 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
After doing some reading on the Internet about the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) Voluntary Movie Rating System (VMRS) I am left with one outstanding question. As I understand it the VMRS, as the name suggests, is voluntary. Any filmmaker or distributor is free to distributor their film without submitting it to MPAA for rating. The film can be distributed without any rating indicator or with any rating indicator that does not violate the MPAA trademarked indicators "G", "PG", "PG-13", "R" or "NC-17". Putting corporate, political, and economic pressures aside, I have no problem with this.
I also understand that individual or corporate owners of theaters or theater chains can choose to enforce the MPAA VMRS rating. They are legally allowed to do this because of the right of a proprietor of a private business to deny service to any individual as long as the grounds for denial do not violate any equal rights or anti-discrimination laws. Also, the rating guidelines apply only to people who are under 17 years of age. A person does not have full constitutional rights and is consider a sort of semi-citizen until they turn 18 and legally become an adult. I'm not sure if that last point applies, but it seems like it may be applicable somehow. What I am unable to dig up is if the MPAA VMRS ratings are supported and enforced at a legislative level. Are their federal or state laws that allow cops to legally enforce these voluntary ratings (not counting theater ownership enforcement)? Could I, in theory, open my own theater and choose not to enforce the MPAA VMRS ratings? THAT is my question. If any of you find out let me know. Even after struggling through lengthy obscure legal jargon on-line I'm still unable to find a definitive answer. With my question explained I have a few other things I'd like to say. First I want to make it clear that I have NO problem with the MPAA or the VMRS. As far as I'm concerned any number of people or organizations are free to come up with and assign all the "recommended", "guideline based" ratings they want. I don't even mind certain forms of enforcement of a commonly adopted rating system... AS LONG AS PARENTS HAVE THE FINAL SAY IN ALL THINGS AND THEY ARE NOT OVER-RULED BY ANY LEGISLATION (which I do not believe is the case for NC-17). If it were up to me I would either one, have NO legislative enforcement leaving it up to the parents alone to prevent their kids from seeing movies that they take issue with, or two, simply require a signed note from a parent for anyone under 18 to see any movie. The note would be required to contain the name of the movie the note is for, a clear sentence stating that the child can see the movie, and the parent's signature. With no way to compare signatures (and with signatures being easy to forge anyway) this would effectively amount to the same thing as option one. The issue as I see it is that most, if not all, legal enforcement of subjective, largely arbitrary ratings (ratings that are meant as suggested guidelines) is wrong, clear and simple. The only solution as I see it is for parents to be far more involved and devote a great deal more time (an asset most parents don't have a lot of) to the issue. The mistake I think most parents make now days is to be too dismissive of movies as a whole. They view them as an inevitable part of pop culture, not as a work to be considered (a mistake that most people make, I think). Movies have a real power to affect the psyche, especially a young and rapidly developing one. For parents this is a power they at least need to be aware of. Personally if I was a parent, I think there's an average of maybe 5 or 6 movies a year that I would want to take my kid(s) to, that I would consider good enough or valid enough for them to see. Add another 10 or 15 movies that really do fall into the "inevitable pop culture" category, but that I don't find too offensive to allow my kid(s) to see if they want to and you are left with maybe 15 to 20 movies a year for my hypothetical kid(s)! It would be easier for me (as a movie buff) than it would be for most to actually find those 20 movies a year. The time sink for parents is in the research and/or pre-screening of films. The only solution to this that I can think of is for parents to build a network of trusted opinions to help guide what movies they research or pre-screen. This network could include friends who have a proven track record of good taste in film and movie critics and reviewers who have a similar proven track record. I guess the moral of this paragraph is that parents should make friends with movie buffs more often! Taking your children to the movies (or allowing them to go on their own) should be thought of by parents as introducing them to potentially influential fine art. The underlying messages and emotional impacts that result should be dealt with in the same way. If a film has a message or emotional impact that a parent feels their child is ready to handle, that the parent feels the child could benefit from, and that THE PARENT IS PREPARED TO TAKE THE TIME TO EXPLAIN AND DISCUS WITH THEIR CHILD AFTERWARD then no legislation on the planet should prevent the parent from allowing their child to see the film! The issue of negligent parenting is a topic for another impromptu essay of random "Todd spewings", but I will say this. I think parenting both at the individual and communal level in the United States is a pathetic joke. At both levels it seems like many parenting entities are simply looking for the easy automated baby sitter. "Sit them in front of television" being a popular solution. If you are going to flood your small children with un-screened, un-explained pop culture crap you should not be surprised when they show up at their school with a gun 10 years later. I don't even subject MYSELF to television except in small doses at friend's houses! In case you hadn't guessed anti-television rhetoric is also a topic for another impromptu essay of random "Todd spewings". Negligent parenting obviously comes in varieties far worse than neglect in favor of a televised wet nurse. I find myself tempted to support things like mandatory licensing before a person can be a parent (we have that for driving a car!) and maybe oppressive federal and state enforced breeding and population control. Who knows. This problem in our society goes way too deep. I do think that people should make a DECISION to become parents and should not make the decision lightly. It should be a major commitment of every resource the individuals have. People who don't understand that should not get the license. Ok, to sum up this rant a bit: I see two breakdown points in the system concerning movies. One, irresponsible parents and, two legislative enforcement of a voluntary rating system. I good system would be one in which responsible parents take an active part in guiding their children's media intake and explaining or helping to explain the results of that psyche/media combination. Obviously I'm primarily concerned here with film, but this idea should extend to all media, books, music, painting, etc. In this good system, with the problem of negligent parenting taken care of, no legislative interference with said medias would exist. There would ONLY exist guidelines intended to help parents make better, faster judgments. Also in the "good system" all the current television stations would be condensed into one or two stations that had ONLY good shows and no commercials. Commercials would be sold and rented separately in four-hour collections on DVD for those who are interested. It's fun to be both open-minded and close-minded at the same time. :-) Oh, as one last interesting aside. In his publication "HOW IT WORKS" Jack Valenti (president of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) from 1966 to the present) states that "Contrary to popular notion, violence is not treated more leniently than any of the other material." By "other material" he is referencing the discrete categories of theme, language, nudity, sensuality, and drug abuse. Yet later in the same publication he says "No stronger words are present in G-rated films. The violence is at a minimum. Nudity and sex scenes are not present; nor is there any drug use content." In my mind this looks like this:
Call me crazy, but that looks to me like violence is being treated more leniently than any of the other material. Interesting that this would be the case in a society that just had yet another high school shooting. I blame this on individual and communal parenting NOT the media. I want anyone and everyone to be free to produce whatever media they feel compelled to produce. I want society to provide the tools to help parents make per-child decisions about that media. I want parents to be GOOD parents. And above all, I want no government in my art.
Todd S. Murchison
Valenti, Jack. "MPA | Movie Ratings | About | How It Works." Dec. 2000 |
| |||||
|
