% of parents said they were "satisfied" with the system.

Parents are generally satisfied with the current rating system because, one, they have not any other alternatives, two, they cannot offer any suggestions of how this industry could be more socially responsible and, three, maybe they are just constipated by a system that they know offers no real moral guidance. If the motion picture industry simply refused to make morally unacceptable films then a ratings system would be superfluous.

It appears that Mr. Valenti has decided that the motion picture industry has no need for social responsibility. The moral fiber of American youth lies with the parents, clergy, and educators. “If there is a decay, how do we repair it?” and “If there is not a decay, how to we make the future proof against such intrusions,” asked Jack Valenti in his response to the MPAA Board of Directors. He answers these questions as follows:

I believe that the survival and durability of a civic union depends on building within the breasts of young children a moral shield to impress on them what is right, and what is plainly wrong, to fortify their instincts and their judgments as they grow to adulthood. The construction of that moral shield, against which all the blandishments of peers and the enticements of the mean streets will crack and shatter, is mainly the duty of the home, the church and the school. If that duty is feebly performed or casually regarded by parents, clerics and teachers, then no amount of hand-wringing or the issuance of laws and directives will salvage a child’s conduct or locate a missing moral core. We all know that.

Mr. Valenti makes a strong case for the motion picture industry lack of social responsibility. He is correct in his assertion that the “moral shield” should be installed in the home, Church/Sunday School, and through the educational process, which we all know is lifelong. However, the fact that the motion picture industry can make this process exceedingly difficult when they produce and market films that are virtually void of moral value ‘is plainly wrong.’ Young children are very impressionable and parents cannot raise their children by a handbook, nor should they raise them with handcuffs. The questions that the MPAA should be asking are: Why do sex, violence, and vulgarities sell? Alternatively, why do inspirational films not sell?” On the other hand, what can we do to be more socially responsible?

Maybe a little history about the MPAA will help to understand why these questions never appear to realize the light of day. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) was initially created solely as a public relations sector of the motion picture industry. The industry was being heavily criticized for the content of its silent movies for promoting too much violence and disorder. After World War II, in 1945, the motion picture industry formed the Motion Picture export Association of America to reintroduce American films into the world market. This organization has always monitored the industry that it is perceived to regulate. The Board of Directors of the MPAA is the chairman and president of each of the eight major motion picture/television producers and distributors. These companies include:

The Walt Disney Company, Dreamworks SKG, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Universal Studios, Warner Bros.

Since 1950, the percentage of films released has decreased 4.7%, and in 1999, more than half of the films produced were rated “R” with “PG” and “G” accounting for a third. With fewer films released and more films restricted to older viewers, this can only mean that there is a concentration in less than moral content. Therefore, what is the purpose of having a movie rating system when morally incorrect films are the mainstay of the industry? The “rating system” for the movie industry is as follows:

G General Audiences
PG Parental Guidance Suggested
PG-13 Parents Strongly Cautioned
R Restricted
NC-17 No one under 17 admitted
(MPAA, Movie ratings)

The rating system for the television industry resembles the same paradox of parental control over industry profits. This rating system is relatively new and created from pressure put on the industry by government and parental groups. However, as the following table indicates it is just more of the same rating melee to insure that the industry meets its own obligation to profits first.

TV/Y All Children
TV/Y7 Directed to older Children
TV/G General Audiences
TV/PG Parental Guidance Suggested
TV/14 Parents Strongly Cautioned
TV/MA Mature Audiences
(MPAA, TV ratings)

By initiating the movie ratings, the industry has dusted off its responsibility and placed it in the hands of parents, who in most cases are either over worked or under educated to make accurate decisions about what their children are watching. This ‘rubber stamp’ mentality is eroding the moral fabric our family structure.

Rated or Labeled Product: In 1999, 70% of the 677 movies rated by the MPAA were rated R. Another 16% were rated PG-13, while 9% were rated PG, and 5% received a G rating. None received the NC-17 rating. Of the 25 top-grossing movies (in all ratings categories) at the box office in 1999, almost half received a descriptor for violence while more than half of the 20 top
rental movies (in all ratings categories) received a similar violence descriptor.
(FTC, Appendix D)

According to a survey by the MPAA, thirty-two percent of the movies viewing audiences were between the ages of twelve and twenty. With almost a third of the viewing public within the PG to G, rating class there appears to be a serious disparity of R-rated films. This is why no matter how the MPAA attempts to package its voluntary ratings program it approaches a void. The only way we can strike a balance here for the welfare of our children, parents, and the movie industry is for the MPAA to acknowledge that they do owe some degree of responsibility of what movies are being produced. When seventy percent of the films in 1999 are rated R it only intensifies the moral abyss that we find ourselves today. Finger pointing responsibility never solves a problem, but instead will reinforce the actions of the status quo.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Federal Trade Commission. 11 Sept. 2000. Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children. 16 Oct. 2000. < http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/09/index.htm#11>. Appendix D.

Motion Picture Association of America. 10 Oct. 2000. Jack Valenti Press Releases. 16 Oct. 2000. < http://www.mpaa.org/jack/index.htm>.

Motion Picture Association of America. 10 Oct. 2000. Movie Ratings. 16 Oct. 2000.
< www.mpaa.org/movieratings/index.htm>.

Motion Picture Association of America. 10 Oct. 2000. TV Parental Guidelines. 16 Oct. 2000. < www.mpaa.org/tv/index.htm>.

Motion Picture Association of America. 10 Oct. 2000. US Economic Reviews. 16 Oct. 2000. < www.mpaa.org/useconomicreview/1999Economic/sld015.htm>.