While the concept of giving motion pictures an age rating sounds good on paper, the inconsistencies with the logic behind these moral guardians’ decisions leaves many questions to be answered.
Moral guardians are those who take it upon themselves to define what they believe is and is not appropriate for specific audiences. Established by major Hollywood production studios as a way to appease the demands for censorship from these groups, the Motion Picture Association (MPA) serves to regulate films’ content in order for films to be deemed appropriate for their target audiences.
The designated ratings are G (all ages admitted), PG (parental guidance suggested), PG-13 (parents strongly cautioned), R (those under 17 need adult supervision) and X (no one under 17 allowed in).
Now, the regulation of movies for target audiences could work if utilized properly. However, the key word there is if.
For starters, MPA has an interesting double standard in regard to how violence is depicted in films. Violence that is considered to be realistic, extreme or persistent is supposed to receive a film an automatic R rating.
However, what defines realistic violence? Is it the shedding of blood, or is it the way that characters have such violence enacted upon them?
Take Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight” for example. This two-and-a-half-hour film was rated PG-13 and contained numerous scenes of graphic, somewhat realistic violence. Violent scenes included a pencil slammed into a man’s eye, a gangster receiving a larger mouth, courtesy of a maniac with a knife, an explosion burning half of a man’s face off and a bomb being sewn into a person’s stomach.
However, since not a single drop of blood was shed on screen, the violence was deemed not graphic or realistic enough to earn the film an R rating.
While the MPA is inconsistent with their standards regarding violence, the organization is even more inconsistent with standards involving nudity and sexuality.
Anything more than brief nudity earns a film a PG-13 rating at minimum. Nudity that is sexual in nature earns a film an R rating.
However, what defines sexually-oriented nudity? While artists throughout history have shown no problem with displaying the human physique at an intimate level, it can be argued that there has always been an element of eroticism to it.
A movie that blurs the line between eroticism and art is James Cameron’s “Titanic.” In an iconic scene, Leonardo DiCaprio’s character, an artist in the film, drew Kate Winslet’s character au naturale. This scene is meant to represent her desire for freedom from society’s restrictive views on women and feminism. The camera completely bares her body, just as it bares her soul and spirit for all to see.
There is also an element of sexual tension between the leads of the film as their feelings toward one another continue to build and blossom during this scene. It becomes obvious that DiCaprio’s character views her with both an artistic and sexualized gaze.
Yet when they show a risqué scene later in the film, the camera goes out of the way to avoid showing any bare skin, as that type of nudity is considered not appropriate for 13-year-olds to see.
It shines a light upon American society that the people who take it upon themselves to determine what is and is not appropriate for viewers are more lenient in regards to violence and gunplay than they are in regards to love and sexuality.
The standards that movie age ratings hold themselves are shown to be inconsistent and somewhat prudish with their standards and what can and cannot violate them. The time has come to re-evaluate the MPA and set new standards for the modern era of cinema.