I was reading comments on a review of 16 Candles, the classic John Hughes movie from the early '80s (and one of my all-time favorites. I STILL heart Jake Ryan.). One comment that kept popping up over and over was that it wasn't properly rated and that it wasn't family friendly. Family friendly?!? I never thought of it as a movie that I would show an 8-year-old.
When 16 Candles was released, there was no PG-13 rating; they went straight from PG to R. Should it have received an R? Probably not by today's standards. Should it have received a PG? No, there was that scene in the shower as well as teen drinking and some language. I do think in this case, the MPAA was more lenient than usual but an R wouldn't have been justly earned either.
And for the record, PG means parental guidance. If you have any doubts about whether or not it is appropriate for your child to watch, use common sense and view it without them first. Don't rely on a system devised by others when it comes to what your children should and should not be watching. You may not agree with the verdict.
I'm always rather curious as to how they rate movies. I think what it really comes down to these days is this: the "F Bomb." If it is dropped more than once in a movie, it is an automatic R-rating. Other than that, it needs to have extreme amounts of sex and/or violence to earn the R.
Can you think of any movies where you think it needs a different rating? why?
This Film Is Not Yet Rated (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/) is a fascinating look at the MPAA and the way movie ratings are determined. I think it is less whether the sex and violence are extreme and more whether they are traditional or non-traditional. A gay kiss just might draw an R rating even though no skin is shown and no other "objectionable" material exists in the movie. Same with anti-religious material.
ReplyDelete