Revision as of 08:37, 5 May 2009 edit216.115.121.22 (talk) →The GP rating is replaced← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:09, 12 December 2024 edit undoSunshineisles2 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users37,513 edits →Theatrical trailers | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|American film rating system}} | |||
{{article issues|original research=April 2009|cleanup=April 2009|refimprove=April 2009|weasel=April 2009|examplefarm=April 2009}} | |||
{{Use mdy dates|date=October 2018}} | |||
The '''Motion Picture Association of America's film-rating system''' is used in the ] and its ] to rate a film's thematic and content suitability for certain audiences. It is one of various ]s used to help patrons decide what movies are appropriate for children, for adolescents, and for adults. | |||
{{Use American English|date=October 2023}} | |||
The '''Motion Picture Association''' '''film rating system''' is used in the United States and its territories to rate a ]'s suitability for certain audiences based on its content. The system and the ratings applied to individual motion pictures are the responsibility of the ] (MPA), previously known as the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) from 1945 to 2019. The MPA rating system is a voluntary scheme that is not enforced by law; films can be exhibited without a rating, although most theaters refuse to exhibit non-rated or ]. Non-members of the MPA may also submit films for rating.<ref>{{cite web|title=Frequently Asked Questions|url=https://www.rialtocinemas.com/index.php?location=sebastopol&page=faq|work=Rialto Cinemas|publisher=Rialto Cinemas™|access-date=August 1, 2012|author=Rialto Cinemas|year=2012|archive-date=July 5, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220705194752/https://www.rialtocinemas.com/index.php?location=sebastopol&page=faq|url-status=dead}}</ref> Other media, such as ], ] and ], are rated by other entities such as the ], the ] and the ], respectively. | |||
In the U.S., the ] rating system is the most recognized classification system for determining potentially offensive content, but usually is not used outside the film industry, because the MPAA has trademarked each rating. Its system has been criticised for the secrecy of its decisions,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2007-04-09-movie-ratings-main_N.htm|title=Debating the MPAA's mission|first=Scott|last=Bowles|publisher=]|date=2007-04-10}}</ref>. A study from Harvard university indicated the MPAA has allowed more violence and sexually explicit content into their films over the past decade citing examples of content in R-rated movies a decade ago, and similar content in PG-13 movies of today.<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00E4D81F3BF937A25754C0A9629C8B63&fta=y</ref> | |||
In effect as of November 1968,<ref name=desques>{{cite news |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-2Y1AAAAIBAJ&pg=5106%2C7197294 |work=Deseret News |location=(Salt Lake City, Utah) |agency=(The Moviegoer) |title=Questionable ratings to gain patronge |date=October 31, 1968|page=10A}}</ref> following the ] of the ] era, the MPA rating system is one of various ]s that are used to help parents decide what films are ]. It is administered by the Classification & Ratings Administration (CARA), an independent division of the MPA.<ref name="rating rules" /> | |||
==Ratings== | |||
The current MPAA movie ratings are: | |||
== Ratings == | |||
{| align=center class=toccolors cellpadding="4" | |||
{{Redirect|PG-13}} | |||
!style="background:#ccf; align: left;"| Rating symbol !! style="background:#ccf;"| Text | |||
<!-- | |||
@@@@@****************************************************************@@@@@ | |||
|] || | |||
| IMPORTANT NOTE: Please DO NOT add any comparisons to other countries' | | |||
; '''G - General Audiences ''' | |||
| ratings systems, or examples of films. We do not need any comprehensive| | |||
: All ages admitted. | |||
| or all-inclusive lists of other ratings systems from other countries, | | |||
| or of every single movie in the world. This is NOT a place to promote | | |||
| your country's system, or your favorite movies. Any edits doing so are | | |||
| non-constructive, and will be reverted. Repeat vandals will be blocked.| | |||
| Thank you for your cooperation. | | |||
@@@@@****************************************************************@@@@@ | |||
--> | |||
=== MPA film ratings === | |||
:No nudity, no drugs, minimal violence, and limited use of language that goes beyond polite conversation. | |||
The MPA film ratings are as follows:<ref name="film ratings">{{cite web |title=Film Ratings |publisher=] |url=https://www.motionpictures.org/film-ratings/ |access-date=March 24, 2014}}</ref> | |||
|- | |||
|] || | |||
; '''PG - Parental Guidance Suggested''' | |||
: Some material may not be suitable for children. | |||
{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto" | |||
:May have mild violence and/or action, mild language and sexual references, brief nudity, intense images, sexual themes, crude humor or very mild drug references. | |||
|- | |- | ||
! scope="col" | Rating block/symbol | |||
|] || | |||
! scope="col" | Meaning | |||
; '''PG-13 - Parents Strongly Cautioned''' | |||
: Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. | |||
:May contain moderate language, minimal strong language, some explicit nudity, intense violence, gore, or mild drug content. | |||
|- | |- | ||
|{{anchor|G|G-rated|G rating}}]<br>] || | |||
; '''G – General Audiences''' | |||
: ''All ages admitted''. Nothing that would offend parents for viewing by children. | |||
|- | |- | ||
|{{anchor|PG|PG-rated|PG rating}}]<br>] || | |||
|] || | |||
; |
; '''PG – Parental Guidance Suggested''' | ||
: ''Some material may not be suitable for children''. Parents urged to give "parental guidance". May contain some material parents might not like for their young children. | |||
: Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian. | |||
:May contain very strong language or strong sexual emphasis, strong explicit nudity, strong violence and gore, or strong drug content. | |||
|- | |- | ||
|{{anchor|PG-13|PG-13-rated|PG-13 rating}}]<br>] || | |||
|] || | |||
; ''' |
; '''PG-13 – Parents Strongly Cautioned''' | ||
: ''Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13''. Parents are urged to be cautious. Some material may be inappropriate for pre-teenagers. | |||
|- | |||
: May contain very strong sexual or offensive language, strong explicit nudity, very strong gore or disturbing violence, or graphic drug abuse. Films with this rating are usually edited for an "R" | |||
|{{anchor|R|R-rated|R rating}}]<br>] || | |||
; '''R – Restricted''' | |||
: ''Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian''. Contains some adult material. Parents are urged to learn more about the film before taking their young children with them. | |||
|- | |||
|{{anchor|NC-17|NC-17-rated|NC-17 rating}}]<br>] || | |||
; '''NC-17 – Adults Only''' | |||
: <!--Please DO NOT change this to simply "under 17"; see lower in the article for information that it has been official since 1996 that it's "17 and under".-->''No one 17 and under admitted''. Clearly adult. Children are not admitted. | |||
|} | |} | ||
In 2013, the MPA ratings were visually redesigned, with the rating displayed on a left panel and the name of the rating shown above it. A larger panel on the right provides a more detailed description of the film's content and an explanation of the rating level is placed on a horizontal bar at the bottom of the rating.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Bowles |first1=Scott |title=Film-rating descriptors to add detail |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2013/04/16/cinemacon-ratings-mpaa-nato-dodd/2088439/ |newspaper=] |access-date=August 18, 2018 |date=April 16, 2013}}</ref> | |||
If a film is not submitted for rating, the label '''NR''' ('''Not Rated''') is used; however, "NR" is not an official MPAA classification. Films as yet unrated by the MPAA, but that are expected to be submitted for rating, are often advertised with the notice "This Film is Not Yet Rated" or, less frequently, "Rating Pending." | |||
== |
=== Content descriptors === | ||
Film ratings often have accompanying brief descriptions of the specifics behind the film's content and why it received a certain rating. They are displayed in trailers, posters, and on the backside of ] releases. Film rating content descriptors are exclusively used for films rated from PG to NC-17; they are not used for G-rated films because the content in them is suitable for all audiences even if containing mild objectionable content.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.filmratings.com/History|title = History}}</ref> | |||
=== Origins === | |||
=== Other labels === | |||
The United States began rating its movies relatively late, having depended upon the ] to control the content of films; most other countries began classifying their films decades earlier, such as the ] with the ] rating organization. The MPAA's film ratings were instituted on ], ], in response to religiously-motivated complaints about the sexual, violent, profane, and impudent content of American cinema, after the MPAA's 1966 revision of the Production Code. The revision, prompted by imports and the first US studio releases lacking MPAA approval, created the "SMA" (Suggested for Mature Audiences) advisory, identifying violent movies and movies with mature themes, along with the MPAA Code seal. (see ] about an internal precursor to the ratings system). | |||
If a film has not been submitted for a rating or is an uncut version of a film that was submitted, the labels '''Not Rated''' ('''NR''') or '''Unrated''' ('''UR''') are often used. Uncut/extended versions of films that are labeled "Unrated" also contain warnings saying that the uncut version of the film contains content that differs from the theatrical release and might not be suitable for minors. | |||
If a film has not yet been assigned a final rating, the label '''This Film Is Not Yet Rated''' is used in trailers and television commercials. | |||
The cultural erosion of the film production code had several effects: it allowed violently artistic films such as ]'s '']'' (]), and an increase in low-budget ]s that were more sexually and violently explicit. | |||
== Regulation of promotional materials and releases == | |||
The Non-MPAA member film producers were unaffected; the ratings system was legally unenforceable because of the free speech guarantee, inherent to the ] of the ], as interpreted regarding the sexual, violent, profane, and impudent content in communications media dating from the 1952 '']'' decision. However, two important 1968 Supreme Court cases, ''Ginsberg v. New York''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=390&invol=629|title=U.S. Supreme Court GINSBERG v. NEW YORK, 390 U.S. 629 (1968)|publisher=]|date=1968-04-22}}</ref> and ''Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas'',<ref>{{cite web|url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=390&invol=676|title=U.S. Supreme Court INTERSTATE CIRCUIT v. DALLAS, 390 U.S. 676 (1968)|publisher=]|date=1968-04-22}}</ref> led to the MPAA's creation of its movie rating system. | |||
{{multiple image | |||
<!-- Essential parameters --> | |||
| align = right | |||
| direction = vertical | |||
| width = 220 | |||
<!-- Images --> | |||
| image1 = MPA greenband intro card (Toy Story 4 greenband trailer).png | |||
| alt1 = | |||
| caption1 = A green band card for trailers that are suitable for general audiences | |||
| image2 = MPA yellowband intro card (The Unborn (2009) yellowband trailer).png | |||
| alt2 = | |||
| caption2 = A yellow band card used for internet trailers | |||
| image3 = MPA redband intro card (Snowpiercer redband trailer).png | |||
| alt3 = | |||
| caption3 = A red band trailer card reserved for restricted or mature audiences | |||
}} | |||
The MPA also rates film trailers, print advertising, posters, and other media used to promote a film.<ref name=AAR /> | |||
{{Anchor|Rating cards|MPAA rating cards for theatrical trailers}} | |||
===Theatrical trailers=== | |||
{{Hatnote group|{{redirect|Red band|the rock band|Red (band)}}{{Broader|Trailer (promotion)|topic=cinema trailers}}}} | |||
<!-- Editors PLEASE NOTE: pre-November 2019 events & actions will reference "MPAA" in context, and NOT "MPA". --> | |||
<!-- All dates & date-params in cites need to conform to American "mdy" spelled-out format, per article tag. --> | |||
'''Rating cards''' appear at the head of trailers in the United States which indicate how closely the trailer adheres to the MPA's (and prior to November 2019, the MPAA's) standards.<ref name=Halbfinger /> | |||
* '''Green band''': When the trailer accompanies another rated feature, the wording on the green title card states, as of May 2013, "The following preview has been approved to accompany this feature." For trailers hosted on the Internet, the wording is tweaked to "The following preview has been approved for appropriate audiences."<ref name=AAR>{{cite web |title=Advertising Administration Rules |date=October 8, 2019 |publisher=] |url=https://www.filmratings.com/Content/Downloads/advertising_handbook.pdf |access-date=July 22, 2024}}</ref><!-- per ] guidelines on paragraphs | |||
===Original ratings=== | |||
-->{{pb}} Until April 2009, these cards indicated that they had been approved for "all audiences" and often included the film's MPAA rating. This signified that the trailer adhered to the standards for motion picture advertising outlined by the MPAA, which included limitations on foul language and violent, sexual, or otherwise objectionable imagery.<!-- per ] guidelines on paragraphs | |||
The original movie ratings (used from 1968 to 1970) were: | |||
-->{{pb}} In April 2009, the MPAA began to permit the green band language to say that a trailer had been approved for "appropriate" audiences, meaning that the material would be appropriate for audiences in theaters, based on the content of the film they had come to see.<!-- per ] guidelines on paragraphs | |||
*'''General Audiences''': All ages admitted. | |||
*'''Suggested for mature audiences''': Parental discretion advised. | |||
*'''Audience Restricted''': People under 16 not admitted unless accompanied by parent or adult guardian. | |||
*'''X''': People under 16 not admitted. | |||
-->{{pb}} In May 2013, the MPAA changed the trailer approval band from "for appropriate audiences" to "to accompany this feature", but only when accompanying a feature film; for bands not accompanying a feature film, the text of the band remained the same. The font and style of the text on the graphic bands (green and red) was also changed at the time the green band was revised in 2013.<ref name="Dodd">{{cite web |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/check-the-box-to-decide-i_b_3110024 |last=Dodd |first=Chris |title=Check the Box to Decide if a Film Is Right for Your Family |date=April 18, 2013 |website=] |access-date=July 22, 2024}}</ref><ref name="Slate">{{cite web |url=https://slate.com/culture/2013/06/trailer-tags-sport-new-font-and-other-design-changes-heres-why-red-band-and-green-band-movie-previews-look-different.html |title=Have You Noticed Trailers Looking Different? |last=Wickman |first=Forrest |date=June 11, 2013 |website=] |access-date=July 22, 2024}}</ref> | |||
This content classification system originally was to have three ratings, ending with the Restricted rating (like the system then used in most of Canada); however, business pressure from cinema owners forced the MPAA's creation of an exclusively adult "X" film rating to protect them from local church-instigated complaints and lawsuits. Initially, the "X" rating was not an MPAA trademark: any producer not submitting a movie for MPAA rating could self-apply the "X" rating (or any other symbol or description that was not an MPAA trademark). | |||
* '''Yellow band''': A yellow title card was introduced in 2007 for trailers with restricted content hosted on the Internet, with the wording stipulating "The following preview has been approved only for age-appropriate Internet users."<ref name=Halbfinger/> According to guidelines released at the time, the MPAA stipulated that yellow-band trailers hosted on film studio websites should only be available between 9:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. (i.e., 21:00 through 04:00 local time), and that for other websites hosting yellow-band previews, at least 80% of its typical user base should be adults. The yellow card was reserved for trailers previewing films rated PG-13 or stronger.<ref name=Halbfinger>{{cite news |first=David M. |last=Halbfinger |date=June 13, 2007 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/13/movies/13yell.html |title=Attention, Web Surfers: The Following Film Trailer May Be Racy or Graphic |work=] |page=E1 |access-date=July 15, 2016}}</ref> An early example was a yellow-band trailer for Rob Zombie's '']'' (2007).<ref name=Halbfinger /> Yellow-band trailers were not widely adopted and were apparently abandoned within a few years: in 2013, '']'' reported that age-restricted trailers online were released with red bands.<ref name = Debruge>{{cite news|url = https://variety.com/2013/film/features/red-band-trailers-1200391717/|title = Trailers Jump on the Age-Restricted Red-Band Wagon|last = Debruge|first = Peter|date = May 2, 2013|accessdate = December 2, 2024|work = ]}}</ref> The 2019 edition of CARA's advertising guidelines reference only green and red bands for internet trailers.<ref name = AAR/> | |||
* '''Red band''': A red title card is issued to trailers which do not adhere to the MPA/CARA guidelines.<ref name=AAR /> It indicates that the trailer is approved for only "restricted" or "mature" audiences, and when it accompanies another feature, the wording states "The following restricted preview has been approved to accompany this feature only." For trailers hosted on the Internet, the wording is tweaked to "The following restricted preview has been approved for appropriate audiences."<ref name=AAR /> The red title card is reserved for trailers previewing R and NC-17 rated films: these trailers may include nudity, profanity, or other material deemed inappropriate for children.<ref>{{cite news |title=Cat-and-Mouse for a Trashy Trailer |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/movies/24kick.html |newspaper=The New York Times |date=February 23, 2010 |first=Brooks |last=Barnes |access-date=February 24, 2010}}</ref> Such trailers are officially meant to be locked behind age verification systems.<ref name=Halbfinger /> However, these "age gates" have been described as "ineffective"<ref name = Debruge/> and an "]";<ref name = Halbfinger/> furthermore, many ] channels which exist to syndicate film and television trailers do not feature any check, which has led to criticism from watchdog groups like ].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.commonsensemedia.org/youtube/what-are-red-band-trailers-on-youtube|title=What are red-band trailers on YouTube? |publisher=] |access-date=July 29, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190121083207/https://www.commonsensemedia.org/youtube/what-are-red-band-trailers-on-youtube |archive-date=January 21, 2019}}</ref> In 2007, red-band trailers were said to be virtually absent from theaters, due to worries that they would accidentally be shown before films released at a less-restrictive rating.<ref name = Halbfinger/> However, by the following year, they were noted as increasingly prevalent as the adoption of digital projection had largely alleviated these concerns.<ref>{{cite news|url = https://variety.com/2008/more/news/regal-greenlights-red-band-trailers-1117983114/|title = Regal greenlights red band trailers|last = McClintock|first = Pamela|date = May 28, 2008|accessdate = December 2, 2024|work = ]}}</ref> These trailers may only be shown theatrically before R-rated, NC-17-rated, or unrated movies.<ref name=AAR />{{rp|10}} | |||
=== |
=== Releases === | ||
]'']] | |||
Parents were confused as to whether or not M-rated films had more mature content than R-rated films. This was especially true in the pre-rating years 1965 to 1968 when the earlier, ambiguous "Suggested for Mature Audiences" advisory allowed explicit violence and adult subjects in a movie. Their confusion led to its replacement, in January ],<ref name="siskel">{{cite news |first=Gene |last=Siskel |authorlink=Gene Siskel |title=The Movies |work=] |page=B5 |date=1970-01-28}}</ref> by the GP rating. Also, the R rating's age was increased by one year, to 17. | |||
The MPA also creates blue feature tags for theatrical and home media use. Theatrical releases show the blue tag after the film, with home media releases showing it prior to the film.<ref name=AAR /> They feature the rating block and any content descriptors as assigned by the Classification and Rating Administration, the MPA logo, and links to MPA websites along the bottom. | |||
== History == | |||
The ratings then used, from 1970 to 1972, were: | |||
=== Replacement of the Hays Code === | |||
], who had become president of the ] in May 1966, deemed the ], which had been in place since 1930 and rigorously enforced since July 1, 1934, out of date and bearing "the odious smell of ]". Filmmakers were pushing at the boundaries of the code with some even going as far as filing lawsuits against the "Hays Code" by invoking the ]. Valenti cited examples such as '']'', which used prohibited language including "hump the hostess", and '']'', which was denied Code approval due to nudity, resulting in ], then a member studio of the MPAA, releasing it through a subsidiary. Valenti revised the Code to include the "SMA" (Suggested for Mature Audiences) advisory as a stopgap measure. To accommodate "the irresistible force of creators determined to make 'their films'{{-"}}, and to avoid "the possible intrusion of government into the movie arena", he developed a set of advisory ratings which could be applied after a film was completed. | |||
On November 1, 1968, the voluntary MPAA film rating system took effect,<ref name=desques/> with three organizations serving as its monitoring and guiding groups: the MPAA, the ] (NATO), and the International Film Importers & Distributors of America (IFIDA).<ref name="valenti">{{cite web|title=Re: The MPAA|url=https://www.skepticfiles.org/en001/mpaarate.htm|work=The Skeptic Tank|access-date=August 1, 2012|author=vbcsc03l@vax.csun.edu (snopes)|date=May 25, 1993|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170818092954/http://www.skepticfiles.org/en001/mpaarate.htm|archive-date=August 18, 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref> Only films that premiered in the United States after that date were affected by this.<ref name=Variety>{{cite news|work=]|title=MPAA Ratings in Effect But Not Being Widely Advertised - Yet|date=November 4, 1968|page=1}}</ref> ] was the only one of 75 top U.S. exhibitors who refused to use the ratings.<ref name=Variety/> ]' '']'' was the first film to receive the ], and was distributed by their Claridge Pictures subsidiary.<ref>{{cite news|work=]|title='X' Marks Spot For Only 1 of 1st MPAA Group: W7 'Girl'|date=October 22, 1968|page=1}}</ref> Two other films were rated X by the time the MPAA published their first weekly bulletin listing ratings: ]'s ''Sin With a Stranger'' and ]'s '']''. Both films were subsequently released by subsidiaries.<ref>{{cite news|work=]|first=A.D.|last=Murphy|title=Coding Old Pix New Wrinkle|date=November 20, 1968|page=1}}</ref> | |||
* '''Rated G''': All ages admitted. General audiences. | |||
* '''Rated GP''': All ages admitted. Parental guidance suggested. | |||
* '''Rated R''': Restricted. Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian. | |||
* '''Rated X''': No one under 17 admitted. | |||
The ratings used from 1968 to 1970 were:<ref>{{cite book |first=Matthew |last=Kennedy |title=Roadshow!: The Fall of Film Musicals in the 1960s |date=2014 |publisher=] |isbn=9780199925674 |page= }}</ref><ref>'']'', p. , May 30, 1969.</ref> | |||
In the GP-rating, the "G" meant the film was not age-restricted (like the G rating, "All Ages Admitted"), while the "P" told audiences that, despite the lack of age restriction, parental discretion was ''expected''. However, many misunderstood GP as an abbreviation for "General Patronage". The change from "M" to "GP" took effect on ], ];<ref name="beck">{{cite news |first=Joan |last=Beck |title=Children's Film Fare Skimpy |work=] |page=B3 |date= 1970-02-24}}</ref> again, "GP" confusion caused its revision to the "PG" rating, an abbreviation for ''Parental Guidance''. | |||
* '''Rated G''': Suggested for general audiences. | |||
* '''Rated M''': Suggested for mature audiences - Parental discretion advised. | |||
* '''Rated R''': Restricted – Persons under 16 not admitted, unless accompanied by parent or adult guardian. | |||
* '''Rated X''': Persons under <!--DO NOT CHANGE "16" TO 17 OR 18. THIS IS ACCURATE AND IS CORROBORATED BY THE ACCOMPANYING SOURCES -->16 not admitted. | |||
This content classification system originally was to have three ratings, with the intention of allowing parents to take their children to any film they chose. However, the National Association of Theatre Owners urged the creation of an adults-only category, fearful of possible legal problems in local jurisdictions. The "X" rating was not an MPAA trademark and would not receive the MPAA seal; any producer not submitting a film for MPAA rating could self-apply the "X" rating (or any other symbol or description that was not an MPAA trademark).<ref name="valenti" /> | |||
===Age problems with the R and X ratings=== | |||
=== From M to GP to PG === | |||
Simultaneously, in 1970, as the M rating changed to GP, the ages of viewers admitted to R- and X-rated movies was raised from 16 to 17.<ref name="siskel"/><ref name="beck"/> However, the age on the X rating varied per the jurisdiction, until the MPAA officially changed it to the NC-17 rating. Some newspaper advertisements clearly altered ages for R- and X-rated films to 17 years of age instead of 16 or 18. | |||
In 1970, the ages for "R" and "X" were raised from 16 to 17.<ref name="Krämer (2005)">{{cite book |first=Peter |last=Krämer |title=The New Hollywood: From Bonnie and Clyde to Star Wars |year=2005 |series=Short Cuts Series |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-231-85005-6 |oclc=952779968|page=}}</ref> Also, due to confusion over whether "M"-rated films were suitable for children,<ref name="Krämer (2005)" /> "M" was renamed to "GP" (for General audiences, Parental guidance suggested),<ref>{{cite book |first=Richard W. |last=Kroon |title=A/V A to Z: An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Media, Entertainment and Other Audiovisual Terms|oclc=910109344 |date=2014 |publisher=] |isbn=9780786457403 |page=}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Friedman |first1=Jane M. |title=The Motion Picture Rating System of 1968: A Constitutional Analysis of Self-Regulation by the Film Industry |journal=] |date=1973 |volume=73 |issue=2 |pages=185–240 |doi=10.2307/1121227|jstor=1121227 }}</ref> and in 1971, the MPAA added the content advisory "Some material not generally suitable for pre-teenagers".<ref>{{cite journal |last=Austin |first=Bruce A. |title=The Influence of the MPAA's Film-Rating System on Motion Picture Attendance: A Pilot Study |journal=The Journal of Psychology |date=September 1980 |volume=106 |issue=1 |pages=91–99 |doi=10.1080/00223980.1980.9915174 |s2cid=144395298 |language=en |issn=0022-3980}}</ref> On February 11, 1972,<ref>{{cite news|title=The Robesonian|url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/128727667/|access-date=November 5, 2017|date=February 11, 1972}}</ref> "GP" was revised to "PG".<ref name="Krämer (2005)" /> | |||
The ratings used from 1970 to 1972 were: | |||
===The GP rating is replaced=== | |||
* '''Rated G''': All ages admitted – General audiences. | |||
* '''Rated GP''': All ages admitted – Parental guidance suggested. | |||
* '''Rated R''': Restricted – Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian. | |||
* '''Rated X''': No one under 17 admitted. | |||
The ratings used from 1972 to 1984 were:<ref>{{cite journal |title=Brief Reviews: MPAA Rating Guide |date=February 2, 1981 |journal=] |page=}}</ref> | |||
By 1972, problems with the GP rating emerged; parents perceived it as too permissive, unindicative of a film's true content. In 1971, the MPAA had experimented with including a content advisory warning to GP-rated movies; the wording varied, but typically read: ''Contains material not generally suitable for pre-teenagers''. It was essentially an early form of the PG-13 rating; the warning was often indicated with an asterisk next to the GP letters. This short-lived rating can be called GP*; however, the number of such films quickly outnumbered GP films (without the warning), and the MPAA, in February 1972 (standardizing rating symbols used in movie advertising), announced that both the GP and the GP* ratings would be replaced with the new PG rating.<ref>{{cite news |author=United Press International |title=New 'PG' Film Rating Clarifies Picture Type |work=Chicago Tribune |page=W14 |date= 1972-02-03}}</ref> It has been used since. | |||
* '''Rated G''': General audiences – All ages admitted. | |||
* '''Rated PG''': Parental guidance suggested – Some material may not be suitable for / .<ref>{{Cite news |date=July 30, 1977 |title=Wording Changed in Classification of PG Movies |pages=34 |work=]}}</ref><!-- Please refrain from stating that "pre-teenagers" was changed to "children" in 1977 without a source. It is original research to alter the date based on personal recollections --> | |||
* '''Rated R''': Restricted – Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian. | |||
* '''Rated X''': No one under 17 admitted. | |||
=== Addition of the PG-13 rating === | |||
The ratings used from 1972 to 1983 were: | |||
In the 1980s, complaints about violence and gore in films such as '']'' and '']'', both of which received PG ratings, refocused attention on films seen by younger children.<ref>{{cite news|title=Show Business: Gremlins in the Rating System|url=https://time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,926639,00.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101029133825/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,926639,00.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=October 29, 2010|access-date=August 1, 2012|newspaper=Time|date=June 25, 1984|author=Richard Zoglin|author2=Meg Grant/Los Angeles|author3=Timothy Loughran/New York|agency=Time Inc}}</ref> According to author Filipa Antunes, this revealed the conundrum of a film that "could not be recommended for all children but could also not be repudiated for all children uniformly," leading to speculation that the rating system's PG classification "no longer matched a notion of childhood most parents in America could agree on."<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Antunes|first1=Filipa|title=Rethinking PG-13: Ratings and the Boundaries of Childhood and Horror|journal=Journal of Film and Video|date=Spring 2017|volume=69|issue=1|page=11|doi=10.5406/jfilmvideo.69.1.0027|s2cid=152216521|url=https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/62095/1/Accepted_manuscript.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200307114312/https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/62095/1/Accepted_manuscript.pdf|archive-date=March 7, 2020|url-status=live}}</ref> ], director of ''Temple of Doom'' and executive producer of ''Gremlins'', suggested a new intermediate rating between "PG" and "R".<ref>{{citation | url = https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/02/spielberg_qanda200802 |title = Q&A: Steven Spielberg on Indiana Jones | magazine = ] | date = January 2, 2008 | first= Jim|last= Windolf}}</ref> The "PG-13" rating was introduced on July 1, 1984, with the advisory "Parents Are Strongly Cautioned to Give Special Guidance for Attendance of Children Under 13 – Some Material May Be Inappropriate for Young Children". The first film to be released with this rating was the ] war film '']''.<ref name="thr01">{{cite news |title='Red Dawn' redo lands director, scribe; MGM will remake the 1984 action drama |first=Jay A. |last=Fernandez |author2=Borys Kit |url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/red-dawn-redo-lands-director-115292 |date=July 8, 2008 |work=] |access-date=May 12, 2017}}</ref> In 1985, the wording was simplified to "Parents Strongly Cautioned – Some Material May Be Inappropriate for Children Under 13".<ref>{{cite web |title=PG-13 Parents Strongly Cautioned Some Material May Be Inappropriate for Children Under 13 – Trademark Details |publisher=Justia |url=https://trademarks.justia.com/735/61/pg-13-parents-strongly-cautioned-some-material-may-be-inappropriate-for-children-under-13-73561730.html |access-date=October 7, 2016}}</ref> Around the same time, the MPAA won a ] infringement lawsuit against the producers and distributors of '']'' over a fraudulent application of its R rating to the uncut version of the film,<ref> {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140201221808/http://elr.carolon.net/BI/V05N10.PDF |date=February 1, 2014 }}</ref> and forced its member studios and several other home video distributors to put MPAA ratings on the packaging of MPAA-rated films via a settlement that would come into effect by fall that year.<ref>{{cite news|title=Dealers will label ratings on cassettes|url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19840811&id=TqxQAAAAIBAJ&pg=6885,2609406|access-date=January 31, 2014|newspaper=Eugene Register-Guard|date=August 11, 1984}}</ref> | |||
The ratings used from 1984 to 1990 were: | |||
* '''Rated G''': General Audiences—All ages admitted. | |||
* '''Rated |
* '''Rated G''': General audiences – All ages admitted. | ||
* '''Rated PG''': Parental guidance suggested – Some material may not be suitable for children. | |||
* '''Rated R''': Restricted—Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian. | |||
* '''Rated PG-13''': Parents strongly cautioned – Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. | |||
* '''Rated R''': Restricted – Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian. | |||
* '''Rated X''': No one under 17 admitted. | * '''Rated X''': No one under 17 admitted. | ||
=== Tennessee law === | |||
By then, the rating box contained the rating in boldface, the MPAA logo, and the content advisory warning. From the adoption of the system through the mid-1970s, mildly adult mainstream films such as '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'', and '']'' were commonly released with G ratings. However, by 1978, the G rating became over-associated with children's films, while the PG rating became the norm for "family" films. Most G-rated films from the system's early years are today perceived as having PG and PG-13 content. So, most G-rated movies from the 1960s and 1970s have often been re-rated PG in later years. | |||
In 1989, ] state law set the minimum age to view a theatrically exhibited R-rated film without adult accompaniment at 18, instead of 17, and categorized the admission of minors to X-rated films as a ]. The statute remained in force until 2013, when it was ruled to be in violation of the ]. The law was amended in 2013 as to prohibit persons under the age of 18 only if the film was considered "harmful to minors".<ref>{{cite web |title=TN Law: 18 to buy R-rated movie tickets |date=February 19, 2009 |work=] |publisher=] |location=Tennessee |url=https://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/9867382/tn-law-18-to-buy-r-rated-movie-tickets/ |access-date=February 21, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | first1=Robert E. Jr. | last1=Cooper |first2=William E. |last2=Young |first3=James E. |last3=Gaylord |title=Opinion No. 13-101 – Constitutionality of Criminal Statute Regarding Admission of Minors to Movies |date=December 6, 2013 |publisher=] |location=Nashville, Tennessee |url=https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/attorneygeneral/documents/ops/2013/op13-101.pdf |access-date=July 16, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180716212307/https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/attorneygeneral/documents/ops/2013/op13-101.pdf |archive-date=July 16, 2018 |url-status=live }}</ref> | |||
=== X replaced by NC-17 === | |||
In retrospect, some ratings of this era seem rather odd, though it must be remembered that the rating standards then were more liberal; violence, sexually suggestive speech and action, naked men, and mild cursing were acceptable in the lower ratings, while sexual intercourse (either implicit or explicit) and naked women were not. A movie's rating depended on the personal mores and opinion of the individual censors. For example, the G-rated '']'' (1967) had mild British cursing and explicit killings of RAF and Luftwaffe aircrew. '']'' was G-rated after being edited down in tone; however, it still contained American cursing and strong cowboy violence. ]'s cult horror film '']'' (1974), about a killer mutant infant, re-released in 1977, was rated PG despite being bloody per the standards of the time. On the other hand, both its sequels, '']'' (1978) and '']'' (1987) (released ]), were rated R. Nevertheless, Finland banned all three films per its film rating system. | |||
] | |||
In the rating system's early years, "X"-rated films such as '']'' (1969) and '']'' (1971) were understood to be unsuitable for children, but non-pornographic and intended for the general public. However, pornographic films often self-applied the non-trademarked "X" rating, and it soon became synonymous with ] in American culture.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://lasr.cs.ucla.edu/lasr-members/reiher/film_miscellany/ratings.html |title = The MPAA Rating Systems | date = September 16, 1994}}</ref> In late 1989 and early 1990, respectively, '']'' and '']'', two critically acclaimed ] featuring strong adult content, were released. Neither film was approved for an MPAA rating, limiting their commercial distribution and prompting criticism of the rating system's lack of a designation for such films.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover (No MPAA Rating)|url=https://www.rogerebert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19990101/REVIEWS/901010301/1023|work=RogerEbert.com|access-date=August 1, 2012|author=Roger Ebert|date=January 1, 1999}}{{Dead link|date=June 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (Unrated)|url=https://www.rogerebert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19900914/REVIEWS/9140301/1023|work=RogerEbert.com|access-date=August 1, 2012|first=Roger|last=Ebert|date=September 14, 1990}}{{Dead link|date=June 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> | |||
In September 1990, the MPAA introduced the rating NC-17 ("No Children Under 17 Admitted").<ref name="articles.latimes.com">{{cite news|title=X Film Rating Dropped and Replaced by NC-17 : Movies: Designation would bar children under 17. Move expected to clear the way for strong adult themes.|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-09-27-mn-1406-story.html|access-date=August 20, 2012|newspaper=Los Angeles Times|date=September 27, 1990|author=David J. Fox}}</ref> '']'', previously to be assigned an X rating, was the first film to receive the NC-17 rating instead.<ref name="articles.latimes.com" /><ref>{{cite news|title=Henry Miller Meets the MPAA : Movies: Philip Kaufman's very adult 'Henry & June,' a tale of the controversial author's days in Paris, apparently is the latest recipient of the dreaded X rating. Its U.S. release is in limbo.|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-08-27-ca-117-story.html|access-date=August 20, 2012|newspaper=Los Angeles Times|date=August 27, 1990|author=Jack Mathews}}</ref> Although films with an NC-17 rating had more mainstream distribution opportunities than X-rated films, many theaters refused to screen them, most entertainment media did not accept advertising for them, and many large video outlets refused to stock them.<ref name="Weinraub">{{cite news | url = https://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/21/movies/first-major-film-with-an-nc-17-rating-is-embraced-by-the-studio.html |title = First Major Film With an NC-17 Rating Is Embraced by the Studio | first = Bernard | last = Weinraub | date = July 21, 1995 | newspaper = ]}}</ref> | |||
Moreover, '']'' (1968) was rated R instead of M (despite its violence being no more explicit than, say, the James Bond films of the time), because of a chess-game-as-sexual-foreplay between the protagonist and antagonist. The scene would most likely give the film a PG-13 rating today, however. (], which contains explicit nudity not found in the original, was also rated R.) | |||
The ratings used from 1990 to 1996 were: | |||
In 1975, the phrase ''May Be Too Intense For Younger Children'' accompanied the PG rating featured in the advertising for '']'' (1975). | |||
* '''Rated G''': General audiences – All ages admitted. | |||
* '''Rated PG''': Parental guidance suggested – Some material may not be suitable for children. | |||
* '''Rated PG-13''': Parents strongly cautioned – Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. | |||
* '''Rated R''': Restricted – Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian. | |||
* '''Rated NC-17''': No children under 17 admitted. | |||
In 1996,<ref>{{cite book |title=Video Watchdog |issue=31–36 |year=1996 |publisher=Tim & Donna Lucas |page=|title-link=Video Watchdog }}</ref> the minimum age for NC-17-rated films was raised to 18,<ref>{{cite web |first=Tim |last=Masters |title=Will Shame change the game for the NC-17 rating? |date=30 November 2011 |publisher=] |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15921903 |access-date=January 10, 2021 |quote=The rating restricts anyone under the age of 18 from attending a film.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Brian |last=Brooks |title=NATO Threatens Weinstein Co With NC-17 Rating For 'Bully' |date=February 28, 2012 |website=] |url=https://deadline.com/2012/02/in-bully-fight-nato-threatens-twc-with-nc-17-237532/ |access-date=January 10, 2021 |quote=In most cases, that means enforcement as though the movies were rated NC-17 — where no one under the age of 18 can be admitted even with accompanying parents or guardians."}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |first=Steven |last=Zeitchik |title=High hopes, low notes for film world's NC-17 rating |date=August 18, 2012 |newspaper=] |url=https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-mn-ca-nc-17-20120819-story.html |access-date=January 10, 2021 |quote=Formally instituted in 1990, the restrictive rating aimed to signal moviegoers that a film included adult-oriented — but not necessarily pornographic — content and made those movies off-limits to anyone under 18.}}</ref> by rewording it to "No One 17 and Under Admitted".<ref>{{cite book |first=Kevin |last=Sandler |title=The Naked Truth: Why Hollywood Doesn't Make X-rated Movies |year=2007 |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-8135-4146-4 |page=}}</ref> The ratings used since 1996 are:<ref name="film ratings" /> | |||
In the late 1970s, the PG rating was reworded, the word ''pre-teenagers'' replaced with ''children''. An analysis of the proportion of films rated G and PG at that time (corresponding with a cultural shift to stricter rating standards) shows that fewer G ratings were issued, while more family films were rated PG with the less restrictive "children" label. By the early 1980s, the phrase "pre-teenagers" was almost unused, and, in 1984, the PG-13 rating (see ]) was established, restoring the clear distinction (see ]) between films of lighter and heavier content. | |||
* '''Rated G''': General audiences – All ages admitted. | |||
* '''Rated PG''': Parental guidance suggested – Some material may not be suitable for children. | |||
* '''Rated PG-13''': Parents strongly cautioned – Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. | |||
* '''Rated R''': Restricted – Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian. | |||
* '''Rated NC-17''': Adults only – No one 17 and under admitted. | |||
Since September 1990, the MPAA has included explanations, or "descriptors", of why each film received an "R" rating, allowing parents to know what type of content the film contained. For example, the descriptor for '']'' read "Rated for brutal violence including a rape, some strong sexual content, nudity and language."<ref>{{cite news |title=MPAA ratings: June 30, 2010 |date=June 30, 2010 |work=] |url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/mpaa-ratings-june-30-2010-25128/ |access-date=October 19, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=MPAA ratings: Sept. 1, 2010 |date=September 1, 2010 |work=] |url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/mpaa-ratings-sept-1-2010-27323/ |access-date=October 19, 2021}}</ref> | |||
By the end of the 1970s, '']'' (1979) was the last commercially successful mainstream film that was rated G.{{Fact|date=March 2009}} (The re-edited director's cut became PG for sci-fi action violence and some cursing, although the ratings-related content was effectively unchanged, thus showing that the standards for the G rating had narrowed significantly between its use in the 1960s and 1970s and in later decades.) Since then, such movies would be released with a PG rating. That transition was when live-action Disney movies, such as '']'', '']'', and '']'' were rated PG. | |||
By the early 2000s, the MPAA began applying rating explanations for PG, PG-13, and NC-17-rated films as well.<ref name="ratingmpaa">{{cite magazine|url=https://ew.com/article/1999/11/19/backstreet-boys-plan-new-album-and-tour/|title=The Backstreet Boys plan a new album and tour|author=Josh Wolk|date=November 19, 1999|magazine=Entertainment Weekly|access-date=January 6, 2018|archive-date=October 21, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121021014740/http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,84811,00.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url = https://www.motionpictures.org/Ratings_hstry_Rvsns.asp | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090530061222/http://mpaa.org/Ratings_hstry_Rvsns.asp |title = Changes in the Rating System | publisher = Motion Picture Association of America|archive-date= May 30, 2009}}</ref> | |||
===The addition of the PG-13 rating=== | |||
Before ], ], there was a minor trend of cinema straddling the PG and R ratings (per MPAA records of appeals to its decisions in the early 1980s), suggesting a needed middle ground. One such movie was '']'', released in early 1978. Although animated, there was very explicit violence, but what made the film alarming was that the targets of the violence were rabbits. This led to a preconceived notion among the public that this film was for kids; however, it certainly was too violent (but it was given the equivalent of a G rating by the BBFC despite the violence being no bloodier than films rated 12 today). Also, Disney's PG-rated '']'' (1981, distributed by ] in the USA) alarmed parents with explicit fantasy violence and blood-letting. In summer of 1982, '']'' (1982) was re-rated PG on appeal, although originally rated R for strong supernatural violence and marijuana-smoking parents. | |||
== Rating components == | |||
Because of such successful appeals, based upon artistic intent, many mild, mainstream movies were rated PG instead of R because of only ''some'' thematically necessary strong cursing, e.g. '']'', '']'', '']'', and '']''. These censorship reversals were consequence, in large measure, of the 1970s precedent established by '']''.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/08/24/film.pg13.at20.ap/|date=2004-08-24|title=Gremlins, bloody hearts, big changes|publisher=] (])|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20041012115514/www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/08/24/film.pg13.at20.ap/|archivedate=2004-12-10}}</ref> Had these movies been released after 1984, they likely would have been rated PG-13 because of their content. | |||
=== Violence === | |||
Depictions of violence are permitted under all ratings but must be moderated for the lower ones. Violence must be kept to a minimum in G-rated films and must not be intense in PG-rated films. Depictions of intense violence are permitted under the PG-13 rating, but violence that is both realistic and extreme or persistent will generally require at least an R rating.<ref name="rating rules">{{cite web |title=Classification and Rating Rules |date=January 1, 2010 |publisher=Classification and Rating Administration |pages=–8 |url=https://www.filmratings.com/content/downloads/rating_rules.pdf |access-date=November 30, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141204235546/http://filmratings.com/downloads/rating_rules.pdf |archive-date=December 4, 2014 |url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
=== Language === | |||
In 1984, explicit violence in the PG-rated films '']'' and '']'' were "the straws that broke the parents' backs". Their complaints led Hollywood figure ], director of ''Temple of Doom'' and producer of ''Gremlins'', to suggest a new rating, PG-14, to MPAA president ]. Instead, on conferring with cinema owners, Valenti and the MPAA on ], ], introduced the PG-13 rating, allowing in children over 13 years of age without a parent or an adult guardian, but warning parents about potentially shocking violence, cursing, and mature subject matter that may be inappropriate for children under 13; though weaker than an R rating, PG-13 is the strongest unrestricted rating. The first widely distributed PG-13 movie was '']'' (1984), followed by '']'' (1984), and '']'' (1984), although '']'' was the first film so rated by the board.<ref></ref><ref></ref> | |||
Snippets of language that go "beyond polite conversation" are permitted in G-rated films, but no stronger words are present. ] may be present in PG rated films, and use of one of the harsher "sexually-derived words" as an expletive will initially incur at least a PG-13 rating. More than one occurrence will usually incur an R rating as will the usage of such an expletive in a sexual context.<ref name="rating rules" /> Known as the "automatic language rule", the rule has been applied differently depending on the subject matter of the film. For example, '']'' (1976) received a PG rating after appealing it from an R, despite multiple instances of strong language, likely because of its historic subject matter. The automatic language rule is arguably the rule that can most often be successfully appealed.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Vaughn |first=Stephen |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=B7MkaxKGTGAC&dq=automatic+language+rule+motion+pictures+movies+film&pg=PA48 |title=Freedom and Entertainment: Rating the Movies in an Age of New Media |date=2006 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-85258-6 |pages=47–51 |language=en}}</ref> The ratings board may award a PG-13 rating passed by a two-thirds majority if they believe the language is justified by the context or by the manner in which the words are used.<ref name="rating rules" /> | |||
It is sometimes claimed that films rated ] are only able to use the expletive '']'' once to avoid an ] for language.<ref>{{cite web|last=Byrd|first=Matthew|date=2018-04-02|title=Ready Player One's F-Bomb Is One of the Best Ever|url=https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/ready-player-ones-f-bomb-is-one-of-the-best-ever/|publisher=]|access-date=2022-01-01}}</ref> There are several exceptional cases in which PG-13-rated films contain ]: ''],'' where the word is used twice in the same scene;<ref>{{cite interview|title=Keith Coogan, Star of Adventures in Babysitting and Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's Dead, Indulges Our Nostalgia |date=December 12, 2011 |work=] |interviewer=Patti Greco |subject=Keith Coogan |url=https://www.vulture.com/2011/12/keith-coogan-star-of-dont-tell-mom-the-babysitters-dead-indulges-our-nostalgia.html |access-date=August 3, 2014}}</ref> '']'' which has three uses;<ref>{{cite web|last=Brown|first=Ben|date=November 12, 2010|title='How Do You Know' Likely to Be Re-cut to Avoid R-Rating for Language|url=https://collider.com/how-do-you-know-mpaa-rating/|publisher=]|access-date=2022-01-01}}</ref> '']'', which has four uses (six in the "Taylor's Version" cut);<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sharpe |first=Lynn |date=2024-03-15 |title=Every F-Bomb In Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour Movie & Timestamps For When They Happen |url=https://screenrant.com/taylor-swift-eras-tour-movie-disney-plus-f-bomb-timestamps/ |access-date=2024-05-16 |website=ScreenRant |language=en}}</ref> ''The Hip Hop Project'', which has seventeen uses;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.moviefone.com/2007/04/27/the-hip-hop-project-rated-pg-13-despite-17-f-words/|title='The Hip Hop Project' Rated PG-13, Despite 17 F-Words – The Moviefone Blog|access-date=March 31, 2012|date=April 27, 2007|archive-date=May 4, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120504162310/http://blog.moviefone.com/2007/04/27/the-hip-hop-project-rated-pg-13-despite-17-f-words/|url-status=dead}}</ref> and '']'', a documentary of soldiers in the ], which has 42 uses of the word with two used sexually.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.screenit.com/movies/2005/gunner_palace.html|publisher=screenit.com|title=Screen It! Parental Review: Gunner Palace|access-date=July 26, 2007|date=March 11, 2005}}</ref> Both '']'', a 2011 documentary about bullying, and '']''—which has two instances of the word—released in 2013, were originally given R ratings on grounds of the language but the ratings were dropped to PG-13 after successful appeals (albeit ''Bully'' needed some cuts).<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/bully-rating-weinstein-edits-307418/ |work=] |title=Weinstein Co. Changes Course, Edits 'Bully' for PG-13 Rating |first=Pamela |last=McClintock |date=April 5, 2012 |access-date=May 15, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/nov/14/philomena-weinstein-wins-ratings-appeal-steve-coogan|title=Philomena: Weinsteins win MPAA appeal against R rating|date=November 14, 2013|access-date=April 2, 2014|newspaper=The Guardian|last1=Pulver|first1=Andrew}}</ref> '']'', however, was given an R rating for one scene using the word ''fuck'' several times in a speech therapy context; the MPAA refused to recertify the film on appeal, despite the ] reducing the British rating from a 15 rating to a 12A on the grounds that the uses of the expletive were not directed at anyone.<ref>{{cite web|date=2010-11-01|title=To the MPAA ratings board, 'The King's Speech' is just as bad as 'Saw 3D'|url=https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2010/11/the-mpaa-cracks-down-on-bad-language-in-the-kings-speech.html|access-date=2022-01-01}}</ref> | |||
It took a year for the PG-13 logotype to metamorphose to its current form, as noted below. | |||
This was satirized in the 2005 film '']'', in which the film producer Chili Palmer (]) says: "Do you know that unless you're willing to use the R rating, you can only say the 'F' word once? You know what I say? Fuck that. I'm done."<ref name="dog">{{cite web|date=March 25, 2013|title=Using the F-word in PG-13/12A movies|url=https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/using-the-f-word-in-pg-1312a-movies/|publisher=]|access-date=2022-01-01}}</ref> Often film producers will use the word for a scene of gravitas or humor and then bleep out any further instances with sound effects.<ref name="dog" /> | |||
The ratings used from 1983 to 1985 were: | |||
Some forms of media are cut post-release so as to obtain a PG-13 rating for ] release or to feature on an Internet streaming service that will not carry films rated higher than PG-13. In 2020, ] of '']'' was released on ] after cuts by ] to remove two of the three instances of ''fuck'' in the musical to qualify it as PG-13 under MPAA guidelines.<ref name="ham">{{cite web|last=Alexander|first=Julia|date=2020-06-23|title=Hamilton drops two uses of "fuck" to land on Disney Plus|url=https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/23/21300393/hamilton-disney-plus-lin-manuel-miranda-fuck-mpaa-rating-streaming|publisher=The Verge|access-date=2022-01-01}}</ref> | |||
*'''Rated G''': General Audiences — All ages admitted. | |||
*'''Rated PG''': Parental Guidance Suggested — Some material may not be suitable for children. | |||
*'''Rated PG-13''': Parents are strongly cautioned to give special guidance for attendance of children under 13 - Some material may be inappropriate for young children | |||
*'''Rated R''': Restricted — Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian. | |||
*'''Rated X''': No one under 17 admitted. | |||
A study of popular American teen-oriented films rated PG and PG-13 from 1980 to 2006 found that in those films, teenaged characters use more and stronger profanity than adult ones in the same movies.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last1=Cressman |first1=Dale L. |last2=Callister |first2=Mark |last3=Robinson |first3=Tom |last4=Near |first4=Chris |date=May 2009|title=Swearing in the cinema: An analysis of profanity in US teen-oriented movies, 1980–2006 |journal=Journal of Children and Media |volume=3 |issue=2 |pages=117–135 |doi=10.1080/17482790902772257 |s2cid=38118008 |issn=1748-2798 }}</ref> However, the study found that the overall amount of such language had declined somewhat since the 1980s.<ref name=":0" /> | |||
The ratings then used from 1985 to 1990 were: | |||
=== Substances === | |||
*'''Rated G''': GENERAL AUDIENCES—All ages admitted. | |||
{{See also|Product placement#Tobacco}} | |||
*'''Rated PG''': PARENTAL GUIDANCE SUGGESTED—Some material may not be suitable for children. | |||
Drug use content is restricted to PG-13 and above.<ref name="rating rules" /> An example of an otherwise PG film being assigned a PG-13 rating for a drug reference (momentary, along with brief language) is '']''. The film contained only mild profanity, but was rated PG-13 because of a scene where ] were briefly visible. Critic ] criticized the MPAA for the rating and called it "a wild overreaction".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.rogerebert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031116/ANSWERMAN/311160302|title=Movie Answer Man|date=November 16, 2003|access-date=July 26, 2007|first=Roger|last=Ebert|newspaper=]|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071012002627/http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20031116%2FANSWERMAN%2F311160302|archive-date=October 12, 2007}}</ref> | |||
*'''Rated PG-13''': PARENTS STRONGLY CAUTIONED—Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. | |||
*'''Rated R''': RESTRICTED—Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian. | |||
*'''Rated X''': NO ONE UNDER 17 ADMITTED | |||
In May 2007, the MPAA announced that depictions of cigarette smoking would be considered in a film's rating.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mpaa.org/press_releases/mpaa%20statement%20smoking%20as%20a%20rating%20factor%20_2_.pdf|title=Film Rating Board to Consider Smoking as a Factor|date=May 10, 2007|access-date=July 26, 2007|publisher=MPAA |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070612173748/http://mpaa.org/press_releases/mpaa+statement+smoking+as+a+rating+factor+_2_.pdf <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archive-date=June 12, 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.universalpictures.com/legal/tobacco|title=Universal Pictures Policy Regarding Tobacco Depictions in Films|date=April 16, 2007|access-date=August 5, 2008|publisher=]}}</ref> Anti-smoking advocates stated that the child-friendly PG rating was inappropriate for the 2011 ]-animated film '']'', which included over 60 depictions of characters smoking.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/2011-03-08-rango08_ST_N.htm|work=USA Today|first=Rita|last=Rubin|title=PG-rated 'Rango' has anti-smoking advocates fuming|date=March 8, 2011}}</ref> | |||
With the PG rating still being used unchanged, and with the wordiness of the original PG-13 rating text, it remained unclear to some parents, at first, which rating of PG or PG-13 films was considered more restrictive. A year later, revised language on the PG-13 rating logo clarified this issue (as seen on advertising for the film "Silverado," for example). Until 1990, some of the same content that prompted the creation of the PG-13 rating was in some PG films. For example, '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'' and '']'' were five late-1980s PG releases containing PG-13-level innuendo. Additionally, four films in this period — '']'', '']'', '']'', and '']''— were able to use the word "fuck" at least once and get a PG rating. | |||
=== Nudity === | |||
The socially and culturally conservative ratings board quickly reacted to protesting parents, and PG-13 films outnumbered PG films; content standards were narrowed for PG classification. At decade's turn, PG-13 rating standards also were narrowed, at least for violence, as the censors became more likely to issue R ratings to violent films showing explicit blood-letting and the killing of policemen. Except for a brief reversal in 1994, the number of PG-13 films outnumbered the PG films since, and the proportion of R-rated films (beginning with the boom of privately-viewed home video in the late 1980s) has generally increased at the expense of unrestricted films. Only within the last two years{{Specify|date=March 2009}} has there been an indication that the proportion of restricted films has slightly decreased as a cultural trend. | |||
] is restricted to PG and above, and anything that constitutes more than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating. Nudity that is sexually oriented will generally require an R rating.<ref name="rating rules" /> Since 2006, films have been flagged by the MPAA for carrying nudity. In 2010, the MPAA flagged three films specifically for "]", precipitated by parental pressure in response to '']''.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.spanglemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=551 |title=Spangle Magazine |date=October 11, 2010 |access-date=February 1, 2011 |first=Brian |last=Thompson |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110716113755/http://www.spanglemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=551 |archive-date=July 16, 2011 }}</ref> In 2018, MPAA Ratings Chair Joan Graves clarified the MPA's position by stating that "we don't usually define as male or female ... usually, we just mention partial nudity, graphic nudity."<ref>{{cite interview |subject=] |publisher=]|title=Rating Nudity|date=October 23, 2018|url=https://vimeo.com/296708983|access-date=June 18, 2021}}</ref> | |||
=== Sex === | |||
Some films from before the addition of PG-13 retain their original ratings; however modern standards would give them a higher rating. For example, '']'', though initially rated G, is dark enough that by today's standards would receive at least a PG rating{{fact|date= March 2009}}. Because the ratings of older films go unchanged, people may be misled into associating their ratings with modern ratings. | |||
The MPAA does not have any explicit criteria for sexual content other than excluding sex scenes from G-rated films.<ref name="rating rules" /> | |||
== Effects of ratings == | |||
===NC-17 replaces X=== | |||
=== ''The Exorcist'' === | |||
{{main|The Exorcist}} | |||
Prior to the release of '']'' at the end of 1973, CARA president Aaron Stern took the unusual step of calling director ] to tell him that since it was an "important film", it would be rated R and could be released without any cuts.<ref name="Shock Value">{{cite book |last1=Zinoman |first1=Jason |author-link1=Jason Zinoman |title=Shock Value: How a Few Eccentric Outsiders Gave Us Nightmares, Conquered Hollywood, and Invented Modern Horror |date=2011 |publisher=Penguin Books |isbn=9781101516966 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xKMQiZOQc04C&pg=PT51|access-date=March 3, 2019|chapter=Chapter Five: 'Shock or Awe'}}</ref> The film drew huge crowds upon its release, many of whom were so horrified by the film they vomited and/or fainted;<ref name="Klemesrud NYT article">{{cite news|last=Klemesrud|first=Judy|author-link=Judy Lee Klemesrud|title=They Wait Hours to Be Shocked|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1974/01/27/archives/they-wait-hoursto-be-shocked-the-exorcist-got-mixed-reviews-why-has.html|newspaper=]|date=January 27, 1974|access-date=March 1, 2019}}</ref> a psychiatric journal would later document four cases of "cinematic ]" induced by the film.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bozzuto |first1=James C. |title=Cinematic neurosis following "The Exorcist": Report of four cases. |journal=] |date=July 1, 1975 |volume=161 |issue=1 |pages=43–48 |doi=10.1097/00005053-197507000-00005 |pmid=1151359 |s2cid=9570535 |issn=0022-3018}}</ref> | |||
Among those patrons were many children, not always accompanied by adults. This left many commentators incredulous that the ratings board would have found that a film with disturbing scenes such as a possessed 12-year-old girl masturbating with a ] was acceptable for children to see. Roy Meacham, a Washington, D.C., critic who had praised the film while admonishing parents not to take their children to it, recalled those children he did see leaving showings "drained and drawn afterward; their eyes had a look I had never seen before." Authorities in Washington invoked a municipal ordinance that would have prevented ''any'' minors from seeing the film, threatening theater owners with arrest if they did.<ref name="Meacham NYT piece">{{cite news|last=Meacham|first=Roy|title=How Did 'The Exorcist' Escape an X Rating?|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1974/02/03/archives/how-did-theexorcist-escape-an-x-rating-movies.html|newspaper=]|date=February 3, 1974|access-date=March 1, 2019}}</ref> | |||
In the rating system's early years, ] movies, such as '']'' (1969), '']'' (1971), and '']'' (1972), could earn ] nominations and win awards, yet film makers continue disputing the true effects of an X rating. | |||
Meacham insinuated that the board had succumbed to pressure from Warner Brothers, which had spent $10 million, more than twice its original budget, making the film; an X rating would have seriously limited ''The Exorcist''{{'}}s commercial prospects. '']'' critic ] echoed his criticism. "If ''The Exorcist'' had cost under a million or been made abroad," she wrote, "it would almost certainly be an X film. But when a movie is as expensive as this one, the doesn't dare give it an X."<ref name="Shock Value" /> | |||
Although '']'' (1972), '']'', and '']'' were rated X, the rating was not made a copyrighted trademark of the MPAA. Pornographers often self-applied it for business reasons, to the degree that it became acceptable in their advertising, and then the eponym for ] in American mainstream culture; not the rating's original intent. Ironically, its overuse led pornographers to rate their films XXX to increase the success of their marketing efforts.<ref></ref> | |||
In 1974, ] took over as president of the board. During his interview process, he had asked to screen recent films that had sparked ratings controversies, including ''The Exorcist''. "How could anything be worse than this?" he recalled thinking later. "And it got an R?" After he took over as head, he would spearhead efforts to be more aggressive with the X rating, especially over violence in films. In 1976, he got the board to give the Japanese ] '']'' an X rating for its graphic violence, the first time a film had earned that rating purely for violence.<ref name="Shock Value" /> | |||
This concern led many newspapers and television stations to refuse advertisements for X-rated movies; some cinema owners forbade the exhibition of such films. Such policies led to the distributors' compromise with ] about his classic zombie horror film '']'' (1978): participating NATO cinema owners would enforce the audience restriction rating, but the letter X would not appear in advertising; instead, the following content warning advisory message would be displayed: "There is no explicit sex in this picture; however, there are scenes of violence, which may be considered shocking. No one under 17 will be admitted." | |||
=== Commercial viability of the NC-17 rating === | |||
The MPAA stresses the ''voluntary'' nature of their film rating system, denying that it could inhibit a film's commercial distribution and so deny the businessman-filmmaker the right to earn a profit and make a living. Horror films, such as the sequel '']'' (1985) and '']'' (1985) were so marketed. Some, such as the horror parody '']'' did earn an adult rating, while others, such as ''Guardian of Hell'' and ''Zombie'', used such violent content warnings along with their R ratings (sometimes deliberately surrendered) as profitable marketing ploys. | |||
The NC-17 rating has been described as a "kiss of death" for any film that receives it.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/1999/jul/25/2|title=Dead cert: the NC-17 rating|newspaper=]|date=July 25, 1999|access-date=May 1, 2018}}</ref> Like the X rating it replaced, NC-17 limits a film's prospects of being marketed, screened in theaters and sold in major video outlets.<ref name="Weinraub"/> In 1995, ] released the big-budget film '']''; it became the most widely distributed film with an NC-17 rating (showing in 1,388 cinemas simultaneously), but it was a box office failure that grossed only 45% of its $45 million budget.<ref>{{cite web|title=Greatest Box-Office Bombs, Disasters and Film Flops: The Most Notable Examples 1995 – 2|url=https://www.filmsite.org/greatestflops16.html|work=filmsite|publisher=AMC Network Entertainment LLC|access-date=October 1, 2012|first=Tim |last=Dirks|year=2012}}</ref> Some modest successes can be found among NC-17 theatrical releases, however; ] released the original NC-17-rated American edition of the European film '']'' (2003) in theaters in the United States, and later released both the original NC-17 and the cut R-rated version on DVD. A Fox Searchlight ] said the NC-17 rating did not give them much trouble in releasing this film (they had no problem booking it, and only the ] newspaper '']'' refused to take the film's ad), and Fox Searchlight was satisfied with this film's United States box office result.<ref name="lahiding">{{cite news|title=NC-17 comes out from hiding|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-apr-20-et-dutka20-story.html|access-date=October 1, 2012|newspaper=Los Angeles Times|date=April 20, 2004|first=Elaine |last=Dutka}}</ref> Another notable exception is '']'' (2004), an NC-17 foreign-language film that grossed $5.2 million in the United States theatrically<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl1581614593/ | title = Bad Education | website = ]}}</ref> (a moderate success for a foreign-language film<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000724461 |title=Foreign affairs |newspaper=] |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090703133158/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000724461 |archive-date=July 3, 2009 }}</ref>). | |||
In 2000, the ] called the NC-17 rating an "abject failure", for causing filmmakers to re-edit films to receive an R rating, rather than accept an NC-17 rating. They argued that this was "not only compromising filmmakers' visions, but also greatly increasing the likelihood that adult-oriented movies are seen by the very groups for which they are not intended."<ref>{{cite web |title=DGA Task Force on Violence and Social Responsibility Statement in Response to FTC Report on Violence |url=https://www.dga.org/News/PressReleases/2000/0914-DGA-Task-Force-on-Violence-and-Social-Responsibility-Statement.aspx|publisher=]|date=September 14, 2000|access-date=May 1, 2018}}</ref> As of March 2007, according to '']'', MPAA chairman Dan Glickman had been made aware of the attempts to introduce a new rating, or find ways to reduce the stigma of the NC-17 rating. Film studios have pressured the MPAA to retire the NC-17 rating, because of its likely impact on their film's box office revenue.<ref>{{cite web|title=MPAA Creating 'Hard-R', A More PC Version of NC-17|url=https://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/8386|work=Bloody Disgusting|publisher=Bloody Disgusting LLC|access-date=October 1, 2012|date=March 12, 2007|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121010230811/http://bloody-disgusting.com/news/8386/|archive-date=October 10, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=MPAA Wants New Rating For 'Hard R'|url=http://blog.moviefone.com/2007/03/10/mpaa-wants-new-rating-for-hard-r/|work=Moviefone|publisher=AOL Inc|access-date=October 1, 2012|first=Ryan |last=Stewart |date=March 10, 2007}}</ref> | |||
In ], two critically-acclaimed mainstream art films, '']'' and '']'' were released featuring very strong sexual and violent content. Neither was approved for an R rating, hence had limited commercial distribution and so were claimed to suffer commercially as unrated films. Again, in answer to such dilemmas between art and commerce, ] (writer and director of '']'') suggested establishing an RR rating for such mainstream adult drama films. | |||
In 2010, the MPAA controversially decided to give the film '']'' an NC-17 rating. ] challenged this decision, and the MPAA ended up awarding the same cut an R rating on appeal. Actor ], who stars in the film, noted that NC-17 films are not allowed wide advertisement and that, given the refusal of major cinema chains like ] and ] to show NC-17 rated movies, many such films will never be accessible to people who live in markets that do not have art house theatres.<ref>{{cite web |title=Ryan Gosling Says NC-17 Rating 'Stigmatizes' 'Blue Valentine'|url=http://www.mtv.com/news/1653780/ryan-gosling-says-nc-17-rating-stigmatizes-blue-valentine/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141007223634/http://www.mtv.com/news/1653780/ryan-gosling-says-nc-17-rating-stigmatizes-blue-valentine/|url-status=dead|archive-date=October 7, 2014|work=MTV News|publisher=Viacom International Inc|access-date=June 4, 2015|first=Jocelyn |last=Vena |date=December 8, 2010}}</ref> | |||
On ], ], the MPAA introduced the rating NC-17 ("No Children Under 17 Admitted") as its official, standardized rating allowing the commercial distribution of adult-oriented cinema bearing the MPAA seal. This rating, as opposed to no rating, would in practice be an indication that the film is not pornography. (Pornographers tend not to submit their films for rating, since pornography is either independently distributed to cinemas or directly to video distributors). Thus, for the first time, people could differentiate between MPAA-rated adult mainstream cinema and pornography, leaving the definition of "obscene" to the viewer. ]'s '']'' was the first film to receive the NC-17 rating. | |||
Legal scholar ] wrote that the MPAA has a "masterpiece exception" that it has made for films that would ordinarily earn an NC-17 rating, if not for the broader artistic masterpiece that requires the violence depicted as a part of its message. She cites '']'', with its bloody depiction of the ], as an example. This exception is troubling, Hilden argues, because it ignores context and perspective in evaluating other films and favors conventional films over edgier films that contribute newer and more interesting points to public discourse about violence.<ref>{{cite news |last=Hilden |first=Julie |author-link= Julie Hilden|title=Free Speech and the Concept of "Torture Porn": Why are Critics So Hostile to "Hostel II"?|url=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20070716.html|access-date=March 22, 2011|agency=]'s Writ|date=July 16, 2007}}</ref> | |||
The ratings used from 1990-1996 were: | |||
=== Issuance of "R Cards" === | |||
*'''Rated G''': GENERAL AUDIENCES—All ages admitted | |||
Starting in 2004, GKC Theatres (since absorbed into ]) introduced "R Cards", which parents could obtain for their children under 17 to see R-rated films without adult accompaniment. The cards generated much controversy; MPAA president Jack Valenti said in a news article: "I think it distorts and ruptures the intent of this voluntary film ratings system. All R-rated films are not alike."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=131693&page=1|title='R-Cards' Let Teens See Racy Movies: Some in Industry Say Cards Defeat Purpose of Ratings|date=June 1, 2004|publisher=] |access-date=July 7, 2018 |first=Barbara|last=Pinto |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110202123025/https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=131693&page=1 |archive-date=February 2, 2011}}</ref> John Fithian, the president of the National Association of Theatre Owners, also said that the cards can be harmful. He noted in a news article for the '']'' that the R rating is "broad enough to include relatively family-friendly fare such as '']'' and '']'' (which were both rated R for language) along with films that push the extremes of violence, including '']'' and '']''".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0524/p12s02-lifp.html |title=Under 17 not admitted without R-card|newspaper=]|first=Amanda|last=Paulson|date=May 24, 2004|access-date=July 26, 2007}}</ref> | |||
*'''Rated PG''': PARENTAL GUIDANCE SUGGESTED—Some material may not be suitable for children | |||
*'''Rated PG-13''': PARENTS STRONGLY CAUTIONED—Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. | |||
*'''Rated R''': RESTRICTED—Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian. | |||
*'''Rated NC-17''': NO CHILDREN UNDER 17 ADMITTED | |||
== Criticisms == | |||
In practice, however, communications media that refused to advertise pornography and X-rated films also refused to advertise NC-17 movies as equally unsuitable for family consumption through their venues, effectively transferring censorship authority to cinema landlords' decisions to permit or deny the exhibition of such movies. In addition, socially conservative and religious groups pressured video distribution businesses (e.g. ] and ]), to not rent or sell NC-17 movies, citing "family values." Nevertheless, the stores do rent and sell the movies, provided they are not explicitly labeled as such, i.e. are in a plain wrapper. In 1995, the NC-17 rating age limit was subtly increased by one year, by rewording it from "No Children Under 17 Admitted" to "No One 17 And Under Admitted". | |||
=== Emphasis on sex and language versus violence === | |||
The film rating system has had a number of high-profile critics. Film critic ] called for replacing the NC-17 rating with separate ratings for pornographic and non-pornographic adult film.<ref>{{cite web|last=Ebert|first=Roger|url=https://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/ugly-reality-in-movie-ratings|title=Ugly reality in movie ratings|publisher=]|date=September 24, 2000|access-date=May 1, 2018}}</ref> Ebert argued that the system places too much emphasis on sex, while allowing the portrayal of massive amounts of gruesome violence. The uneven emphasis on sex versus violence is echoed by other critics, including ], as well as many filmmakers. Moreover, Ebert argued that the rating system is geared toward looking at trivial aspects of the film (such as the number of times a profane word is used) rather than at the general theme of the film (for example, if the film realistically depicts the consequences of sex and violence). He called for an A (adults only) rating, to indicate films high in violence or mature content that should not be marketed to teenagers, but do not have NC-17 levels of sex. He also called for the NC-17 rating to be removed and to have the X rating revived. He felt that everyone understood what X-rated means, while fewer people understood what NC-17 meant.<ref>{{cite magazine |first=Paul |last=Tassi |date=December 14, 2010 |url=https://www.joblo.com/movie-news/roger-ebert-thinks-the-mpaas-ratings-are-useless |title=Roger Ebert thinks the MPAA's ratings are useless |magazine=Time}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine |first=Roger |last=Ebert |date=February 24, 2004 |url=https://www.rogerebert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040224/REVIEWS/402240301/1023 |title=The Passion of the Christ |magazine=Time }}{{Dead link|date=June 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine |first=Roger |last=Ebert |date=December 11, 2010 |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703766704576009343432436296 |title=Getting Real About Movie Ratings |magazine=Time}}</ref> | |||
MPAA chairman ] has disputed these claims, stating that far more films are initially rated NC-17 for violence than for sex, but that these are later edited by studios to receive an R rating.<ref>{{cite magazine |first=Gilbert |last=Cruz |date=October 30, 2008 |url=https://time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1854732,00.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081102053346/http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1854732,00.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=November 2, 2008 |title=Happy 40th Birthday, Movie Ratings |magazine=Time}}</ref> | |||
Starting with '']'' (1990), few NC-17 movies have proved profitable, but ], boldly attempting to broaden public acceptance of such films, marketed the big budget drama '']'' with clever, colourful television and print advertising. To date, it was the only widely distributed NC-17 movie—to 1,388 cinemas simultaneously. It also was ], earned little money for the studio, and for a time, established the NC-17 rating as commercially untenable: "box office poison" in journalese. Also, '']'' was a factor in the ultimate failure of ], the co-distributor/international distributor of the film. It was in that same year that "Showgirls" was released, 1996, that a subtle wording change in the NC-17 rating effectively lifted the age restriction to age 18 instead of 17. Previously, the rating meant "no children under 17 admitted" but the revised logo from 1996 onward now reads "no one 17 and under admitted," with the interesting effect that NC-17 no longer serves as a true abbreviation for the descriptive text. | |||
Despite this, an internal critic of the early workings of the ratings system is film critic and writer Stephen Farber, who was a CARA intern for six months during 1969 and 1970. In ''The Movie Ratings Game'',<ref name="Farber1972">{{cite book | first = Stephen |last = Farber |url = https://archive.org/details/movieratinggame00farb | url-access = registration |title = The Movie Rating Game |edition = Paperback | publisher = Public Affairs Press |year = 1972 |access-date = October 3, 2011 | isbn =978-0-8183-0181-0}}</ref> he documents a prejudice against sex in relation to violence. The 2006 documentary '']'' also points out that four times as many films received an NC-17 rating for sex as they did for violence according to the MPAA's own website, further mentioning a bias against homosexual content compared to heterosexual content, particularly with regards to sex scenes. Filmmaker ] further insists that his tame teen comedy '']'', which features multiple same-sex kisses but no intercourse, strong language, violence, or nudity, was "rated R for being gay."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://gawker.com/g-b-f-was-rated-r-for-being-gay-1485807841|title=G.B.F. Was Rated R for Being Gay|author=Rich Juzwiak|publisher=Gawker.com|date=December 18, 2013|access-date=December 20, 2013}}</ref> | |||
The ratings used from 1996 to present are: | |||
The 2011 documentary '']'' received an R rating for the profanity contained within the film, which prevented most of the intended audience, ] and ]ers, from seeing the film. The film's director, Lee Hirsch, has refused to recut the film, stating, "I feel a responsibility as a filmmaker, as the person entrusted to tell (these kids') stories, to not water them down." A petition collected more than 200,000 signatures to change the film's rating<ref>{{cite web|title=Teenager petitions to change R rating for 'Bully'|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57393162/teenager-petitions-to-change-r-rating-for-bully/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131103210108/http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57393162/teenager-petitions-to-change-r-rating-for-bully/|url-status=dead|archive-date=November 3, 2013|work=CBS News|publisher=CBS|access-date=August 20, 2012|author=Sandy Cohen|date=March 8, 2012}}</ref> and a version with less profanity was finally given a PG-13 rating. The same, however, could not be said about the 1995 teen drama '']'', which director ] wanted rated R so parents could take their kids to it for educational purposes, but the MPAA rated it NC-17 due to its content of teen sex and turned down Clark's appeal. The film was then released unrated by ] (under Shining Excalibur Films because Miramax, formerly owned by ], hesitated to release it as an NC-17 film).{{Citation needed|date=October 2023}} | |||
*'''Rated G''': GENERAL AUDIENCES—All ages admitted | |||
*'''Rated PG''': PARENTAL GUIDANCE SUGGESTED—Some material may not be suitable for children | |||
*'''Rated PG-13''': PARENTS STRONGLY CAUTIONED—Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. | |||
*'''Rated R''': RESTRICTED—Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian. | |||
*'''Rated NC-17''': NO ONE 17 AND UNDER ADMITTED | |||
=== Inconsistent standards for independent studios === | |||
The makers of the critically-successful film '']'' (2000) released it unrated, rather than endanger any commercial success with an NC-17 rating. The MPAA had threatened using that rating because of an orgy depicted in the movie's climax. Despite artistic intent, the MPAA rejected the filmmakers' appeal for an R rating. Today, the NC-17 rating tends to cinema appealing to the ] patrons who do not interpret the rating as either a positive or a negative reflection upon a film's content. | |||
Many critics of the MPA rating system, especially ] distributors, have charged that major studios' releases often receive more lenient treatment than independent films. | |||
The independent film '']'', which contains no nudity, almost no sex (although there is a scene in which a German soldier is about to rape a French woman), very little profanity, and a minimum of violence, was said to have been rated R for a single clip where a main character is shot and killed, and required modification of just that one scene to receive a PG-13 rating.<ref>{{cite news|title=R rating stuns 'Saints' makers|newspaper=Deseret News|url=https://www.deseret.com/dn/view/0,1249,590041363,00.html|access-date=March 15, 2008}}{{Dead link|date=October 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=LDS Cinema Gets Better and Gets a Bum Rating |first=Thomas |last=Baggaley |url=http://www.meridianmagazine.com/arts/040220mpaa.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040229103927/http://www.meridianmagazine.com/arts/040220mpaa.html |archive-date=February 29, 2004 |work=meridianmagazine.com}}</ref> Eric Watson, producer of the independently distributed, NC-17-rated '']'' complained that the studios are paying the budget of the MPAA, which gives the studios leverage over the MPAA's decisions.<ref name="Atschison">Atschison, Doug. "Separate and Unequal? How the MPAA Rates Independent Films." ''The Best American Movie Writing 2001''. Ed. ]. 59–69.</ref> | |||
Most NC-17 films are released in cinemas, either in an edited, R-rated version or in its original version. Most films that were rated NC-17 would be re-edited to get R ratings for United States theatrical release, and later get released as both the original, unrated "uncut" version and the censored R-rated version on the ] market (e.g. '']''). American film studios release NC-17 movies abroad uncensored and artistically intact, adding controversy to the subject of the MPAA's movie ratings system in the United States. | |||
The comedy '']'', released by ], at the time a division of ], contained "strong crude sexual humor, language, drug use and violence," including images of ], ] and an ], but was rated R, to the surprise of many reviewers and audiences; by comparison, the comparatively tame porn spoof '']'', an independent release by '']'' creators ] and ], contained "explicit sexual content and dialogue" and received an NC-17 (the only on-screen penis seen in the film is a ]). Parker and Stone did not have the time and money to edit the film, so it retained its NC-17 rating. In contrast, Parker and Stone's second feature film, '']'', was distributed by a major studio (]) and, after multiple submissions and notes from the MPAA, received an R rating.<ref name="Atschison" /> | |||
Still, there are some exceptions: for example, the studio ] released the original NC-17-rated American edition of the European movie '']'' (2003) in theaters in the United States, and later released both the original NC-17-rated "Director's Cut" and the censored R-rated version on DVD. A Fox Searchlight spokesman said the NC-17 rating did not give them much trouble in releasing this film (they had no problem booking it, and only a Mormon-owned newspaper in Salt Lake City refused to take the film's ad), and Fox Searchlight was satisfied with this film's United States box office result.<ref></ref> | |||
=== Inconsistent standards between G and PG === | |||
In January 2007 the MPAA assigned the NC-17 rating to the erotic documentary film "Marie and Jack: A Hardcore Love Story", with MPAA Senior Rater Tony Hey proclaiming "Marie and Jack" a "well-made, entertaining film that really delivered the goods – just the sort of film the NC-17 rating was made for.” | |||
]'s 1996 adaptation of '']'' has been criticized for its depiction of ], ], and ], despite being rated G. Twenty-five years after its release, one of the screenwriters for the film, ], talked about its rating in an interview with '']'', saying, "That's the most R-rated G you will ever see in your life."<ref>{{Cite news |last=Bahr |first=Sarah |date=June 21, 2021 |title='The Hunchback of Notre Dame' at 25: 'The Most R-Rated G You Will Ever See' |work=] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/21/movies/the-hunchback-of-notre-dame.html |access-date=July 6, 2023}}</ref> ]'s 2011 film '']'' has been criticized similarly for featuring on-screen gun violence and a torture scene despite being rated G.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Rorie|first1=Matt|title=Was Cars 2 Too Violent For A G-Rating?|url=http://www.screened.com/news/was-cars-2-too-violent-for-a-g-rating/2473/|publisher=Screened|access-date=September 18, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629141858/http://www.screened.com/news/was-cars-2-too-violent-for-a-g-rating/2473/|archive-date=June 29, 2011|date=June 27, 2011}}</ref> In contrast, critics of the system accuse the ratings board of giving PG ratings to family-friendly films such as '']'' and '']'' for no reason.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Mendelson |first=Scott |date=2016-05-11 |title='Finding Dory' And 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2' Get Surprising Ratings |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/05/11/finding-dory-and-teenage-mutant-ninja-turtles-get-surprising-ratings/?sh=66facf7379dd |access-date=2023-10-11 |work=]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Mendelson |first=Scott |date=2013-11-26 |title=Disney's 'Frozen' Proves Failure Of PG Rating |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/11/26/disneys-frozen-proves-worthlessness-of-pg-rating/?sh=66a653256d35 |access-date=2023-10-11 |work=]}}</ref> | |||
=== Call for publicizing the standards === | |||
The most recent major-studio film rated NC-17 is ]' '']'' (2007), about an assassination conspiracy in ] during ], on account of its eroticism, ''not'' its violence; director ] did not alter his film for distribution in the U.S.A.<ref></ref> Even with the NC-17 rating, major theater circuits like ] and ] had no concerns about booking this film, and most newspapers accepted the film's ads (except for Salt Lake City);<ref></ref> it grossed $4.6 million in the ] theatrically,<ref></ref> and Focus was very satisfied with this film's theatrical release.<ref></ref> ] (NATO) even gave a Freedom of Expression Award to '']'' for its NC-17 rating.<ref>http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117981603.html?categoryid=13&cs=1</ref> | |||
Many critics of the system, both conservative and liberal, would like to see the MPAA ratings unveiled and the standards made public. The MPAA has consistently cited nationwide scientific polls (conducted each year by the Opinion Research Corporation of ]), which show that parents find the ratings useful. Critics such as Matt Stone in Kirby Dick's documentary '']'' respond this proves only that parents find the ratings more useful than nothing at all.<ref name="This Film is not Yet Rated">{{cite video|title=]|people=]|date=January 25, 2006|medium=Film}}</ref> In the film, it is also discussed how the MPAA will not reveal any information about how or why certain decisions are made, and that the association will not even reveal to the filmmaker the specific scenes that need to be cut in order to get an alternative rating. | |||
=== Accusation of "ratings creep" === | |||
Even though NC-17 films did not become big box office hits in the United States, they tended to make much more money on the ]/] market.<ref name="autogenerated1"></ref> For example, '']'' became one of ]'s top 20 all-time bestsellers,<ref></ref> and '']'' has generated more than $24 million from its DVD sales and rentals in the United States.<ref name="autogenerated1" /><ref></ref> | |||
Although there has always been concern about the content of films,<ref>{{cite journal|last=Tobias|first=Patricia Eliot|date=November 1999|title=Who Put the Sin in Cinema?|journal=Written by|url=https://www.wga.org/WrittenBy/1199/sinema.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030416145339/http://www.wga.org/WrittenBy/1199/sinema.html|archive-date=April 16, 2003|access-date=September 6, 2010}}</ref> the MPAA has been accused of a "ratings creep", whereby the films that fell into specific ratings categories in 2010 contained more objectionable material than those that appeared in the same categories two decades earlier.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.ncregister.com/site/article/ratings_creep_or_a_case_of_once_bitten_twice_shy|title='Ratings Creep' – or a Case of 'Once Bitten, Twice Shy'?|first=Steven D.|last=Greydanus|date=October 24, 2004|newspaper=]|access-date=September 6, 2010}}</ref> A study put forward by the ] in 2004 concluded that there had been a significant increase in the level of profanity, sex and violence in films released between 1992 and 2003.<ref name=pmid15520625>{{cite journal |last1=Thompson |first1=Kimberly M. |last2=Yokota |first2=Fumie |title=Violence, sex and profanity in films: correlation of movie ratings with content |journal=MedGenMed |volume=6 |issue=3 |page=3 |year=2004 |pmid=15520625 |pmc=1435631 |url=https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/480900}} | |||
*{{cite press release |date=July 13, 2004 |title=Study Finds "Ratings Creep": Movie Ratings Categories Contain More Violence, Sex, Profanity than Decade Ago |website=] |url=https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/archives/2004-releases/press07132004.html}}</ref> Kimberly Thompson, director of the study, stated: "The findings demonstrate that ratings creep has occurred over the last decade and that today's movies contain significantly more violence, sex, and profanity on average than movies of the same rating a decade ago."<ref name=pmid15520625 /> | |||
=== Questions of relevance === | |||
However, there are still many motion picture companies that are reluctant to release movies with, or with the potential of receiving, an NC-17 rating. Many motion picture groups either release their movies unrated or rated R rather than release the films under the NC-17 rating labels marked on them by the MPAA. | |||
In 2010 '']'' managing editor David Chen wrote on the website: "It's time for more people to condemn the MPAA and their outrageous antics. We're heading towards an age when we don't need a mommy-like organization to dictate what our delicate sensibilities can and can't be exposed to. I deeply hope that the MPAA's irrelevance is imminent."<ref name="Chen2010">{{cite web |url= https://www.slashfilm.com/mpaa-rating-nc-17-blue-valentine-tillman-story-kings-speech/ |title=Why the MPAA Should Be Ashamed of Itself |last=Chen |first=David |work=slashfilm.com |access-date=October 3, 2011 |date=November 8, 2010}}</ref> | |||
'']'' film critic Michael Phillips wrote in 2010 that the MPAA ratings board "has become foolish and irrelevant, and its members do not have my interests at heart, or yours. They're too easy on violence yet bizarrely reactionary when it comes to nudity and language."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/ct-xpm-2010-11-04-chi-talking-pictures-1105-story.html|title=There's a word for the MPAA...|last=Phillips|first=Michael|date=November 4, 2010|work=Chicago Tribune|access-date=February 8, 2012}}</ref> | |||
==="Hard R"=== | |||
In March 2007, according to '']'', MPAA chairman Dan Glickman has been trying to create a new rating called "Hard R" for films that contain too much violence, sexual content, language, and impudence; the suggested rating would also forbid people under the age of 18 to watch the films, much like NC-17. The move is apparently motivated by parents, who have been pressuring Glickman and the MPAA to create a new rating to solve the problem because they think the R rating is too "wide-ranged", while the NC-17 rating is almost exclusively used for pornographic films or films with much explicit nudity and sexual content (and rarely for films with graphic violence or language alone). | |||
Film studios have also pressured the MPAA to retire the NC-17 rating, because it can severely decrease their film's box office revenue. (e.g. most ] stores refuse to carry DVDs rated NC-17 and many daily newspapers also refuse ads for NC-17 films).<ref></ref><ref></ref> | |||
==Trailers== | |||
The MPAA also rates ] for theatrical exhibition. Title cards prior to the start of a trailer indicate the trailer's rating: | |||
*'''Green band''': approved for all audiences; can be shown before any rated movie. | |||
*'''Yellow band''': approved for mature audiences; can be shown before PG-13, R and NC-17 films. | |||
*'''Red band''': approved for adult audiences; can be shown before R and NC-17 films. | |||
The colors refer to the background colors of the cards. As long as the trailer meets the MPAA guidelines for a green band rating, the rating for the film it is advertising is irrelevant, although many title cards indicate not only the trailer's rating but the rating of the film being advertised as well. In theory, a green band trailer for an R-rated movie could play before a G-rated film, although most theaters will not do this in practice. | |||
==Rating process== | |||
Although the MPAA has never published an official list of all the exact words, actions, and exposed body parts used to determine a movie's rating, and one of the strongest criticisms against the current rating system is its alleged inconsistency, some guidelines can be derived based on the MPAA's actual rating decisions: | |||
* If a film uses "one of the harsher ] derived words" (such as '']'') <!-- NOTE: Please do not replace that word with a bowdlerized version; see ]--> one to four times, it is routine today for the film to receive a PG-13 rating, provided that the word is used as an ] and not with a sexual meaning (this was mentioned in '']'', when Chili Palmer complains about the movie industry. ''Fuck'' is said twice in that scene with many other uses of coarse language, giving the movie a PG-13). Both '']'' and '']'' contain four uses of "fuck" in non-sexual context. An example of a film that might suggest this criterion is '']'', which contains mostly PG-13 content, yet is rated R (brief strong language) because a man auditioning for a role uses ''fuck'' in a sexual context while quoting '']'' (the only time it is spoken in the movie). Also, some films are rated R but contain minimal use of the word, such as '']'', '']'', '']'', and '']''. Exceptions may be allowed, "by a special vote of the ratings board" where the board feels such an exception would better reflect the sensibilities of American parents. A couple of exceptions were noted: rare films such as '']'' were allowed as many as nine uses of the word; probably due to the precedent set in the 1970s by politically important films such as '']''. ''All the President's Men'' was once rated R but then re-rated PG on appeal. It is a common misconception that if a movie uses ''fuck'' in a nonsexual context more than once, it will automatically receive an R rating. In reality, PG-13 movies are routinely allowed two or three uses. But there have been two extreme circumstances so far: '']'' has 42 uses of the word, 2 used sexually,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.screenit.com/movies/2005/gunner_palace.html|publisher=screenit.com|title=SCREEN IT! PARENTAL REVIEW: GUNNER PALACE|accessdate=2007-07-26|date=2005-03-11}}</ref> and '']'' has 17 uses. Both films were rated PG-13 on appeal from an R rating. Precedent for this dates back to the early days of the system, in which an independent film called "Saturday Morning" (a documentary including interviews with youth) was allowed many extra uses of the word to accommodate its documentary nature without restricting its primary audience. (See Farber's book, described below, for documentation of the "Saturday Morning" fact.) | |||
* A reference to drugs, such as ], usually gets a movie a PG-13 rating at a minimum. A well known example of an otherwise PG movie getting a PG-13 for a drug reference (momentary, along with brief language) is '']''. The film contained only mild profanity but received a PG-13 because of a scene where ] were briefly visible. Critic ] criticized the MPAA for the rating and called it "a wild overreaction."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031116/ANSWERMAN/311160302|title= | |||
Movie Answer Man|date=2003-11-16|accessdate=2007-07-26|first=Roger|last=Ebert|publisher=]}}</ref> | |||
* A graphic or explicit scene of illegal drug use will earn a film at least a PG-13 rating (such as '']'', where Ray Charles is depicted using heroin and marijuana) and, especially in the case of hard drugs, even an R rating. In extremely rare cases, extremely graphic scenes of hard drug use will get a film an NC-17 (see '']'', rated NC-17 "for sexual violence, strong sexual situations & dialogue, graphic drug use.") | |||
* In May 2007, the MPAA announced that depictions of cigarette smoking would be considered in a film's rating.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mpaa.org/press_releases/mpaa%20statement%20smoking%20as%20a%20rating%20factor%20_2_.pdf|format=PDF|title=FILM RATING BOARD TO CONSIDER SMOKING AS A FACTOR|date=2007-05-10|accessdate=2007-07-26|publisher=MPAA}}</ref> On a side note, ] has a policy on depictions of tobacco. Starting ], ], they presume that no smoking incidents appear in youth-rated (G, PG, PG-13) films, and that if there is such an incident, a "health warning" that usually states "THIS FILM CONTAINS DEPICTIONS OF TOBACCO CONSUMPTION" will appear on any marketing material, DVD packaging, end credits, etc. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.universalpictures.com/legal/tobacco/index.html|title=Universal Pictures Policy Regarding Tobacco Depictions in Films|date=2007-04-16|accessdate=2008-08-05|publisher=]}}</ref> ] no longer allows smoking in its movies, or at least in its newer movies, as '']'' was released uncut on DVD after Disney banned smoking in its films despite ] being portrayed as a fanatic smoker. | |||
* If a film contains strong sexual content, it usually receives at least an R rating. The film '']'' contained a scene in a ] that had brief topless nudity while the song "]" by ] played in the background. The scene was brief and the rest of the film had PG-13 level content, but the film still received an R rating. In fact, any film containing female nudity almost always receives an automatic R rating. In the case of '']'', a shot of a topless woman got the film an R rating "for brief nudity". In many other countries with a similar ratings system (such as the UK, Australia, and Canada), the film received an equivalent of G or PG. However, there are many films including buttock and/or breast nudity (and in some cases, genital nudity) that are rated PG-13 or less. A few examples: | |||
<!-- Please don't expand this list, it is only meant to show some examples - it is not meant to be comprehensive --> | |||
:#The 1971 film '']'' contains a shot showing a deceased woman's bare breasts. The film's G rating is qualified with the text "but may be too intense for younger children." | |||
;#'']'' contains a shower scene where there is a close-up of breasts and buttocks. PG rated (re-rated on appeal; previously it was R rated). | |||
:#'']'' has a scene with full frontal female nudity where ] emerges from a lake nude. This film is one of a number of PG-13 films in which a person's (in this case female's) genitalia can be clearly seen. | |||
:#'']'' includes a scene where ] accidentally walks in on a showering co-ed. PG-13 rated. | |||
:#'']'' has a scene with Jack (]) painting a nude portrait of Rose (]). PG-13 rated. | |||
:#'']'' has a brief scene where a woman unbuttons her shirt, revealing that she is not wearing a bra. Both nipples are exposed. PG-13 rated. | |||
:#'']'' features a live-action depiction of ] painting '']'' in which the title subject is portrayed nude. Her genitalia are not visible, though breasts and nipple is. PG rated. | |||
:#'']'' has a scene in which, during a moment of panic and confusion aboard the jet airliner of the title, a topless woman runs close to the camera, briefly faces it, then continues running. Only her nude torso is shown; her face is not visible. PG rated. | |||
:#'']'' features a scene in which Joanna Lumley emerges from a mud bath nude, athough mud covers her breasts, PG rated. | |||
<!-- Please don't expand this list, it is only meant to show some examples - it is not meant to be comprehensive --> | |||
* Shirtless men are allowed in G-rated films, while topless women usually earn at least a PG-13. Prior to the adaptation of the PG-13 rating, topless women could be seen in several PG-rated films such as some of the ones mentioned above.. Even after the PG-13 rating had been implemented topless women have been featured in PG-rated films. If a film contains male rear nudity, it is more likely to be given a lower rating than if the nudity were female. Male nudity is generally regarded as ribald (i.e. mooning) or natural, while female nudity is generally regarded as sexual. When it comes to exposed ], the MPAA treats male and female nudity equally. Some films containing full-frontal male nudity have received PG and PG-13 ratings, such as '']'' (PG-13), in which a male migrant worker takes a shower and his genitalia are visible for a few seconds, though the scene is very brief and not in a sexual context. Films containing male or female full-frontal nudity usually earn an R rating, or possibly NC-17 if depicted in sexual situations. Many R-rated films have male frontal nudity such as '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'' and many more. While many films show female full-frontal nudity, in nearly every case, only the ] is seen and the actual genitalia (the labia, clitoris, and vagina) are not seen. The end result is that male genitals are far more prevalent than female genitals in R-rated films. However, the appearance of an erect penis almost always results in an NC-17 rating (exceptions include '']''). | |||
* Films that have legitimate historical or educational value are often granted leniency. Some have argued that the level of violence in '']'' merited an NC-17 rating, but that the film was given leniency because it was a historical war movie (It should be noted, however, that in both the UK and Ireland the film received a 15 certificate, and in Australia an ] rating after an appeal against the initial R rating). This argument also came up when '']'' was released without cuts, with an R rating. | |||
* Violence which includes bloodshed will usually receive a PG-13 or R rating, though in extreme cases bloodshed violence may receive an NC-17 rating. The film '']'' was originally rated NC-17 for "graphic horror violence and gore" but under appeal by director Wes Craven, it was changed to R with some overly graphic content cut out. It does depend on how long the blood is actually shown and how much of it. Bloodless violence will usually be rated PG or PG-13 (eg. '']''; the unrated version contains the same content as the PG-13-rated version in terms of violence. However, every violent scene includes bloodshed. The same thing happened with '']'', in which explicit gunshot wounds and violence were added to get an R rating on the director's cut DVD.) The anime '']'' has PG-13 level violence. However, there was a scene of a ] crushing a man's head, with resulting blood. The MPAA rated it R for "some violence", but the scene was rather undetailed compared to other films of its type, like '']''. (It should be noted that in the UK, Appleseed was rated 12A and in Spain it was rated 13.) '']'' had no explicit violence, but the MPAA also rated this film R for "some violence". There is a scene in which a man is beaten with a bowling pin and a small pool of blood is shown onscreen as a result. | |||
*Ratings criteria are intended to reflect changing norms and compromises between the diverse needs and rights of various interests in a large and complex modern society. Inevitably, the private views of the Ratings Board members will affect what is deemed acceptable for children to watch, determined in part by the culture of the time. Therefore, an evaluation of ratings criteria must specify what year or approximate period of time is being referred to, when modeling the standards relevant to each film classification. For example, according to '']'', films depicting homosexual sex scenes have been treated much more harshly than those depicting similar heterosexual scenes. | |||
===MPAA Ratings Board=== | |||
Members of the MPAA's Classification and Rating Administration, which the MPAA claims consists of a demographically balanced panel of parents, view the movie, discuss it, and vote on the film's rating. In fact, many of the "children" of the "parent" members are adults. Further information about members is difficult to obtain, as they operate in secret. The only publicly known member is chair ]. If the movie's producer is unhappy with this rating, he or she can re-edit the film and resubmit it, or can appeal to an Appeals Board. Appeals generally involve a film which was rated R for which the producer is seeking to have the rating changed to PG-13, or a film rated NC-17 for which the producer is seeking to have the rating changed to R. | |||
According to '']'', as of December 2005:<ref>{{cite visual|title=]|director=]|date=2006-01-25|medium=Film}}</ref> | |||
The MPAA Ratings Board members are: | |||
* ], Chair | |||
* Anthony "Tony" Hey, Senior Rater, 61, | |||
* Scott Young, Senior Rater, 51, | |||
* Joann Yatabe, Senior Rater, 61, | |||
* Matt Ioakimedes, 46, (has been a rater for nine years), | |||
* Barry Freeman, 45, | |||
* Arleen Bates, 44, | |||
* Joan Worden, 56, | |||
* Howard Fridkin, 47, | |||
* Kori Jones, now deceased | |||
and the MPAA Appeals Board members are: | |||
* Matt Brandt, President, ] | |||
* Pete Cole, Film Buyer, ] | |||
* Bruce Corwin, Chairman & CEO, ] | |||
* Alan Davy, Film Buyer, ] | |||
* Mike Doban, President, ] | |||
* Steve Gilula, CEO ] | |||
* Frank Haffar, COO, ] | |||
* John Lodigian, Vice President of Sales, ] | |||
* Michael McClellan, Vice President & Film Buyer, ] | |||
* Milton Moritz, CA/NV Chapter President, ] (NATO) | |||
* Lew Westenberg, VP of Operations West Coast Division, ] | |||
* Jonathan Wolf, Director, ] | |||
* Reverend James Wall, ] ], ] | |||
* Harry Forbes, Representative, ] | |||
==Effects of ratings== | |||
Legally, the rating system is entirely voluntary. However, signatory members of the MPAA (major studios) have agreed to submit all of their theatrical releases for rating, and few mainstream producers are willing to bypass the rating system due to potential effects on revenues. Most films released unrated nowadays are either relatively obscure ]s, ] films, foreign films, ] films, ] films, documentaries not expected to play outside the arthouse market, or ] (IMAX) films, which typically contain minimal offensive content and generally receive a G or PG rating when they are submitted for a rating. | |||
Since the 1970s, G ratings have been commonly associated with children's movies and could limit a movie's audience. It is sometimes said that the makers of the original '']'' movie purposely added scenes in order to trigger a PG rating to find a broader range of audience.<ref> from ]</ref> Since about the beginning of the 21st Century, PG ratings have also been associated with children's films, and are widely considered to be commercially bad for films targeted at teenagers and adults. For example, the 2004 action/adventure film '']'', which was not targeted at children, received a PG rating, which some believe caused it to underperform at the box office as ]s and ]s—both huge movie-going demographics—may have brushed it off as a "kiddie flick". <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,14962,00.html|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20040922020013/http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,14962,00.html|title="Sky Captain" Takes Flight|first=Bridget|last=Byrne|date=2004-09-20|archivedate=2004-09-22|accessdate=2007-07-26|publisher=]}}</ref> In 2001, in response to the poorer performance of R-rated material, the film industry began to shift focus toward PG-13-rated films.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.tamu.edu/univrel/aggiedaily/news/stories/00/071100-5.html|title=R-Rated Movies Not A Good Investment For Hollywood|first=Michael|last=Medved|date=2000-07-11|accessdate=2007-07-26|publisher=]}}</ref> None of the X or NC-17 films have been commercially successful, not even '']'' which was a widespread release in 1995.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.michaelmedved.com/site/product?printerFriendly=true&pid=19114|title=Analysis: R-rated films hurt box office|first=Steve|last=Sailer|date=2002-03-22|publisher=]|accessdate=2007-07-26}}</ref> Another example was the uproar among ] fans when it was revealed that the highly anticipated '']'' would receive a PG rating. A large portion of fans said that a PG rating would dumb down the dark, grim tone of the book, mentioning scenes that would be too violent or scary for a PG rating. | |||
While some may debate the degree to which any such things are truly unintended, since the ratings now have a clearly established use as part of the marketing strategy for a film, the whole question of children tending to scorn "tame" G or PG fare in favor of whatever they can get away with seeing is a legitimate criticism of an age-based rating system. Some R-rated films are not aimed at older adults, but at a high school and college-age market eager to engage in what they perceive as mature activities. Thus, the pretense that offensive content can be considered "adult" serves as a misleading marketing strategy to attract a youthful audience, often for purely sensational or provocative content for its own sake. | |||
The minimum age for unaccompanied patrons at R-rated films, and all patrons at X-rated films, was originally set at 16. By 1970 it was raised to 17 (in some areas the age may be higher still—often 18—and in rare cases as high as 21). Theater owners could still allow anyone into R-rated films without being accompanied by an adult since the rating system is technically voluntary and in most jurisdictions does not have the force of law behind it. Attendance at films with strong enough content to merit an NC-17 rating could be restricted by law due to the possibility of being considered indecent. | |||
In the 1970s the ] Century theater chain used its own rating system, with only three categories instead of four: ''For All Ages'', ''For Mature Audiences'', and ''No One Under 17 Admitted'', with most, but not all, R-rated films receiving the middle designation, under which no age limits were enforced. In 2000, due to issues raised by Senator ], the ], the major trade association in the U.S., announced it would start strict enforcement of identification checks for R- and NC-17-rated movies. | |||
Many retailers of videos, especially ], tend to prohibit the sale of R-rated movies to minors. ] are set up to prevent a transaction without a sales associate checking an ID. | |||
The 2001 ] '']'' disputed its NC-17 rating and waged a publicity campaign against the arbitrary nature of the ratings system. ], the film's distributor, lost its appeal, and released the film unrated (it was later cut for video and was given an R rating). With the recent success of another NC-17 film, '']'',<ref></ref> some film producers and directors hope that the rating may begin to lose some of its stigma and more movie theaters will consider playing such films. '']'' also had an R-rated version released on DVD and VHS. NC-17 films often have R-rated versions when released on DVD. Another film to successfully challenge its NC-17 rating was the cult classic 1994 comedy '']'', which eventually garnered an R rating. Director ] announced he was prepared to release the sequel, '']'', without a rating, but was surprised and relieved when the MPAA passed it uncut with an R rating. '']'' appealed to the MPAA and overthrew its R rating in favour of a PG-13 rating, even though it contains 42 instances of the word ], some used sexually. | |||
black people complained that rating criteria were too heavily biased against inner-city conditions and dialects. For his 1971 film '']'', director ] came up with a winning ad slogan ("Rated X by an All-White Jury") that proved successful with the urban market. The revision of the ages upward corresponded with a slackening of standards that generally allowed most such product to receive an R rating thereafter. | |||
Since the rapid expansion of the ] market in the late 1990s, studios have been known to skirt the rating system and release unrated versions of films on ] and ]. Sometimes these versions would have earned an NC-17 if submitted for rating, but often their unrated status is merely for marketing purposes. Films that have been rated PG-13 in their theatrical run are sometimes extended with footage equivalent to an R (but not NC-17) rating and marketed as "unrated" with the implication that the added unrated material is racier than an R rating would permit. For example, one DVD release of '']'', rated R in its theatrical release, exclaims on the box, "UNRATED! The Version You Couldn't See In Theaters". Sometimes the difference between an R-rated feature and its unrated home video counterpart is as little as a few seconds, while other unrated video editions add scenes that have no sexual or violent content whatsoever, making them "unrated" in the technical sense even though they contain no more provocative material than the theatrical version (one example of this would be '']''). A number of filmmakers have also taken to filming additional footage specifically for video or DVD release, with no intention of submitting this material to the MPAA. | |||
Some foreign and independent films do not bother to submit to the rating system, reasoning that they will not be distributed widely beyond their arthouse audience, so the expense is unnecessary. | |||
Starting in 2004, GKC Theatres (now ]) had 'R-Cards' that let teens see R-rated films without adult accompaniment. The cards generated much controversy, and Jack Valenti of the MPAA said in a news article: "I think it distorts and ruptures the intent of this voluntary film ratings system. All R-rated films are not alike."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20040601213009990001|title='R-Cards' Let Teens See Racy Movies: Some in Industry Say Cards Defeat Purpose of Ratings|date=2004-06-01|publisher=]|accessdate=2007-07-26|first=Barbara|last=Pinto}}</ref> The president of the National Association of Theatre Owners, John Fithian, also says that the cards can be harmful. He noted in a news article for the '']'' that the R rating is "broad enough to include relatively family-friendly fare such as '']'' and '']'' (both rated R for language) along with movies that push the extremes of violence, including '']'' and '']''."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0524/p12s02-lifp.html|title=Under 17 not admitted without R-card|publisher=]|first=Amanda|last=Paulson|date=2004-05-24|accessdate=2007-07-26}}</ref> | |||
== Criticisms == | |||
===Emphasis on sex versus violence=== | |||
The movie rating system has had a number of high profile critics. Film critic ] argues that the system places too much emphasis on not showing sex while allowing the portrayal of massive amounts of gruesome violence. The uneven emphasis on sex versus violence is echoed by other critics, including ], as well as many filmmakers{{Fact|date=January 2009}}. Moreover, Ebert argues that the rating system is geared toward looking at trivial aspects of the movie (such as the number of times a profane word is used) rather than at the general theme of the movie (for example, if the movie realistically depicts the consequences of sex and violence). He has called for an A (adults only) rating, to indicate films high in violence or mature content that should not be marketed to teenagers, but do not have NC-17 levels of sex. He has also called for the NC-17 rating to be removed and have the X rating revived. He felt that everyone understood what X-rated means while fewer people understood what NC-17 meant. He called for ratings A and X to identify whether an adult film is pornographic or not. Roger Ebert came up with this idea when he felt that '']'' did not get the NC-17 rating it deserved.{{Fact|date=January 2009}} | |||
MPAA chairman ] has rebutted these claims, stating that far more films are initially rated NC-17 for violence than for sex but that these are later edited by studios to receive an R rating.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1854732,00.html</ref> | |||
Perhaps with these objections in mind, the ] (a descendant of the formerly influential ]) maintains its own film classification system, which takes the overall "moral tone" of a film into account, rather than focusing on content alone. | |||
===Tougher standards for independent studios=== | |||
Many critics of the MPAA system, especially ] distributors, have charged that major studios' releases often receive more lenient treatment than independent films. They allege that '']'', with its intense depiction of the ] invasion of ], would have earned an NC-17 had it not been a ] film. The independent film '']'', which contains no sex, very little profanity, and a minimum of violence, was said to have been rated R for a single clip where a main character is shot and killed, and required modification of just that one scene to receive a PG-13 rating.<ref>{{cite web|title=R rating stuns 'Saints' makers|publisher=Deseret News|url=http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,590041363,00.html|accessdate=2008-03-15}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=LDS Cinema Gets Better and Gets a Bum Rating|first=Thomas|last=Baggaley|url=http://www.meridianmagazine.com/arts/040220mpaa.html|accessdate=2008-03-15}}</ref> The comedy '']'', released by a division of ]'s ], contained "strong crude sexual humor, language, drug use and violence" but was rated R, to the surprise of many reviewers and audiences; by comparison, the comparatively tame porn spoof ''],'' an independent release by ] creators ] and ], contained "explicit sexual content and dialogue" and received an NC-17 in the U.S. and R-equivalent or (more often) lower ratings in other countries. Stone and Parker went on to say that when asking what could be toned down to receive an R rating, they were told by the MPAA that multiple cuts would be needed, but were not told any specifics, as the MPAA wanted to avoid being labeled a 'censorship group'. As Parker and Stone did not have the money and the time to edit the film, it retained its NC-17 rating. Stone and Parker said in an interview that their feature length South Park film, ], was previously given an NC-17 rating though Parker and Stone claim that what the MPAA explicitly wanted cut was replaced with much worse things. | |||
Before ] was purchased by ], Miramax founders ] and ] often clashed with the MPAA, proclaimed the rating system unfair to independents, and released some films unrated to avoid an X or NC-17 rating. ''Orgazmo'' director ]'s ratings battles later inspired the (R-rated) film ''],'' which directly criticized the MPAA and holds the ] for most profanity and violence in an animated feature (399 profane words, 128 offensive gestures and 221 acts of violence). | |||
===Call for publicizing the standards=== | |||
Many critics of the system, both conservative and liberal, would like to see the MPAA ratings unveiled and the standards made public. The MPAA has consistently cited nationwide scientific polls (conducted each year by the Opinion Research Corporation of Princeton, New Jersey), which show that parents find the ratings useful. Critics (such as Kirby Dick) respond this proves only that parents find the ratings more useful than nothing at all.<ref>{{cite visual|title=]|director=]|date=2006-01-25|medium=Film}}</ref> | |||
=== Stephen Farber's internal critique === | |||
An internal critic of the early workings of the ratings system is film critic and writer ], who was a CARA intern for six months during 1969 and 1970. In ''The Movie Ratings Game'' (Public Affairs Press),<ref>{{cite book | last=Farber | first=Stephen | title=The Movie Ratings Game | publisher=Public Affairs Press | year=1972 | isbn=0-8183-0181-3}}</ref> he documents how, since its early days, the board has used the same censorship tactics it uses today: threatening an X rating to force a filmmaker to delete content offensive to the personal sensibilities of the board's members; the lopsided prejudice against sex in relation to violence; and the use of psychological jargon to justify restricting films because of their themes rather than their images, even when inexplicit; for example, the anti-war movie '']'' first was rated PG, but later was re-rated R because it is anti-war. | |||
Farber also documents how the ratings board used its power to punish creative filmmakers such as ] ('']'') and ] ('']'') while rewarding conservative, uncontroversial filmmakers and films with open-ended ratings; the hypocrisy about "protecting" in light of the fact that most of the severities imposed on certain films is borne less for impact on children than on parents' reactions; and annoyance at the board's R rating of the film of the '']'' music festival (1970), given that the festival itself had no age restrictions, which arguably is less traumatic an experience than was the festival. | |||
Another problem, he notes (and one cited in modern-day criticism), is the freely-wielded threat of a restrictive rating to force studios to tone down submitted films; he cites movies that were re-cut not only to be removed from the X category (sometimes as many as two brackets, to PG), but for re-rating from R to PG, and from PG to G. This censorship extends to screenplays submitted for analysis to determine a projected rating; for example, '']'' (1971). The script was rated X because of its vulgar, street junkie dialogue, cursing, and many references to using heroin; it was released with an R rating. | |||
Farber suggests that the X rating either be abolished or re-labelled to A (adult) or AO (adults only), but recommends its abolition, arguing that an R rating ought to be an enlightened society's most restrictive film rating. He concludes ''The Movie Ratings Game'' by endorsing public pressure and economic activism as the best means of reform, because, as he puts it, "The rating system is certainly not going to be reformed from within". | |||
== See also == | == See also == | ||
{{Portal|United States|Film}} | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* '']'', a 2006 film investigating the MPAA rating system | |||
* ] longtime head of the MPAA ratings board | |||
*'''Foreign national equivalents''' | |||
** ] | |||
** ] | |||
** ] (Australia) | |||
** ] (New Zealand) | |||
** ] (Germany) | |||
** ] (although ratings vary between provinces) | |||
*'''Examples in other media''' | |||
** ] | |||
** ], with which the MPAA had a brief dispute | |||
** ] | |||
*'''Related concepts''' | |||
** ] | |||
** ] | |||
** ] | |||
** ] | |||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
* ], which offers the only "official" alternative to the MPAA ratings system | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* '']'' (1952) | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
* ] A fundamentalist Christian alternative to MPAA ratings. | |||
==References== | == References == | ||
{{ |
{{Reflist|30em}} | ||
==External links== | == External links == | ||
{{Wikidata property|P1657}} | |||
* | |||
* Official Website with ratings database | |||
* | |||
* | * | ||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] |
Latest revision as of 01:09, 12 December 2024
American film rating system
The Motion Picture Association film rating system is used in the United States and its territories to rate a motion picture's suitability for certain audiences based on its content. The system and the ratings applied to individual motion pictures are the responsibility of the Motion Picture Association (MPA), previously known as the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) from 1945 to 2019. The MPA rating system is a voluntary scheme that is not enforced by law; films can be exhibited without a rating, although most theaters refuse to exhibit non-rated or NC-17 rated films. Non-members of the MPA may also submit films for rating. Other media, such as television programs, music and video games, are rated by other entities such as the TV Parental Guidelines, the RIAA and the ESRB, respectively.
In effect as of November 1968, following the Hays Code of the classical Hollywood cinema era, the MPA rating system is one of various motion picture rating systems that are used to help parents decide what films are appropriate for their children. It is administered by the Classification & Ratings Administration (CARA), an independent division of the MPA.
Ratings
"PG-13" redirects here. For other uses, see PG-13 (disambiguation).MPA film ratings
The MPA film ratings are as follows:
Rating block/symbol | Meaning |
---|---|
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
In 2013, the MPA ratings were visually redesigned, with the rating displayed on a left panel and the name of the rating shown above it. A larger panel on the right provides a more detailed description of the film's content and an explanation of the rating level is placed on a horizontal bar at the bottom of the rating.
Content descriptors
Film ratings often have accompanying brief descriptions of the specifics behind the film's content and why it received a certain rating. They are displayed in trailers, posters, and on the backside of home video releases. Film rating content descriptors are exclusively used for films rated from PG to NC-17; they are not used for G-rated films because the content in them is suitable for all audiences even if containing mild objectionable content.
Other labels
If a film has not been submitted for a rating or is an uncut version of a film that was submitted, the labels Not Rated (NR) or Unrated (UR) are often used. Uncut/extended versions of films that are labeled "Unrated" also contain warnings saying that the uncut version of the film contains content that differs from the theatrical release and might not be suitable for minors.
If a film has not yet been assigned a final rating, the label This Film Is Not Yet Rated is used in trailers and television commercials.
Regulation of promotional materials and releases
A green band card for trailers that are suitable for general audiencesA yellow band card used for internet trailersA red band trailer card reserved for restricted or mature audiencesThe MPA also rates film trailers, print advertising, posters, and other media used to promote a film.
Theatrical trailers
"Red band" redirects here. For the rock band, see Red (band). For broader coverage of cinema trailers, see Trailer (promotion).Rating cards appear at the head of trailers in the United States which indicate how closely the trailer adheres to the MPA's (and prior to November 2019, the MPAA's) standards.
- Green band: When the trailer accompanies another rated feature, the wording on the green title card states, as of May 2013, "The following preview has been approved to accompany this feature." For trailers hosted on the Internet, the wording is tweaked to "The following preview has been approved for appropriate audiences." Until April 2009, these cards indicated that they had been approved for "all audiences" and often included the film's MPAA rating. This signified that the trailer adhered to the standards for motion picture advertising outlined by the MPAA, which included limitations on foul language and violent, sexual, or otherwise objectionable imagery. In April 2009, the MPAA began to permit the green band language to say that a trailer had been approved for "appropriate" audiences, meaning that the material would be appropriate for audiences in theaters, based on the content of the film they had come to see. In May 2013, the MPAA changed the trailer approval band from "for appropriate audiences" to "to accompany this feature", but only when accompanying a feature film; for bands not accompanying a feature film, the text of the band remained the same. The font and style of the text on the graphic bands (green and red) was also changed at the time the green band was revised in 2013.
- Yellow band: A yellow title card was introduced in 2007 for trailers with restricted content hosted on the Internet, with the wording stipulating "The following preview has been approved only for age-appropriate Internet users." According to guidelines released at the time, the MPAA stipulated that yellow-band trailers hosted on film studio websites should only be available between 9:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. (i.e., 21:00 through 04:00 local time), and that for other websites hosting yellow-band previews, at least 80% of its typical user base should be adults. The yellow card was reserved for trailers previewing films rated PG-13 or stronger. An early example was a yellow-band trailer for Rob Zombie's Halloween (2007). Yellow-band trailers were not widely adopted and were apparently abandoned within a few years: in 2013, Variety reported that age-restricted trailers online were released with red bands. The 2019 edition of CARA's advertising guidelines reference only green and red bands for internet trailers.
- Red band: A red title card is issued to trailers which do not adhere to the MPA/CARA guidelines. It indicates that the trailer is approved for only "restricted" or "mature" audiences, and when it accompanies another feature, the wording states "The following restricted preview has been approved to accompany this feature only." For trailers hosted on the Internet, the wording is tweaked to "The following restricted preview has been approved for appropriate audiences." The red title card is reserved for trailers previewing R and NC-17 rated films: these trailers may include nudity, profanity, or other material deemed inappropriate for children. Such trailers are officially meant to be locked behind age verification systems. However, these "age gates" have been described as "ineffective" and an "honor system"; furthermore, many YouTube channels which exist to syndicate film and television trailers do not feature any check, which has led to criticism from watchdog groups like Common Sense Media. In 2007, red-band trailers were said to be virtually absent from theaters, due to worries that they would accidentally be shown before films released at a less-restrictive rating. However, by the following year, they were noted as increasingly prevalent as the adoption of digital projection had largely alleviated these concerns. These trailers may only be shown theatrically before R-rated, NC-17-rated, or unrated movies.
Releases
The MPA also creates blue feature tags for theatrical and home media use. Theatrical releases show the blue tag after the film, with home media releases showing it prior to the film. They feature the rating block and any content descriptors as assigned by the Classification and Rating Administration, the MPA logo, and links to MPA websites along the bottom.
History
Replacement of the Hays Code
Jack Valenti, who had become president of the Motion Picture Association of America in May 1966, deemed the Motion Picture Production Code, which had been in place since 1930 and rigorously enforced since July 1, 1934, out of date and bearing "the odious smell of censorship". Filmmakers were pushing at the boundaries of the code with some even going as far as filing lawsuits against the "Hays Code" by invoking the First Amendment. Valenti cited examples such as Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, which used prohibited language including "hump the hostess", and Blowup, which was denied Code approval due to nudity, resulting in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, then a member studio of the MPAA, releasing it through a subsidiary. Valenti revised the Code to include the "SMA" (Suggested for Mature Audiences) advisory as a stopgap measure. To accommodate "the irresistible force of creators determined to make 'their films'", and to avoid "the possible intrusion of government into the movie arena", he developed a set of advisory ratings which could be applied after a film was completed.
On November 1, 1968, the voluntary MPAA film rating system took effect, with three organizations serving as its monitoring and guiding groups: the MPAA, the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO), and the International Film Importers & Distributors of America (IFIDA). Only films that premiered in the United States after that date were affected by this. Walter Reade was the only one of 75 top U.S. exhibitors who refused to use the ratings. Warner Bros.-Seven Arts' The Girl on a Motorcycle was the first film to receive the X rating, and was distributed by their Claridge Pictures subsidiary. Two other films were rated X by the time the MPAA published their first weekly bulletin listing ratings: Paramount's Sin With a Stranger and Universal's Birds in Peru. Both films were subsequently released by subsidiaries.
The ratings used from 1968 to 1970 were:
- Rated G: Suggested for general audiences.
- Rated M: Suggested for mature audiences - Parental discretion advised.
- Rated R: Restricted – Persons under 16 not admitted, unless accompanied by parent or adult guardian.
- Rated X: Persons under 16 not admitted.
This content classification system originally was to have three ratings, with the intention of allowing parents to take their children to any film they chose. However, the National Association of Theatre Owners urged the creation of an adults-only category, fearful of possible legal problems in local jurisdictions. The "X" rating was not an MPAA trademark and would not receive the MPAA seal; any producer not submitting a film for MPAA rating could self-apply the "X" rating (or any other symbol or description that was not an MPAA trademark).
From M to GP to PG
In 1970, the ages for "R" and "X" were raised from 16 to 17. Also, due to confusion over whether "M"-rated films were suitable for children, "M" was renamed to "GP" (for General audiences, Parental guidance suggested), and in 1971, the MPAA added the content advisory "Some material not generally suitable for pre-teenagers". On February 11, 1972, "GP" was revised to "PG".
The ratings used from 1970 to 1972 were:
- Rated G: All ages admitted – General audiences.
- Rated GP: All ages admitted – Parental guidance suggested.
- Rated R: Restricted – Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian.
- Rated X: No one under 17 admitted.
The ratings used from 1972 to 1984 were:
- Rated G: General audiences – All ages admitted.
- Rated PG: Parental guidance suggested – Some material may not be suitable for / .
- Rated R: Restricted – Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian.
- Rated X: No one under 17 admitted.
Addition of the PG-13 rating
In the 1980s, complaints about violence and gore in films such as Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Gremlins, both of which received PG ratings, refocused attention on films seen by younger children. According to author Filipa Antunes, this revealed the conundrum of a film that "could not be recommended for all children but could also not be repudiated for all children uniformly," leading to speculation that the rating system's PG classification "no longer matched a notion of childhood most parents in America could agree on." Steven Spielberg, director of Temple of Doom and executive producer of Gremlins, suggested a new intermediate rating between "PG" and "R". The "PG-13" rating was introduced on July 1, 1984, with the advisory "Parents Are Strongly Cautioned to Give Special Guidance for Attendance of Children Under 13 – Some Material May Be Inappropriate for Young Children". The first film to be released with this rating was the John Milius war film Red Dawn. In 1985, the wording was simplified to "Parents Strongly Cautioned – Some Material May Be Inappropriate for Children Under 13". Around the same time, the MPAA won a trademark infringement lawsuit against the producers and distributors of I Spit on Your Grave over a fraudulent application of its R rating to the uncut version of the film, and forced its member studios and several other home video distributors to put MPAA ratings on the packaging of MPAA-rated films via a settlement that would come into effect by fall that year.
The ratings used from 1984 to 1990 were:
- Rated G: General audiences – All ages admitted.
- Rated PG: Parental guidance suggested – Some material may not be suitable for children.
- Rated PG-13: Parents strongly cautioned – Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.
- Rated R: Restricted – Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian.
- Rated X: No one under 17 admitted.
Tennessee law
In 1989, Tennessee state law set the minimum age to view a theatrically exhibited R-rated film without adult accompaniment at 18, instead of 17, and categorized the admission of minors to X-rated films as a misdemeanor. The statute remained in force until 2013, when it was ruled to be in violation of the First Amendment. The law was amended in 2013 as to prohibit persons under the age of 18 only if the film was considered "harmful to minors".
X replaced by NC-17
In the rating system's early years, "X"-rated films such as Midnight Cowboy (1969) and A Clockwork Orange (1971) were understood to be unsuitable for children, but non-pornographic and intended for the general public. However, pornographic films often self-applied the non-trademarked "X" rating, and it soon became synonymous with pornography in American culture. In late 1989 and early 1990, respectively, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer and The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover, two critically acclaimed art films featuring strong adult content, were released. Neither film was approved for an MPAA rating, limiting their commercial distribution and prompting criticism of the rating system's lack of a designation for such films.
In September 1990, the MPAA introduced the rating NC-17 ("No Children Under 17 Admitted"). Henry & June, previously to be assigned an X rating, was the first film to receive the NC-17 rating instead. Although films with an NC-17 rating had more mainstream distribution opportunities than X-rated films, many theaters refused to screen them, most entertainment media did not accept advertising for them, and many large video outlets refused to stock them.
The ratings used from 1990 to 1996 were:
- Rated G: General audiences – All ages admitted.
- Rated PG: Parental guidance suggested – Some material may not be suitable for children.
- Rated PG-13: Parents strongly cautioned – Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.
- Rated R: Restricted – Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian.
- Rated NC-17: No children under 17 admitted.
In 1996, the minimum age for NC-17-rated films was raised to 18, by rewording it to "No One 17 and Under Admitted". The ratings used since 1996 are:
- Rated G: General audiences – All ages admitted.
- Rated PG: Parental guidance suggested – Some material may not be suitable for children.
- Rated PG-13: Parents strongly cautioned – Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.
- Rated R: Restricted – Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian.
- Rated NC-17: Adults only – No one 17 and under admitted.
Since September 1990, the MPAA has included explanations, or "descriptors", of why each film received an "R" rating, allowing parents to know what type of content the film contained. For example, the descriptor for The Girl Who Played with Fire read "Rated for brutal violence including a rape, some strong sexual content, nudity and language."
By the early 2000s, the MPAA began applying rating explanations for PG, PG-13, and NC-17-rated films as well.
Rating components
Violence
Depictions of violence are permitted under all ratings but must be moderated for the lower ones. Violence must be kept to a minimum in G-rated films and must not be intense in PG-rated films. Depictions of intense violence are permitted under the PG-13 rating, but violence that is both realistic and extreme or persistent will generally require at least an R rating.
Language
Snippets of language that go "beyond polite conversation" are permitted in G-rated films, but no stronger words are present. Profanity may be present in PG rated films, and use of one of the harsher "sexually-derived words" as an expletive will initially incur at least a PG-13 rating. More than one occurrence will usually incur an R rating as will the usage of such an expletive in a sexual context. Known as the "automatic language rule", the rule has been applied differently depending on the subject matter of the film. For example, All the President's Men (1976) received a PG rating after appealing it from an R, despite multiple instances of strong language, likely because of its historic subject matter. The automatic language rule is arguably the rule that can most often be successfully appealed. The ratings board may award a PG-13 rating passed by a two-thirds majority if they believe the language is justified by the context or by the manner in which the words are used.
It is sometimes claimed that films rated PG-13 are only able to use the expletive fuck once to avoid an R rating for language. There are several exceptional cases in which PG-13-rated films contain multiple occurrences of the word fuck: Adventures in Babysitting, where the word is used twice in the same scene; Antwone Fisher which has three uses; Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour, which has four uses (six in the "Taylor's Version" cut); The Hip Hop Project, which has seventeen uses; and Gunner Palace, a documentary of soldiers in the Iraq War, which has 42 uses of the word with two used sexually. Both Bully, a 2011 documentary about bullying, and Philomena—which has two instances of the word—released in 2013, were originally given R ratings on grounds of the language but the ratings were dropped to PG-13 after successful appeals (albeit Bully needed some cuts). The King's Speech, however, was given an R rating for one scene using the word fuck several times in a speech therapy context; the MPAA refused to recertify the film on appeal, despite the British Board of Film Classification reducing the British rating from a 15 rating to a 12A on the grounds that the uses of the expletive were not directed at anyone.
This was satirized in the 2005 film Be Cool, in which the film producer Chili Palmer (John Travolta) says: "Do you know that unless you're willing to use the R rating, you can only say the 'F' word once? You know what I say? Fuck that. I'm done." Often film producers will use the word for a scene of gravitas or humor and then bleep out any further instances with sound effects.
Some forms of media are cut post-release so as to obtain a PG-13 rating for home media release or to feature on an Internet streaming service that will not carry films rated higher than PG-13. In 2020, a recording of Hamilton was released on Disney+ after cuts by Lin-Manuel Miranda to remove two of the three instances of fuck in the musical to qualify it as PG-13 under MPAA guidelines.
A study of popular American teen-oriented films rated PG and PG-13 from 1980 to 2006 found that in those films, teenaged characters use more and stronger profanity than adult ones in the same movies. However, the study found that the overall amount of such language had declined somewhat since the 1980s.
Substances
See also: Product placement § TobaccoDrug use content is restricted to PG-13 and above. An example of an otherwise PG film being assigned a PG-13 rating for a drug reference (momentary, along with brief language) is Whale Rider. The film contained only mild profanity, but was rated PG-13 because of a scene where drug paraphernalia were briefly visible. Critic Roger Ebert criticized the MPAA for the rating and called it "a wild overreaction".
In May 2007, the MPAA announced that depictions of cigarette smoking would be considered in a film's rating. Anti-smoking advocates stated that the child-friendly PG rating was inappropriate for the 2011 Nickelodeon-animated film Rango, which included over 60 depictions of characters smoking.
Nudity
Nudity is restricted to PG and above, and anything that constitutes more than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating. Nudity that is sexually oriented will generally require an R rating. Since 2006, films have been flagged by the MPAA for carrying nudity. In 2010, the MPAA flagged three films specifically for "male nudity", precipitated by parental pressure in response to Brüno. In 2018, MPAA Ratings Chair Joan Graves clarified the MPA's position by stating that "we don't usually define as male or female ... usually, we just mention partial nudity, graphic nudity."
Sex
The MPAA does not have any explicit criteria for sexual content other than excluding sex scenes from G-rated films.
Effects of ratings
The Exorcist
Main article: The ExorcistPrior to the release of The Exorcist at the end of 1973, CARA president Aaron Stern took the unusual step of calling director William Friedkin to tell him that since it was an "important film", it would be rated R and could be released without any cuts. The film drew huge crowds upon its release, many of whom were so horrified by the film they vomited and/or fainted; a psychiatric journal would later document four cases of "cinematic neurosis" induced by the film.
Among those patrons were many children, not always accompanied by adults. This left many commentators incredulous that the ratings board would have found that a film with disturbing scenes such as a possessed 12-year-old girl masturbating with a crucifix was acceptable for children to see. Roy Meacham, a Washington, D.C., critic who had praised the film while admonishing parents not to take their children to it, recalled those children he did see leaving showings "drained and drawn afterward; their eyes had a look I had never seen before." Authorities in Washington invoked a municipal ordinance that would have prevented any minors from seeing the film, threatening theater owners with arrest if they did.
Meacham insinuated that the board had succumbed to pressure from Warner Brothers, which had spent $10 million, more than twice its original budget, making the film; an X rating would have seriously limited The Exorcist's commercial prospects. New Yorker critic Pauline Kael echoed his criticism. "If The Exorcist had cost under a million or been made abroad," she wrote, "it would almost certainly be an X film. But when a movie is as expensive as this one, the doesn't dare give it an X."
In 1974, Richard Heffner took over as president of the board. During his interview process, he had asked to screen recent films that had sparked ratings controversies, including The Exorcist. "How could anything be worse than this?" he recalled thinking later. "And it got an R?" After he took over as head, he would spearhead efforts to be more aggressive with the X rating, especially over violence in films. In 1976, he got the board to give the Japanese martial arts film The Street Fighter an X rating for its graphic violence, the first time a film had earned that rating purely for violence.
Commercial viability of the NC-17 rating
The NC-17 rating has been described as a "kiss of death" for any film that receives it. Like the X rating it replaced, NC-17 limits a film's prospects of being marketed, screened in theaters and sold in major video outlets. In 1995, MGM/UA released the big-budget film Showgirls; it became the most widely distributed film with an NC-17 rating (showing in 1,388 cinemas simultaneously), but it was a box office failure that grossed only 45% of its $45 million budget. Some modest successes can be found among NC-17 theatrical releases, however; Fox Searchlight Pictures released the original NC-17-rated American edition of the European film The Dreamers (2003) in theaters in the United States, and later released both the original NC-17 and the cut R-rated version on DVD. A Fox Searchlight spokesman said the NC-17 rating did not give them much trouble in releasing this film (they had no problem booking it, and only the Salt Lake City newspaper Deseret News refused to take the film's ad), and Fox Searchlight was satisfied with this film's United States box office result. Another notable exception is Bad Education (2004), an NC-17 foreign-language film that grossed $5.2 million in the United States theatrically (a moderate success for a foreign-language film).
In 2000, the Directors Guild of America called the NC-17 rating an "abject failure", for causing filmmakers to re-edit films to receive an R rating, rather than accept an NC-17 rating. They argued that this was "not only compromising filmmakers' visions, but also greatly increasing the likelihood that adult-oriented movies are seen by the very groups for which they are not intended." As of March 2007, according to Variety, MPAA chairman Dan Glickman had been made aware of the attempts to introduce a new rating, or find ways to reduce the stigma of the NC-17 rating. Film studios have pressured the MPAA to retire the NC-17 rating, because of its likely impact on their film's box office revenue.
In 2010, the MPAA controversially decided to give the film Blue Valentine an NC-17 rating. The Weinstein Company challenged this decision, and the MPAA ended up awarding the same cut an R rating on appeal. Actor Ryan Gosling, who stars in the film, noted that NC-17 films are not allowed wide advertisement and that, given the refusal of major cinema chains like AMC and Regal to show NC-17 rated movies, many such films will never be accessible to people who live in markets that do not have art house theatres.
Legal scholar Julie Hilden wrote that the MPAA has a "masterpiece exception" that it has made for films that would ordinarily earn an NC-17 rating, if not for the broader artistic masterpiece that requires the violence depicted as a part of its message. She cites Saving Private Ryan, with its bloody depiction of the D-Day landings, as an example. This exception is troubling, Hilden argues, because it ignores context and perspective in evaluating other films and favors conventional films over edgier films that contribute newer and more interesting points to public discourse about violence.
Issuance of "R Cards"
Starting in 2004, GKC Theatres (since absorbed into AMC Theatres) introduced "R Cards", which parents could obtain for their children under 17 to see R-rated films without adult accompaniment. The cards generated much controversy; MPAA president Jack Valenti said in a news article: "I think it distorts and ruptures the intent of this voluntary film ratings system. All R-rated films are not alike." John Fithian, the president of the National Association of Theatre Owners, also said that the cards can be harmful. He noted in a news article for the Christian Science Monitor that the R rating is "broad enough to include relatively family-friendly fare such as Billy Elliot and Erin Brockovich (which were both rated R for language) along with films that push the extremes of violence, including Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill".
Criticisms
Emphasis on sex and language versus violence
The film rating system has had a number of high-profile critics. Film critic Roger Ebert called for replacing the NC-17 rating with separate ratings for pornographic and non-pornographic adult film. Ebert argued that the system places too much emphasis on sex, while allowing the portrayal of massive amounts of gruesome violence. The uneven emphasis on sex versus violence is echoed by other critics, including David Ansen, as well as many filmmakers. Moreover, Ebert argued that the rating system is geared toward looking at trivial aspects of the film (such as the number of times a profane word is used) rather than at the general theme of the film (for example, if the film realistically depicts the consequences of sex and violence). He called for an A (adults only) rating, to indicate films high in violence or mature content that should not be marketed to teenagers, but do not have NC-17 levels of sex. He also called for the NC-17 rating to be removed and to have the X rating revived. He felt that everyone understood what X-rated means, while fewer people understood what NC-17 meant.
MPAA chairman Dan Glickman has disputed these claims, stating that far more films are initially rated NC-17 for violence than for sex, but that these are later edited by studios to receive an R rating.
Despite this, an internal critic of the early workings of the ratings system is film critic and writer Stephen Farber, who was a CARA intern for six months during 1969 and 1970. In The Movie Ratings Game, he documents a prejudice against sex in relation to violence. The 2006 documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated also points out that four times as many films received an NC-17 rating for sex as they did for violence according to the MPAA's own website, further mentioning a bias against homosexual content compared to heterosexual content, particularly with regards to sex scenes. Filmmaker Darren Stein further insists that his tame teen comedy G.B.F., which features multiple same-sex kisses but no intercourse, strong language, violence, or nudity, was "rated R for being gay."
The 2011 documentary Bully received an R rating for the profanity contained within the film, which prevented most of the intended audience, middle and high schoolers, from seeing the film. The film's director, Lee Hirsch, has refused to recut the film, stating, "I feel a responsibility as a filmmaker, as the person entrusted to tell (these kids') stories, to not water them down." A petition collected more than 200,000 signatures to change the film's rating and a version with less profanity was finally given a PG-13 rating. The same, however, could not be said about the 1995 teen drama Kids, which director Larry Clark wanted rated R so parents could take their kids to it for educational purposes, but the MPAA rated it NC-17 due to its content of teen sex and turned down Clark's appeal. The film was then released unrated by Miramax (under Shining Excalibur Films because Miramax, formerly owned by Disney, hesitated to release it as an NC-17 film).
Inconsistent standards for independent studios
Many critics of the MPA rating system, especially independent distributors, have charged that major studios' releases often receive more lenient treatment than independent films.
The independent film Saints and Soldiers, which contains no nudity, almost no sex (although there is a scene in which a German soldier is about to rape a French woman), very little profanity, and a minimum of violence, was said to have been rated R for a single clip where a main character is shot and killed, and required modification of just that one scene to receive a PG-13 rating. Eric Watson, producer of the independently distributed, NC-17-rated Requiem for a Dream complained that the studios are paying the budget of the MPAA, which gives the studios leverage over the MPAA's decisions.
The comedy Scary Movie, released by Dimension Films, at the time a division of The Walt Disney Company, contained "strong crude sexual humor, language, drug use and violence," including images of ejaculation, fellatio and an erect penis, but was rated R, to the surprise of many reviewers and audiences; by comparison, the comparatively tame porn spoof Orgazmo, an independent release by South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker, contained "explicit sexual content and dialogue" and received an NC-17 (the only on-screen penis seen in the film is a dildo). Parker and Stone did not have the time and money to edit the film, so it retained its NC-17 rating. In contrast, Parker and Stone's second feature film, South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut, was distributed by a major studio (Paramount Pictures) and, after multiple submissions and notes from the MPAA, received an R rating.
Inconsistent standards between G and PG
Disney's 1996 adaptation of The Hunchback of Notre Dame has been criticized for its depiction of lust, antiziganism, and genocide, despite being rated G. Twenty-five years after its release, one of the screenwriters for the film, Tab Murphy, talked about its rating in an interview with The New York Times, saying, "That's the most R-rated G you will ever see in your life." Pixar's 2011 film Cars 2 has been criticized similarly for featuring on-screen gun violence and a torture scene despite being rated G. In contrast, critics of the system accuse the ratings board of giving PG ratings to family-friendly films such as Frozen and Finding Dory for no reason.
Call for publicizing the standards
Many critics of the system, both conservative and liberal, would like to see the MPAA ratings unveiled and the standards made public. The MPAA has consistently cited nationwide scientific polls (conducted each year by the Opinion Research Corporation of Princeton, New Jersey), which show that parents find the ratings useful. Critics such as Matt Stone in Kirby Dick's documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated respond this proves only that parents find the ratings more useful than nothing at all. In the film, it is also discussed how the MPAA will not reveal any information about how or why certain decisions are made, and that the association will not even reveal to the filmmaker the specific scenes that need to be cut in order to get an alternative rating.
Accusation of "ratings creep"
Although there has always been concern about the content of films, the MPAA has been accused of a "ratings creep", whereby the films that fell into specific ratings categories in 2010 contained more objectionable material than those that appeared in the same categories two decades earlier. A study put forward by the Harvard School of Public Health in 2004 concluded that there had been a significant increase in the level of profanity, sex and violence in films released between 1992 and 2003. Kimberly Thompson, director of the study, stated: "The findings demonstrate that ratings creep has occurred over the last decade and that today's movies contain significantly more violence, sex, and profanity on average than movies of the same rating a decade ago."
Questions of relevance
In 2010 Slashfilm managing editor David Chen wrote on the website: "It's time for more people to condemn the MPAA and their outrageous antics. We're heading towards an age when we don't need a mommy-like organization to dictate what our delicate sensibilities can and can't be exposed to. I deeply hope that the MPAA's irrelevance is imminent."
Chicago Tribune film critic Michael Phillips wrote in 2010 that the MPAA ratings board "has become foolish and irrelevant, and its members do not have my interests at heart, or yours. They're too easy on violence yet bizarrely reactionary when it comes to nudity and language."
See also
- List of highest-grossing R-rated films
- List of NC-17 rated films
- Common Sense Media
- Entertainment Software Rating Board
- Film Advisory Board
- Film and Publication Board
- Green Sheet (filmmaking)
- Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952)
- Parental Advisory
- Pink permits
- TV Parental Guidelines
- United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Office for Film and Broadcasting
- Film censorship in the United States
References
- Rialto Cinemas (2012). "Frequently Asked Questions". Rialto Cinemas. Rialto Cinemas™. Archived from the original on July 5, 2022. Retrieved August 1, 2012.
- ^ "Questionable ratings to gain patronge". Deseret News. (Salt Lake City, Utah). (The Moviegoer). October 31, 1968. p. 10A.
- ^ "Classification and Rating Rules" (PDF). Classification and Rating Administration. January 1, 2010. pp. 6–8. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 4, 2014. Retrieved November 30, 2014.
- ^ "Film Ratings". Motion Picture Association of America. Retrieved March 24, 2014.
- Bowles, Scott (April 16, 2013). "Film-rating descriptors to add detail". USA Today. Retrieved August 18, 2018.
- "History".
- ^ "Advertising Administration Rules" (PDF). Motion Picture Association. October 8, 2019. Retrieved July 22, 2024.
- ^ Halbfinger, David M. (June 13, 2007). "Attention, Web Surfers: The Following Film Trailer May Be Racy or Graphic". The New York Times. p. E1. Retrieved July 15, 2016.
- Dodd, Chris (April 18, 2013). "Check the Box to Decide if a Film Is Right for Your Family". Huffington Post. Retrieved July 22, 2024.
- Wickman, Forrest (June 11, 2013). "Have You Noticed Trailers Looking Different?". Slate. Retrieved July 22, 2024.
- ^ Debruge, Peter (May 2, 2013). "Trailers Jump on the Age-Restricted Red-Band Wagon". Variety. Retrieved December 2, 2024.
- Barnes, Brooks (February 23, 2010). "Cat-and-Mouse for a Trashy Trailer". The New York Times. Retrieved February 24, 2010.
- "What are red-band trailers on YouTube?". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on January 21, 2019. Retrieved July 29, 2019.
- McClintock, Pamela (May 28, 2008). "Regal greenlights red band trailers". Variety. Retrieved December 2, 2024.
- ^ vbcsc03l@vax.csun.edu (snopes) (May 25, 1993). "Re: The MPAA". The Skeptic Tank. Archived from the original on August 18, 2017. Retrieved August 1, 2012.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ^ "MPAA Ratings in Effect But Not Being Widely Advertised - Yet". Daily Variety. November 4, 1968. p. 1.
- "'X' Marks Spot For Only 1 of 1st MPAA Group: W7 'Girl'". Daily Variety. October 22, 1968. p. 1.
- Murphy, A.D. (November 20, 1968). "Coding Old Pix New Wrinkle". Daily Variety. p. 1.
- Kennedy, Matthew (2014). Roadshow!: The Fall of Film Musicals in the 1960s. OUP USA. p. 183. ISBN 9780199925674.
- Life, p. 55, May 30, 1969.
- ^ Krämer, Peter (2005). The New Hollywood: From Bonnie and Clyde to Star Wars. Short Cuts Series. Columbia University Press. p. 49. ISBN 978-0-231-85005-6. OCLC 952779968.
- Kroon, Richard W. (2014). A/V A to Z: An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Media, Entertainment and Other Audiovisual Terms. McFarland & Company. p. 316. ISBN 9780786457403. OCLC 910109344.
- Friedman, Jane M. (1973). "The Motion Picture Rating System of 1968: A Constitutional Analysis of Self-Regulation by the Film Industry". Columbia Law Review. 73 (2): 185–240. doi:10.2307/1121227. JSTOR 1121227.
- Austin, Bruce A. (September 1980). "The Influence of the MPAA's Film-Rating System on Motion Picture Attendance: A Pilot Study". The Journal of Psychology. 106 (1): 91–99. doi:10.1080/00223980.1980.9915174. ISSN 0022-3980. S2CID 144395298.
- "The Robesonian". February 11, 1972. Retrieved November 5, 2017.
- "Brief Reviews: MPAA Rating Guide". New York: 64. February 2, 1981.
- "Wording Changed in Classification of PG Movies". The Los Angeles Times. July 30, 1977. p. 34.
- Richard Zoglin; Meg Grant/Los Angeles; Timothy Loughran/New York (June 25, 1984). "Show Business: Gremlins in the Rating System". Time. Time Inc. Archived from the original on October 29, 2010. Retrieved August 1, 2012.
- Antunes, Filipa (Spring 2017). "Rethinking PG-13: Ratings and the Boundaries of Childhood and Horror" (PDF). Journal of Film and Video. 69 (1): 11. doi:10.5406/jfilmvideo.69.1.0027. S2CID 152216521. Archived (PDF) from the original on March 7, 2020.
- Windolf, Jim (January 2, 2008), "Q&A: Steven Spielberg on Indiana Jones", Vanity Fair
- Fernandez, Jay A.; Borys Kit (July 8, 2008). "'Red Dawn' redo lands director, scribe; MGM will remake the 1984 action drama". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved May 12, 2017.
- "PG-13 Parents Strongly Cautioned Some Material May Be Inappropriate for Children Under 13 – Trademark Details". Justia. Retrieved October 7, 2016.
- Entertainment Law Reporter – Business Affairs for March 1984 Archived February 1, 2014, at the Wayback Machine
- "Dealers will label ratings on cassettes". Eugene Register-Guard. August 11, 1984. Retrieved January 31, 2014.
- "TN Law: 18 to buy R-rated movie tickets". Action News. Tennessee: WMC-TV. February 19, 2009. Retrieved February 21, 2015.
- Cooper, Robert E. Jr.; Young, William E.; Gaylord, James E. (December 6, 2013). "Opinion No. 13-101 – Constitutionality of Criminal Statute Regarding Admission of Minors to Movies" (PDF). Nashville, Tennessee: Tennessee Attorney General. Archived (PDF) from the original on July 16, 2018. Retrieved July 16, 2018.
- "The MPAA Rating Systems". September 16, 1994.
- Roger Ebert (January 1, 1999). "The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover (No MPAA Rating)". RogerEbert.com. Retrieved August 1, 2012.
- Ebert, Roger (September 14, 1990). "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (Unrated)". RogerEbert.com. Retrieved August 1, 2012.
- ^ David J. Fox (September 27, 1990). "X Film Rating Dropped and Replaced by NC-17 : Movies: Designation would bar children under 17. Move expected to clear the way for strong adult themes". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 20, 2012.
- Jack Mathews (August 27, 1990). "Henry Miller Meets the MPAA : Movies: Philip Kaufman's very adult 'Henry & June,' a tale of the controversial author's days in Paris, apparently is the latest recipient of the dreaded X rating. Its U.S. release is in limbo". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 20, 2012.
- ^ Weinraub, Bernard (July 21, 1995). "First Major Film With an NC-17 Rating Is Embraced by the Studio". New York Times.
- Video Watchdog. Tim & Donna Lucas. 1996. p. 80.
- Masters, Tim (November 30, 2011). "Will Shame change the game for the NC-17 rating?". BBC. Retrieved January 10, 2021.
The rating restricts anyone under the age of 18 from attending a film.
- Brooks, Brian (February 28, 2012). "NATO Threatens Weinstein Co With NC-17 Rating For 'Bully'". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved January 10, 2021.
In most cases, that means enforcement as though the movies were rated NC-17 — where no one under the age of 18 can be admitted even with accompanying parents or guardians."
- Zeitchik, Steven (August 18, 2012). "High hopes, low notes for film world's NC-17 rating". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 10, 2021.
Formally instituted in 1990, the restrictive rating aimed to signal moviegoers that a film included adult-oriented — but not necessarily pornographic — content and made those movies off-limits to anyone under 18.
- Sandler, Kevin (2007). The Naked Truth: Why Hollywood Doesn't Make X-rated Movies. Rutgers University Press. p. 85. ISBN 978-0-8135-4146-4.
- "MPAA ratings: June 30, 2010". The Hollywood Reporter. June 30, 2010. Retrieved October 19, 2021.
- "MPAA ratings: Sept. 1, 2010". The Hollywood Reporter. September 1, 2010. Retrieved October 19, 2021.
- Josh Wolk (November 19, 1999). "The Backstreet Boys plan a new album and tour". Entertainment Weekly. Archived from the original on October 21, 2012. Retrieved January 6, 2018.
- "Changes in the Rating System". Motion Picture Association of America. Archived from the original on May 30, 2009.
- Vaughn, Stephen (2006). Freedom and Entertainment: Rating the Movies in an Age of New Media. Cambridge University Press. pp. 47–51. ISBN 978-0-521-85258-6.
- Byrd, Matthew (April 2, 2018). "Ready Player One's F-Bomb Is One of the Best Ever". Den of Geek. Retrieved January 1, 2022.
- Keith Coogan (December 12, 2011). "Keith Coogan, Star of Adventures in Babysitting and Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's Dead, Indulges Our Nostalgia". Vulture.com (Interview). Interviewed by Patti Greco. Retrieved August 3, 2014.
- Brown, Ben (November 12, 2010). "'How Do You Know' Likely to Be Re-cut to Avoid R-Rating for Language". Collider. Retrieved January 1, 2022.
- Sharpe, Lynn (March 15, 2024). "Every F-Bomb In Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour Movie & Timestamps For When They Happen". ScreenRant. Retrieved May 16, 2024.
- "'The Hip Hop Project' Rated PG-13, Despite 17 F-Words – The Moviefone Blog". April 27, 2007. Archived from the original on May 4, 2012. Retrieved March 31, 2012.
- "Screen It! Parental Review: Gunner Palace". screenit.com. March 11, 2005. Retrieved July 26, 2007.
- McClintock, Pamela (April 5, 2012). "Weinstein Co. Changes Course, Edits 'Bully' for PG-13 Rating". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved May 15, 2024.
- Pulver, Andrew (November 14, 2013). "Philomena: Weinsteins win MPAA appeal against R rating". The Guardian. Retrieved April 2, 2014.
- "To the MPAA ratings board, 'The King's Speech' is just as bad as 'Saw 3D'". November 1, 2010. Retrieved January 1, 2022.
- ^ "Using the F-word in PG-13/12A movies". Den of Geek. March 25, 2013. Retrieved January 1, 2022.
- Alexander, Julia (June 23, 2020). "Hamilton drops two uses of "fuck" to land on Disney Plus". The Verge. Retrieved January 1, 2022.
- ^ Cressman, Dale L.; Callister, Mark; Robinson, Tom; Near, Chris (May 2009). "Swearing in the cinema: An analysis of profanity in US teen-oriented movies, 1980–2006". Journal of Children and Media. 3 (2): 117–135. doi:10.1080/17482790902772257. ISSN 1748-2798. S2CID 38118008.
- Ebert, Roger (November 16, 2003). "Movie Answer Man". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on October 12, 2007. Retrieved July 26, 2007.
- "Film Rating Board to Consider Smoking as a Factor" (PDF). MPAA. May 10, 2007. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 12, 2007. Retrieved July 26, 2007.
- "Universal Pictures Policy Regarding Tobacco Depictions in Films". Universal Studios. April 16, 2007. Retrieved August 5, 2008.
- Rubin, Rita (March 8, 2011). "PG-rated 'Rango' has anti-smoking advocates fuming". USA Today.
- Thompson, Brian (October 11, 2010). "Spangle Magazine". Archived from the original on July 16, 2011. Retrieved February 1, 2011.
- Joan Graves (October 23, 2018). "Rating Nudity" (Interview). Motion Picture Association. Retrieved June 18, 2021.
- ^ Zinoman, Jason (2011). "Chapter Five: 'Shock or Awe'". Shock Value: How a Few Eccentric Outsiders Gave Us Nightmares, Conquered Hollywood, and Invented Modern Horror. Penguin Books. ISBN 9781101516966. Retrieved March 3, 2019.
- Klemesrud, Judy (January 27, 1974). "They Wait Hours to Be Shocked". The New York Times. Retrieved March 1, 2019.
- Bozzuto, James C. (July 1, 1975). "Cinematic neurosis following "The Exorcist": Report of four cases". The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 161 (1): 43–48. doi:10.1097/00005053-197507000-00005. ISSN 0022-3018. PMID 1151359. S2CID 9570535.
- Meacham, Roy (February 3, 1974). "How Did 'The Exorcist' Escape an X Rating?". The New York Times. Retrieved March 1, 2019.
- "Dead cert: the NC-17 rating". The Guardian. July 25, 1999. Retrieved May 1, 2018.
- Dirks, Tim (2012). "Greatest Box-Office Bombs, Disasters and Film Flops: The Most Notable Examples 1995 – 2". filmsite. AMC Network Entertainment LLC. Retrieved October 1, 2012.
- Dutka, Elaine (April 20, 2004). "NC-17 comes out from hiding". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved October 1, 2012.
- "Bad Education". Box Office Mojo.
- "Foreign affairs". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on July 3, 2009.
- "DGA Task Force on Violence and Social Responsibility Statement in Response to FTC Report on Violence". Directors Guild of America. September 14, 2000. Retrieved May 1, 2018.
- "MPAA Creating 'Hard-R', A More PC Version of NC-17". Bloody Disgusting. Bloody Disgusting LLC. March 12, 2007. Archived from the original on October 10, 2012. Retrieved October 1, 2012.
- Stewart, Ryan (March 10, 2007). "MPAA Wants New Rating For 'Hard R'". Moviefone. AOL Inc. Retrieved October 1, 2012.
- Vena, Jocelyn (December 8, 2010). "Ryan Gosling Says NC-17 Rating 'Stigmatizes' 'Blue Valentine'". MTV News. Viacom International Inc. Archived from the original on October 7, 2014. Retrieved June 4, 2015.
- Hilden, Julie (July 16, 2007). "Free Speech and the Concept of "Torture Porn": Why are Critics So Hostile to "Hostel II"?". FindLaw's Writ. Retrieved March 22, 2011.
- Pinto, Barbara (June 1, 2004). "'R-Cards' Let Teens See Racy Movies: Some in Industry Say Cards Defeat Purpose of Ratings". ABC News. Archived from the original on February 2, 2011. Retrieved July 7, 2018.
- Paulson, Amanda (May 24, 2004). "Under 17 not admitted without R-card". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved July 26, 2007.
- Ebert, Roger (September 24, 2000). "Ugly reality in movie ratings". RogerEbert.com. Retrieved May 1, 2018.
- Tassi, Paul (December 14, 2010). "Roger Ebert thinks the MPAA's ratings are useless". Time.
- Ebert, Roger (February 24, 2004). "The Passion of the Christ". Time.
- Ebert, Roger (December 11, 2010). "Getting Real About Movie Ratings". Time.
- Cruz, Gilbert (October 30, 2008). "Happy 40th Birthday, Movie Ratings". Time. Archived from the original on November 2, 2008.
- Farber, Stephen (1972). The Movie Rating Game (Paperback ed.). Public Affairs Press. ISBN 978-0-8183-0181-0. Retrieved October 3, 2011.
- Rich Juzwiak (December 18, 2013). "G.B.F. Was Rated R for Being Gay". Gawker.com. Retrieved December 20, 2013.
- Sandy Cohen (March 8, 2012). "Teenager petitions to change R rating for 'Bully'". CBS News. CBS. Archived from the original on November 3, 2013. Retrieved August 20, 2012.
- "R rating stuns 'Saints' makers". Deseret News. Retrieved March 15, 2008.
- Baggaley, Thomas. "LDS Cinema Gets Better and Gets a Bum Rating". meridianmagazine.com. Archived from the original on February 29, 2004.
- ^ Atschison, Doug. "Separate and Unequal? How the MPAA Rates Independent Films." The Best American Movie Writing 2001. Ed. John Landis. 59–69.
- Bahr, Sarah (June 21, 2021). "'The Hunchback of Notre Dame' at 25: 'The Most R-Rated G You Will Ever See'". The New York Times. Retrieved July 6, 2023.
- Rorie, Matt (June 27, 2011). "Was Cars 2 Too Violent For A G-Rating?". Screened. Archived from the original on June 29, 2011. Retrieved September 18, 2014.
- Mendelson, Scott (May 11, 2016). "'Finding Dory' And 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2' Get Surprising Ratings". Forbes. Retrieved October 11, 2023.
- Mendelson, Scott (November 26, 2013). "Disney's 'Frozen' Proves Failure Of PG Rating". Forbes. Retrieved October 11, 2023.
- Kirby Dick (January 25, 2006). This Film is not Yet Rated (Film).
- Tobias, Patricia Eliot (November 1999). "Who Put the Sin in Cinema?". Written by. Archived from the original on April 16, 2003. Retrieved September 6, 2010.
- Greydanus, Steven D. (October 24, 2004). "'Ratings Creep' – or a Case of 'Once Bitten, Twice Shy'?". National Catholic Register. Retrieved September 6, 2010.
- ^ Thompson, Kimberly M.; Yokota, Fumie (2004). "Violence, sex and profanity in films: correlation of movie ratings with content". MedGenMed. 6 (3): 3. PMC 1435631. PMID 15520625.
- Chen, David (November 8, 2010). "Why the MPAA Should Be Ashamed of Itself". slashfilm.com. Retrieved October 3, 2011.
- Phillips, Michael (November 4, 2010). "There's a word for the MPAA..." Chicago Tribune. Retrieved February 8, 2012.
External links
- Classification and Ratings Administration Official Website with ratings database
- MPA Film Ratings website