Are the MPAA's screwed up?

You're right. Monitoring what our kids (and even ourselves) are exposed to can be a frustrating job. Years ago I found myself walking out of the theater mid-way through movies more and more frequently. So now I'm much more intentional about what I choose to watch. I haven't 'dropped by' a movie theater in seven or eight years. We only go when there is a specific movie we want to see.

To decide which movies I want our daughter and us to watch, I first visit www.pluggedinonline.com. Movies are reviewed for Positive Elements, Sexual Content, Violence, and Profanity, and I can decide what I feel comfortable watching without having to be shocked part-way through. I also visit www.rottentomatoes.com to get an idea of how good the plot is.

Thanks for writing this thoughtful post, Jennifer! I look forward to reading what others have to say.

Reply

I don't trust the MPAA. I check out what other countries rate a movie before going to see one. Many R-rated movies are rated acceptable for 15 year olds.

Having homosexual sex, in any context, in a film gets it a harsher rating than the same act between a hetrosexual couple. For example, the film "But I'm a Cheerleader" (orginally rated NC-17) showed a girl mastrubating full clothed and same sex partners having sex in a non explict manner. However, the first "American Pie" which showed a boy having sex with an apple pie had no problem getting an R rating.

Male rear nudity is assumed to be of a joking manner while female rear nudity is considered to be sexual. (This is also a fault of American society that has sexualized just about all parts of the female body.)

Violence which shows the consquence of the action (i.e; blood) is given a harsher rating than bloodless violence.

Sex is always rated more harshly than violence. Though, violence can be justified the results are never pretty. However, sex is natural and when shared between two consenting adults is beautiful. Violence is ugly.

Independant films, such as Once (the sweet romantic movie with a few F bombs Jennifer referenced) are given harsher ratings while mainstream movies get lesser ratings.

Smoking, a perfectly legal act, gets a harher rating.

The MPAA board members are also hypocrites. Their rules state that board members must have children under the age of eighteen. Once the kids are of the legal age, they must resign. Yet, the majourity of the members have children older than eighteen and one does not even have kids.

Two minsiters (one Protestant, another Catholic) sit on the board. The MPAA claim that they have no say in the ratings process, so why the heck are they there?

We need a standarized rating system. The one in place now has too many variables and is unrealiable.
When the ultra-violent "No Country for Old Men" and "Fido" (which at its most graphic shows a few seconds of a severed arm) can have the same R rating, then we have a flawed system in place.

Reply

No, I do not trust the ratings at all, or even what programming is supposed to be for children. That's why my child watches no movies or TV at all, to be on the safe side since the media can't be trusted with her fragile psyche and mind.

Reply

I agree with you, Eva. My kids, 5 and 7, don't watch any TV and rarely a movie unless it's a DVD that I am quite familiar with like High School Musical. I don't even like them to watch people being bullied, kids being disrespectful to adults or anyone saying words like dumb and stupid. It's impossible to find anything on TV that I find appropriate for my kids to watch.

Reply

its called I watch it first. I agree with the fact that the rating system is flawed (in a HUGE way), but it is still helpful.

I know what I am pretty safe with some Disney movies and movies like the Alvin and the chipmucks (it rocked) that I don't have to see first, but my husband has let some movies go by that I wouldn't agree with but he saw no problem with it. I guess that is the difference between men and women.

on regular tv, I preset the channels to show what I want him watching and I usually (depending on my mood) allow him a few choice to pick from.

Reply

Our daughter doesnt like the "movies" Prefers waiting for them to come out on DVD I guess. But she is a HUGE fan of the "classic" Disney movies. Cinderella, Lady and the Tramp. Also loves the Santa Clause movies. Shrek, Cars, Over the Hedge. And is currently hooked on Scooby Doo. She figured out the TiVo in no time flat. That said. We rarely spend time indoors. Although with the current cold snap we are in more than out. But she uses the computer as well. Right now she is playing in her room having just finished coloring. TV is off and I get to get some work done and surf the web some.

I have nearly walked out of only one movie over the last few years. It was a jet Li film and was just too violent. any movie that begins with bloody bunnies should be walked out on at that moment. But I am appalled by the amount of parents that think bringing a child to a rated R, PG 13 or anything but a G rated movie is a good idea. But then again poor and irresponsible parenting abounds

Reply

I agree that ratings are screwed up, but I just wanted to take issue with a couple points in this post.

1. It's been a while since I saw Pirates 3, but I think when you mention the child being killed, you're talking about the kid who gets hung at the very beginning? Don't they blank out before actually SHOWING him hang, implying rather than visually showing his death? I realize it seems like nitpicking, but for ratings it's actually a pretty big distinction. Also I might be misremembering.

2. Beowulf is CGI rather than live action. That means that there was not actually a nude Angelina Jolie, just an extremely accurate animation of a nude Angelina Jolie. Animated films are going to be treated differently, whether they should be is another matter entirely. On the other hand did they actually show enough of Jolie to get it bumped up to R had it been live action? I'm asking sincerely, I'm not sure where they draw the line on sexual content. Frankly in Beowulf I would have been far more concerned with exposing children to the extreme violence than Angelina Jolie.

Afterall isn't PG13 supposed to be for kids over 13? No one really follows that, but I thought that was the guideline. I'd think Pirates would have been fine for a 13 year old, maybe Beowulf less so.

Anyway, as I said I agree with the author's basic comments, just wanted to mention these couple areas for discussion's sake.

Reply

I preview media before my children watch it. We do not subscribe to cable tv. Not at much because of the tv programs, but it was a financial drain and we hated all the advertising. They are allowed to watch DVDs and videos. They are still very young so we haven't yet taken them to a big screen movie.

However, to all the previous posters that said that they cut off all movies and television for their children I do wonder how your kids are ever going to learn to filter media properly? I work as a school library media specialist, one of my jobs is to work with students as young as grade kindergarten on how to find information, process information, and to choose good and bad media. The very same choices that we are making now for our children we will expect them to make...however I fear that by cutting them off completely from media we'll be disabling their ability to hone those skills.

Reply