Censorship on the Silver Screen

There seems to be a general impression that the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), which governs the current film ratings system, and the Classification and Rating Administration (CARA), the board which rates films, simply advise the American public about a film's content. Yet your documentary suggests that film ratings essentially have the power to censor a film. Can you explain?

On the simplest level, film ratings can restrict children of a particular age from seeing a film. But beyond that, many theaters won't play films rated NC-17 [the most restrictive film rating], some newspapers and TV networks won't advertise them, and stores like Blockbuster and Wal-Mart won't carry them. Consequently, investors and filmmakers refuse to make films in that arena. They censor themselves even before the film gets to the ratings board, and then the board often censors filmmakers further by demanding they edit the film in order to get an R rating. Essentially, the NC-17 rating is a form of economic censorship of artists.

Can you briefly describe who comprises the MPAA and CARA and how their decisions are reached?

The MPAA itself is the trade organization and lobbying arm for six major movie studios that control 95 percent of the film business. The CARA ratings board itself, as of now, has 10 people on it. The only requirements for people on the ratings board are that they have to be parents, live in the Los Angeles area, and not be in the film business. As far as we know, there are no gays and lesbians on the ratings board. We interviewed an ex-rater, who was on until 2000, and as far as he knew, there were none on the board at that time.

The names of all board members are kept secret, and have been for 38 years. The entire rating process is kept secret. The MPAA claims that names of ratings board members are kept secret to protect them from industry influence, from being contacted by producers, etc. But we found that the people who have the most direct contact with the ratings board are people working in film studios. These are studio executives who have regular contact with the board, and can sometimes even influence their vote. In a system that is secret, it's very difficult to see what influences are in place, and this makes it difficult to hold the ratings board accountable.

Your documentary suggests that there are several double standards in film ratings: between the depiction of violence and sexuality, of heterosexual relations and homosexual relations, of male sexual pleasure and female sexual pleasure. What do you think is behind these double standards?

It's no secret that the ratings system goes much easier on films depicting violence than on films depicting adult sexuality. Major film studios right now target adolescents, and adolescents respond to violence, so the CARA gives films with violence less restrictive ratings so they will get out to a wider audience. Independent and foreign films are more mature, contain more sexuality, and are rated more restrictively. The system is set up to help the major studios and hurt their competition.

There's also a political benefit for the MPAA and major studios when the ratings system comes down hard on sex, particularly gay sex. Overseeing the ratings system is only a small part of the work of the MPAA. Its primary efforts are in Washington to lobby for laws that help studios. By coming down hard on sex and gay sex, MPAA lobbyists curry favor with certain politicians who have hardliner views on these issues.

As for the double standard between male and female sexuality — Kimberly Pierce [writer/director of Boys Don't Cry] makes an argument in the documentary that the ratings board is uncomfortable with female pleasure, because in Hollywood, most writers and directors are men. Audiences and the ratings board are most familiar with the male perspective on sex, and when they witness a woman's sexual pleasure, that's uncomfortable for them, and they tend to rate it more restrictively.

According to your documentary, the film ratings system in the United States is somewhat backward compared with film ratings systems in Western Europe, where sexual content is much more acceptable, and violent content is of greater concern. What do you think these differences suggest about the prevailing cultural attitudes about sexuality in the U.S. compared with other Western societies?

I think it's true that the U.S. is a more violent culture than most of the Western Europe countries, at least in contemporary terms. But I think that the film studios have to take some responsibility for violence in this culture because they have produced and marketed violent films to adolescents without taking any responsibility for how those films might affect their behavior. As far as sexuality is concerned, there is a puritanical streak in this country, but I think it's a bit overstated. Most people are aware that sexuality is just part of being a person. But there's a vocal minority that's allowing the MPAA to censor films; the MPAA does not want to incur the wrath of this vocal minority. Imagine if visual arts, plays, books, etc., were censored in this way — many of the great masterpieces would have been altered significantly, if made at all.

A few years back, Planned Parenthood outlined a set of goals to achieve by the year 2025. Goal one is to "ensure that sexuality is understood as an essential, lifelong aspect of being human and that it is celebrated with respect, openness, and mutuality." Your documentary suggests that movies could go a long way to further such a goal if existing censorship obstacles were not in place. What plan do you propose for eliminating these obstacles, while ensuring that parents have a way to determine whether or not a film is appropriate for their children?

First and foremost, the rating system should get information to parents, concisely but comprehensively. Right now, the MPAA and the CARA are really failing at that. They only give films a letter rating and a very short descriptor that are often inconsistent and hard to decipher. There should be training for the raters — rating about 900 films a year is a very complex job, and to remain consistent takes training. I think professionals, like media experts and child psychologists, should play some role in the process, as well as parents. But I don't think age-based restrictions are particularly helpful. If children want to see a film, they'll see it. It's much better to provide information to parents and children, and let them assume responsibility for their own viewing.

What's really problematic is that some of the most sophisticated explorations of adult sexuality by film artists are being stamped as pornography, because the NC-17 rating, which was previously an X rating, is stigmatized as pornography. And this is the opposite attitude of the filmmakers who are often censored by this rating. It's really unfortunate, because it's keeping a really mature investigation of sexuality from the public.

What rating did your documentary receive?

I submitted a rough cut of my film to the ratings board to get a rating. I did this, because the MPAA and the CARA are so secretive about the process that the only way I could find out how a film was rated was to submit my film and then document what happened as it went through the ratings and appeals process. I got an NC-17 rating, but the film has been released unrated, because IFC Films is distributing it. Unlike the six major studios and their subsidiaries, which require their films to be rated in order to be distributed, IFC Films is not obligated to go with a film rating.

This Film Is Not Yet Rated is currently playing at select theaters nationwide. Visit the film's official website for more information.

© 2006 Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. All rights reserved.