Unit 26, Assignment 2: MPAA Article

The MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) is a voluntary organisation which includes a group of parents watching and rating new films. As well as being a voluntary organisation, the MPAA is also a Trade Association, meaning that it's a group of people who all have a common interest who come together to promote it and they meet every so often to do so. They all work in the same trade and they're funded by businesses in the industry they're working in. In this case, the film industry.

Obviously they can't rate every single film made, they rate the films made by the 6 main studios which are: Walt Disney Pictures, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal City Studios and Warner Bro's Entertainment. Any film they watch are given a rating, either; G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17.

G ratings are given out when there's no sexual content or violence/strong language in a films. The majority of Disney films are G's for example Cinderella which is one of Disney's most famous creations. The fact that most films are G's has established a young audience for Disney and parents know what they're letting their children watch and they can rely on it.
Disney is the largest conglomerate in the world in terms of revenue due to the success of their films, theme parks and stores selling merchandise. The Disney brand is a multinational mass media corporation.

A PG is given when parental discretion is advised due to mild language/violence. An example of a PG film is Despicable me which made a profit of $474,113,985 which is partly thanks to the rating, because it was rated as a kids film, they all want the latest merchandise that comes out; iHop gave out minions in kids meals, video games were created and soundtracks were told, it's no wonder they made so much money. The rating made the film appeal to a much wider younger audience really benefiting the producer.

Slightly different is a PG-13 rating which means that parents ideally should watch the film with their children and if not, any child should at least be 13. Avatar was given a PG-13 and is one of the top grossing films ever; making $2,782,275,172.
Coca-Cola collaborated with Twentieth Century Fox in a campaign to promote the film. This led to a massive hype before the movie came out and lots of people went to see it and enjoyed it, spending further money on action figures and video games. Again a rating like this is beneficial because it appealed to a wider audience.

The next rating up is an R which is almost equivalent to a UK 15. Some cinemas will ID you if you look underage as an R rating is taken more seriously. The Hangover was rated R and is one of the most well known comedy trilogies. The content  deals with mature topics, drinking the night before a wedding and losing memory of the night before. It's important that anyone under a certain can't watch as it isn't promoting a good thing for kids and considering young people learn by watching/listening, they will take to it and think it's the norm. The first two Hangover films are in the best sellers list of R films despite the first being released in 2009 which shows that even having a rating which means that in a way less people can watch it, the film can still do well in the charts.

The final rating the MPAA can give is an NC-17, no one under 17 can be admitted in to watch any NC-17 and the content is restricted as much as an 18 would. Spring Breakers is an example of an NC-17, given because of the explicit drug use and violence, even the trailer is enough to warn people about what's in it and it was critical that the rating was so high. The film features Selena Gomez who is a recurring Disney actress and young children look up to her and if they saw her in a role like this it would leave them confused to say the least.
An NC-17 allows a mature audience and only those who will understand it can watch it, getting a rating was important because it stopped young children watching the movie because their favourite actress features as the content would be too mature.


Ideally, no film maker wants an NC-17 rating because then nobody under the age of 17 can watch the film and that can severely affect the box office sales. In order to get an R rating instead of an NC-17, directors can appeal against the MPAA despite them knowing that the majority of appeals against them are unsuccessful.
Some people argue that studio productions get more help than independent film makers because unless you're part of a studio, you get no feedback on your film. Decisions can also be biased some members of the board have part ownership of cinema chains and are
quite powerful which can be a bad thing for the independent filmmakers going through the appeal process because as childish as it sounds some of the members can be offended that they're appealing against their decision and if they win they might hold a grudge and not play their film at their cinemas which will affect how much money the filmmaker earns.

However, some are successful, for example "American Psycho" made in 2000 was initially given an NC-17, presumably because of the extent of the violence, all the axes and chainsaws used. But to their surprise it was actually because of a sex scene between Christian Bales character and two prostitutes. Harron, who directed the film came to an agreement with the MPAA and cut a few seconds of the scene in order to grab an R rating, this is just one case that began speculation as to whether the MPAA care more about the sexual content of a production rather than the amount of violence.

Similarly "Boys Don't Cry" was given an NC-17 and the reasoning was an intimate scene between transgender Brandan and his girlfriend. The director appealed, arguing that other films of a much worse nature didn't get a rating as harsh. This verdict led more people to think that all decisions made were biased and un fair and the members of the board had sexist and homophobic views.
In the end the scene was edited to be more appropriate for viewing as Kimberly Pierce said "studios will not release films if the ratings are too high" but the full scene was on the home DVD version.

But Hollywood producers do depend on the MPAA because part of their job is being responsible for how well the film does.
When a film has a rating, it allows the producers to have an established target audience. For example if it has a G/PG rating, then parents are more likely to take their children because they know it's suitable and then the producers can work on making merchandise which will bring in more money, this is an example of a films ancillary rights.
A films' ancillary rights are making money in places other than cinema ticket sales, as ticket sales don't make back the full cost of making the film. The money comes from selling the film to TV and rental companies, airlines, also by any soundtracks and merchandise sold.

In my opinion, Hollywood and the MPAA can have a ropey relationship because film makers can either be happy or disappointed with their rating.
Along with Hollywood, the public also have a mixed relationship with the MPAA about whether the whole organisation has to be so confidential, why they have so much to hide and whether the decisions are fair. Some people have criticised it for being a fascist system.
When it comes to the question "does the MPAA serve everyone in the Hollywood film industry" I personally think it does, whether you like the outcome or not. Film ratings are essential these days because we always hear of young people watching things they shouldn't and having these ratings is a way of putting a cap on what they can watch.
However, other people will argue that it doesn't serve everyone and the organisation is in favour of the main studios because the organisation works to make money for them so they will biased towards whoever can make them the most money.

In the documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" they speak to a former member of the MPAA, Stephen Faber and when asked if there were any homosexual parents on the board to which he replied "none that I know of" and everyone had at least one child which makes people question if anything that isn't heterosexual or is too graphic will get flagged up and because there are no homosexual parents will the decisions be biased in that sense?

Also the fact the MPAA employ "average American parents", who can define what an "average parent" is? It makes decisions biased because the majority of those parents will want to protect their children. They do this by restricting what other people can watch and considering that America preach so much about having freedom of speech, the idea of of the organisation seems to contradict that and they can just cut people off and ignore their points of view.

It's easy to make a list of the cons of the MPAA, but they also do have some positives, them being;
• they're making it harder for underage children to be watching stuff that they shouldn't.
• the fact that it's voluntary, filmmakers don't have to send their film in to be rated if they don't want to.

It's important to get a rating, but it isn't necessary. If a filmmaker wanted to trial what their film would get, they can do that or they can just skip the MPAA rating system altogether. Saying that it may affect how well a film does as it may only get played in small individual cinemas and they can't really market their film. Major cinema chains that are popular and are a franchise such as Cine World and Showcase will only play films if it has a rating so people have an idea of what they're watching, therefore the film might not make as much money as it potentially could if it did have a rating.

Although it's safe to say that it's easy to see more negatives than positives in the MPAA and how it works, the 6 main studios still carry on to use the system since it was founded by Jack Valentti in 1922.