The Dangers Of A Film Rating System

Film is a constant evolving medium that requires an equally evolved rating system. Although the MPAA’s present regulatory system has its defects, a film rating system with some degree of government regulation would be far more detrimental for an industry that prides itself in freedom of expression. Improvement to the current MPAA’s regulatory system is necessary to coincide with society’s constant change. In the past, a film rating system overseen to some degree by the government was constraining due to strict subjective guidelines in order to achieve a seal of approval. Today, a present-day censorship board would be equally unfavorable because of the precedents set forth by Freedman v. Maryland. The 1965 court case put into to place safeguards

By creating a rating system that adheres to these safeguards, we are granting the government the ability to decide whether a film’s content constitutes as an artwork or expression that is unprotected by the constitution, a completely subjective process that may be infiltrated by hidden bias. This completely contradicts the ruling upheld in Joseph Burstyn, INC. v. Wilson (1952) in which filmmakers had the ability to create an artwork with the protection of the first amendment. On the contrary, some parental watch groups may find a such rating system beneficial because of the legal repercussions theaters could face if they decided to ignore the rating given to a certain film. A system like this would’ve made sense during the early 20th century when film was a relatively new medium and the public was genuinely afraid of what to expect from motion pictures whether it be a moving train

The MPAA insists on sticking to their harsh guidelines on obscenity and sex because they want to protect the youth from being potentially scarred (first blow theory); however, such an argument is dated and inconsistent, especially because the prominence of the internet almost guarantees that at some point in their young lives they’ve already been exposed to sex, violence, and obscenity. The MPAA must also acknowledge that they are primarily providing a voluntary service to parents and it is up to the discretion of parents whether or not they will let their children watch a film. For instance, writer A.O. Scott will let his 14-year-old daughter watch Blue Is The Warmest Color regardless of its NC-17 rating because he believes that regardless of the sex, the film is a coming of age story (“Theater Will Ignore NC-17 Rating for ‘Blue Is the Warmest Color’”). Change is inevitable for the MPAA and that should begin with releasing the names of its raters; therefore, abolishing the means for a secretive ratings process and establishing a sense of trust between the filmmakers and the MPAA. Also, to strive to become an impartial entity when rating a film, I suggest that formal training be required and that the potential MPAA raters currently serve as parent of a 5 to 17-year-old. Additionally, I’d recommend a system of compromise in which the MPAA and the filmmaker work