Violence in the Media: What an MPAA Rating Means for a Film

The Motion Picture Association of America has been used domestically to rate a film's appropriateness since it was founded in 1968. Currently the MPAA has five ratings categories including G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17 (originally there were four categories), and these ratings are the standard by which an audience member (or more specifically a parent) is able to judge content used throughout a film's exhibition. These ratings, and the ratings board, are upheld by the studios, including Paramount, Disney, Sony, 20th Century Fox, Universal and Warner Bros. Something that is fascinating about the ratings system, and the MPAA, is what the rating itself can say about a film. Even more fascinating is that many of the most quality films (at least if the Oscars are the determinant of quality) are R-rated (the last time a film not rated R won the best picture Oscar was in 2005 for Million Dollar Baby; the last time a film won the best picture Oscar that did not contain any violence as part of the rating was in 1999 for Shakespeare in Love), and the thing that all of these films have in common is violence. The MPAA cites "intense or persistent violence" as one of the criteria capable of earning an R-rating; there is the sense that films these days must contain at least a minimal amount of violence in order to gain any sort of recognition, financial or critical. It is about time for American audiences to be hit with a wave of "summer" movies, which are often big budget action films, and so this topic seems relevant now more than ever. Violence in film is a tool, and is neither inherently good or inherently bad depending on how it is used.

Of the twenty top grossing films of 2007, according to the MPAA's own 2007 U.S. Theatrical Market Statistics Report, ten of the films were rated PG-13 (Sony's Spider-Man 3, pictured left, has the top spot with $336.5 million dollars; of these ten the only film that is not rated as containing violence is The Simpsons Movie), six of the films were rated PG, three films were rated R (one of which, Knocked Up, does not contain violence), and one film was rated G. Whenever terrible things happen in our culture there are always people who are prepared to blame violent films and video games (as well as other media); but are we a violent culture because of films and video games, or are films and video games violent to reflect our culture? In J. Hoberman's article in The Village Voice, "If It Bleeds, It Leads," he makes the claim that American films have become more violent due in part to the war that we have been fighting, "Why shouldn't we be preoccupied with homicidal sociopaths? America's been at was for the past four and a half years." On a different, but related note, Peter S. Goodman in "Economists Say Movie Violence Might Temper the Real Thing" for The New York Times wrote that, in a study conducted by University of California professors Stefano DellaVigna and Gordon Dahl, movie violence actually helps to deter violence in real life, "violent films prevent violent crimes by attracting would-be assailants and keeping them cloistered in darkened, alcohol-free environs." There is no question that there is violence in movies, and it is also unquestionable that as a culture we have grown accustomed to watching some violence, but the thought that the violence in films could account for the acts committed in reality does not follow. Violent films are often shocking and brutal, but, like all great art, they exist to instigate thought and discourse, not violence. When a film ceases to strive for these goals it also ceases to be art, and instead becomes a weapon.

There is, in a sense, the belief that films might lack academic or intellectual merit if they are not of a certain rating. Many of the more prestigious films that come out are often times dealing with more "hard-hitting" subjects and warrant R-ratings. This years Oscar winner for best picture, No Country for Old Men (pictured right), is one such example. But this begs the question of whether or not it is possible for a film to be both topical and without age restrictions. Movies like Knocked Up and Romanian import 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (which is actually unrated in America, but would certainly warrant an R-rating or worse) are both films that concern themselves with the issue of unplanned-for pregnancies. This is an issue that is current, relevant and pertinent, and there are other films like Juno (rated PG-13) that deal with similar topics; however the fact is that there should be films with a variety of different ratings, aimed at a variety of age groups, that all promote thought and discourse. To say that movies are better or worse, less or more relevant, because they fall under a certain rating is ridiculous. Filmmakers (artists in general) should be able to express themselves any way that they see fit, a film being more or less respected on the grounds of it's objectionable material is in it's own right reverse-censorship.

There is an ongoing debate among filmmakers about whether or not the MPAA ratings system exists purposefully or not, that is whether it is a valuable system or an inappropriate form of censorship. That debate will probably never be settled, many filmmakers will continue to believe that it is a form of censorship and concerned people will continue to believe that it is a necessary outlet of vital information. But whether or not a film is good or bad because it has a certain rating, whether or not a film is credible or not, should not be determined by the rating it receives. There are good and credible films in every ratings category.