AN ASSESSMENT OF THE MPAA CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Prologue

"The time has come," the Walrus said,

"To talk of many things

Of shoes--and ships--and sealing wax--

Of cabbages--and kings--

Should V-chips--labeling--head a new parade

Or is Valenti right--to call them both a charade?"

This is the beginning of one Caucus member's assessment of the aims and objectives of the MPAA--the Motion Picture Association of America--as the MPAA, many public interest organizations, the major creative guilds--DGA, PGA, WGA, SAG, together with the Caucus for Producers, Writers & Directors--seek to establish an appropriate system to rate television/cable programs for the primary benefit of children and parents.

(NOTE- On all pages marked-- "From the MPAA"--the contents are exact quotes from the 1996 MPAA pamphlet entitled, The Voluntary Movie Rating System written by Jack Valenti, President and CEO.)

From the MPAA:

THE PURPOSE OF THE RATING SYSTEM

The basic mission of the rating system is a simple one: to offer to parents some advance information about movies so that parents can decide what movies they want their children to see or not to see. The entire rostrum of the rating program rests on the assumption of responsibility by parents. If parents don't care, or if they are languid in guiding their children’s moviegoing, the rating system becomes useless. Indeed, if you are I8 or older, or if you have no children, the rating system has no meaning for you. Ratings are meant for parents, no one else.

The Rating Board does not rate movies on their quality or lack of quality. That is a role left to film critics and audiences. Had we attempted to insert ourselves into judging whether a film is "good" or "bad" or "indifferent," the system would have collapsed before it began.

The criteria that go into the mix which becomes a Rating Board judgment are theme, violence, language, nudity, sensuality, drug abuse, and other elements. Part of the rating flows from how each of these elements is treated on-screen by the filmmaker. In making their evaluations, the members of the Rating Board do not look at snippets of film in isolation, but consider the film in its entirety. The Rating Board can make its decisions only by what is seen on the screen, not by what is imagined or thought.

There is no special emphasis on any one of these elements. All are considered. All are examined before a rating is applied. Contrary to popular notion, violence is not treated more leniently than any of the other material. Indeed many films rated X in the past, and NC-17 now at least tentative been given the "adults only" rating because of descriptions of violence. However, most of the directors/producers/distributors involved have chosen, by their decision, to edit violent scenes in order to receive an R rating.

Commentary:

Who are the members of the MPAA? Eight major entertainment companies- Buena Vista (Disney), MGM, Paramount, Sony, Turner, Fox, Universal, Warner Bros.

Among its major functions- Preserve and protect the rights of copyright owners...

1. Act as "spokesman and advocate" for producers of movies, TV programs, home video...

2. Fight censorship and restrictive attacks on the First Amendment

3. Direct an anti-piracy program to protect films, TV programming

4. Provide "guidance to the parents of young children on the suitability of movies through the Voluntary Film Rating System, a partnership between MPAA and the National Association of Theatre Owners."

In 1968 the MPAA with the National Association of Theatre Owners established the film rating system. "This policy of voluntary self-regulation, unprecedented in any major industry (N.B. They apparently forgot or were unaware of the NAB Code that guided TV production for many years), was motivated by one predominant concern--the welfare of children. It is the goal of the film rating system to provide parents with cautionary advance warnings regarding the content of films so that parents can make their own decisions about their children's moviegoing."

Note: Warnings? Yes. Information about contents? No. Not even a single word about picture content. What about the responsibility of those eight companies? It is as though they invited you to be a guest at a fancy dinner--sterling silver, cutlery, fine china plates, sparkling crystal glasses, Irish linen napkins--only one thing missing- food.

From the MPAA:

HOW THE RATINGS ARE DECIDED

The ratings are decided by a full-time Rating Board located in Los Angeles. There are 8-13 members of the Board who serve for periods of varying length. They work for the Classification and Rating Administration, which is funded by fees charged to producers/distributors for the rating of their films. The MPAA President chooses the Chairman of the Rating Board, thereby insulating the Board from industry, or other group pressure. No one in the movie industry has the authority, or the power to push the Board in any direction or otherwise influence it. One of the highest accolades to be conferred on the rating system is that from its birth in 1968 to this hour, there has never been even the slightest jot of evidence that the rating system has ever deliberately fudged a decision or bowed to pressure. The Rating Board has always conducted itself at the highest level of integrity. That is a large, honorable, and valuable asset.

There are no special qualifications for Board membership, except the members must have a shared parenthood experience, must be possessed of an intelligent maturity and most of all, have the capacity to put themselves in the role of most American parents so they can view a film and apply a rating that most parents would find suitable and helpful in aiding their decisions about their children’s moviegoing. As the MPAA President, I take no part in rating decisions, and do not overrule or dissuade the Board from any decisions it makes.

No one is forced to submit a film to the Board for rating, but the vast majority, of producers/distributors do in fact submit their films for ratings. Any producer/distributor who wants no part of any rating system is free to go into the market without any rating at all or with any description or symbol they choose as long as it is not confusingly similar to the G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17. The rating symbols are federally regulated certification marks of the MPAA and may not be self-applied.

Commentary:

Alfred Schneider, who headed ABC's Program Standards & Practices Department for almost 20 years, now adjunct professor of communications and media management at Fordham's Graduate School of Business, stated matters in simple language in an article published in Broadcasting & Cable, March 4, 1966.

"As the person responsible for designing an "advisory system, "which brought the phrase "Tonight's episode deals with mature subject matter" into our awareness, I can tell you that a system that simply attaches an R, PG-13 or equally ambiguous symbols to television programs--which is the nature of the proposals--is a waste of time.

If we are going to play the "ratings game," we must take an approach that focuses on labeling--not rating--programs in a manner that provides context and enough information so that parents can make a judgment about the appropriateness of programs."

Who are these 8-13 members of the MPAA Ratings Board? That's an MPAA secret. What are their qualifications? That's a secret, too. Of course we know the names and qualifications of our Supreme Court Justices, of congressional committees and they are often roundly criticized by judges, congressmen, and the people. Why does membership on the MPAA Rating Board require anonymity? Let these MPAA anointed judges defend their decisions to parents and media critics.

That system is called democracy.

From the MPAA:

THE BOARD VOTES ON RATINGS

The Board views each film. Each member present estimates what most parents would consider to be that film's appropriate rating. After group discussion, the Board votes on the rating. Each member completes a rating form spelling out his or her reason for the rating.

Each rating is decided by majority vote.

The producer/distributor of a film has the right under the rules to inquire as to the "why" of the rating applied. The producer/distributor also has the right, based on the reasons for the rating, to edit the film -- if that is the choice of the producer/distributor -- and to come back to the Board to try for a less severe rating. The re-edited film is brought back to the Board and the process goes forward again.

APPEAL OF RATINGS

A producer/distributor who for any reason is displeased with a rating can appeal the decision to the Rating Appeals Board, which sits as the final arbiter of ratings.

The Appeals Board comprises 14 to 18 members who serve terms of varying length. They are men and women from the industry organizations that govern the rating system.

They gather to view the film and hear the appeal. After the screening, the producer/distributor whose film is being appealed explains why he or she believes the rating was wrongly decided. The chairman of the Rating Board states the reason for the film's rating. Both the producer/distributor and the Rating Board representative have an opportunity for rebuttal. In addition, the producer/distributor may submit a written presentation to the Appeals Board prior to the hearing.

After the Appeals Board members question the two opposing representatives, they are excused from the room. The Board discusses the appeal and then takes a secret ballot. It requires a two-thirds vote of those present to overturn a Rating Board decision.

By this method of appeal, decisions of the Rating Board can be examined and any rating, deemed a mistake set right.

The decision of the Appeals Board is final and cannot be appealed.

Commentary:

If the MPAA Ratings are so significant why, one must ask, does TV Guide, a magazine designed to serve the interests of its reader/TV viewers, in every issue, find it necessary (in connection with scores of films offered as premieres by the Pay-TV channels) not only print the MPAA rating beside each title, but add more real information? In TV Guide’s own words:

"We also offer advisories about content (adult themes, sexual situations, strong language, violence or nudity), but parents should be aware that films containing adult themes or sexual situations frequently involve nudity, even though our advisory may not explicitly say so."

Why, one must ask, does the MPAA adamantly refuse to provide such minimum information in the first place? Why? The answer is because the motion picture production companies and distributors do not want to risk giving parents, or anyone else for that matter, too much real information about content because that might diminish box office returns.

And, oh yes, TV Guide also gives the same information as spelled out above regarding recent motion picture releases available in video stores!

Concerning regularly scheduled motion pictures seen on network television or local stations TV Guide fails its readers. Why? Because no such information is given. Why not? Because the editors of TV Guide assume that broadcasters will have deleted all objectionable material from films rated by the MPAA as PG, PG-13, etc.

A remarkable assumption!

Even more startling is to discover, as I did in The Hollywood Reporter, October 31, 1996 issue, a column headed MPAA RATINGS. The column stated that, "The following films were assigned ratings in the latest weekly bulletin issued by the MPAA’s Classification and Ratings Administration:"

There follows a list of two PG films and 11 R rated films. Example: R Metro (rated for strong violence and language) Buena Vista Pictures Distribution."

Isn’t that synonymous with labeling -- and if they hand this out to the Reporter why don’t they add the information to the official MPAA Rating in their advertisements??? That’s describing content -- and that is why it is not added for public knowledge!

Parents would be told too much!!

From the MPAA:

WHAT THE RATINGS MEAN

G: General Audiences. All Ages Admitted.

This is a film that contains nothing in theme, language, nudity and sex, violence, etc. which would, in the view of the Rating Board, be offensive to parents whose younger children view the film. The G rating is not a "certificate of approval," nor does it signify a children’s film.

Some snippets of language may go beyond polite constraints but they are common everyday expressions. 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.

Commentary:

MPAA ratings don't mean much.

The real point is that you either have a set of fundamental principles or you don't.

The G Rating is supposed to be one that signals, in the words of the MPAA, a film containing nothing in the "theme, language, nudity and sex, violence, etc. which would be offensive to parents whose younger children view the film."

The principle of the G Rating is instantly abandoned by cleverly designed loopholes --"some snippets of language may go beyond polite conversation." Why? The excuse is that "they are common everyday expressions." That makes them eligible for an exception to the rule -- "This is a film that contains nothing in theme, language which would...be offensive to parents etc."

You do not make exceptions to principle. You do not publicize loopholes that defeat a principle.

What you do is stand on principle. You either have one or you don't. The MPAA does not stand on principle. It invites violation.

"The violence is at a minimum." Why any?

When you abandon principles you usher in compromise. When you compromise you open the door to pressure from those who wish "to push the envelope." The MPAA should stick to principle and that means it seals the envelope when the principle is threatened. The simple rule: no exceptions. Period.

From the MPAA:

PG: "Parental Guidance Suggested. Some Material May Not Be Suitable For Children."

This is a film which clearly needs to be examined or inquired into by parents before they let their children attend. The label PG plainly states that parents may consider some material unsuitable for their children, but the parent must make the decision.

Parents are warned against sending their children, unseen or without inquiry, to PG-rated movies.

The theme of a PG-rated film may itself call for parental guidance. There may be some profanity in these films. There may be some violence or brief nudity. But these elements are not deemed so intense as to require that parents be strongly cautioned beyond the suggestion of parental guidance. There is no drug use content in a PG-rated film.

The PG rating, suggesting parental guidance, is thus an alert for examination of a film by parents before deciding on its viewing by their children.

Obviously such a line is difficult to draw. In our pluralistic society, it is not easy to make judgments without incurring some disagreement. So long as parents know they must exercise parental responsibility, the rating serves as a meaningful guide and as a warning.

Commentary:

More circumlocution.

Do parents really need eight movie moguls to remind them that they must exercise parental guidance?

Well, perhaps in a world in which G-rated films amount to a mere handful while R-rated films increase each and every year.

Does the MPAA have a policy that alerts its members, those eight enormous companies, that they, too, have responsibility to parents?

The Caucus does. Its very first Aim states it clearly:

"The CAUCUS calls upon the networks, local stations, cable and pay-TV services, advertisers, as well as production companies and the creative community to recognize their primary responsibility to the viewing public and to strive to elevate program quality in serving that public."

Would the MPAA endorse such a policy with respect to the quality of motion pictures?

Not likely. The very essence of their manual is to be evasive, to withhold any real description of a motion picture's content--even the minimum provided by TV Guide’s addition to their ratings in connection with pay-TV offerings.

If the material "may not be suitable for children" why doesn't the MPAA point out what that material may be? Why must parents search for newspaper reviews--from whom are they to make inquiries? The theatre manager? Is the parent required to see the movie first?

Why won't the MPAA do its job and spell out in specific terms what the elements are that require parental guidance? Who knows better than the production companies--the big eight--what the specifics are? Let them stop the obfuscation, stop the hiding behind evasive techniques and stop shifting the burden on to parents. In short, behave responsibly.

Common sense also dictates that giving out real information cannot be contained in the minuscule boxes in which the MPAA Ratings appear on a full page ad. How much real information can be packed in a space this large??

Parents do not need "alerts" to use the MPAA verbiage--parents need the truth about a movie's real content. Parents do not need MPAA "warnings"--they want facts.

From the MPAA:

PG-13: "Parents Strongly Cautioned. Some Material May Be

Inappropriate For Children Under 13."

PG-13 is thus a sterner warning to parents to determine for themselves the attendance in particular of their younger children as they might consider some material not suited for them. Parents, by the rating, are alerted to be very careful about the attendance of their under-teenage children.

A PG-13 film is one which, in the view of the Rating Board, leaps beyond the boundaries of the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, or other elements, but does not quite fit within the restricted R category. Any drug use content will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. In effect, the PG-13 cautions parents with more stringency than usual to give special attention to this film before they allow their 12-year-olds and younger to attend.

If nudity is sexually oriented, the film will generally not be found in the PG-13 category. If violence is too rough or persistent, the film goes into the R (restricted) rating. A film's single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, shall initially require the Rating Board to issue that film at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive must lead the Rating Board to issue a film an R rating, as must even one of these words used in a sexual context. These films can be rated less severely, however, if by a special vote, the Rating Board feels that a lesser rating would be more responsibly reflect the opinion of American parents.

PG-13 places larger responsibilities on parents for their children’s moviegoing. The voluntary rating system is not a surrogate parent, nor should it be. It cannot, and should not, insert itself in family decisions that only parents can, and should, make. Its purpose is to give prescreening advance informational warnings, so that parents can form their own judgments. PG-13 is designed to make these parental decisions easier for films between PG and R.

Commentary.-

Here we have more blathering. More out and out hypocrisy.

Earlier we were told "some material may not be suitable for children." Now we are told "some material may be inappropriate for children under 13." Fine. We get a "sterner warning." About what?

And look at the "out" the MPAA gives itself: "These films can be rated less severely, however, if by a special vote, the Rating Board feels that a lesser rating would be more responsibly reflect (sic) the opinion of American parents."

Oh? And how do they ascertain that exception?

All of this verbiage is pure rhetoric with nothing to substantiate its preachings.

All that is necessary for the MPAA to do is to give parents the information they need--in advance-- to voluntarily provide specific details on a movie's content. It is not difficult. If the film contains nudity, partial or otherwise--say so.

If a film contains violence whether it is brutal or graphic--just say so.

If a film contains language that is patently offensive--not just the Supreme Court's chosen seven-- just say so.

Parents don't just need warnings--or cautionary verbiage. What they need is for the MPAA to deal with them in real candor--in real facts. It's simple: tell it as it is and stop hiding behind clever badinage and fatuous evasiveness.

By the way, if you saw a label on a drug store medical product that read "some material may be inappropriate for children under 13" wouldn't you insist that the manufacturer be more specific?

From the MPAA:

R: "Restricted 17 And Under Requires Accompanying Parent or Adult Guardian."

In the opinion of the Rating Board, this film definitely contains some adult material. Parents are strongly urged to find out more about this film before they allow their children to accompany them to the film.

An R-rated film may include hard language, or tough violence, or nudity within sensual scenes, or drug abuse or other elements, or a combination of some of the above, so that parents are counseled, in advance, to take this advisory rating very seriously. Parents must find out more about an R-rated movie before they allow their teenagers to view it.

NC-17: "No One 17 and Under Admitted."

This rating declares that the Rating Board believes that this is a film that most parents will consider patently too adult for their youngsters 17 and under. No children will be admitted. NC-17 does not necessarily mean "obscene or pornographic" in the oft-accepted or legal meaning of those words. The Board does not and cannot mark films with those words. These are legal terms and for courts to decide. The reasons for the application of an NC-17 rating can be violence or sex or aberrational behavior or drug abuse or any other elements which, when present, most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children.

Commentary:

Once again one has to read pious declarations that an R-rated film "definitely contains some adult material."

So?

Why place the burden instantly on parents who are "strongly urged to find out more about this film before they allow their children to accompany them to the film?"

Why doesn't the MPAA act responsibly and set forth in plain English just what the elements are that make such a film R rated? The MPAA knows the facts-why not disclose them?

Why? Because the MPAA doesn't want to make matters simple and easy. This organization of eight giant companies prefers to conceal the facts, not to reveal the facts.

Note: throughout all the MPAA pages there is frequent reference indicating that the only reason the MPAA offers, in its uniquely begrudging manner, minimal information about a film's contents, is to protect children. Not so. It is to protect the boxoffice.

From the MPAA:

APPRAISAL

In any appraisal, what is "too much?" becomes very controversial. How much is "too much" violence? Are classic war films too violent with scenes of Marines storming a beach and slaying hundreds, wounding thousands? Is it the graphic cop killing, the gangster shoot-out, or the slap across the face of a woman that determines "too much?" How much is "blood spilled" to be given emphasis? Where is the line to be drawn between "this is all right" and "this is not all right?"

The same vexing doubts occur in sex scenes or those where language rises on the Richter scale, or where behavior not considered "normal" is revealed on the screen. What follow is disagreement, inevitable, inexorable, and often times strident. That is what the rating system has to endure and confront. We understand that. We try to do our level best so that most parents will find our ratings mostly accurate and mostly useful.

But, importantly, we urge and implore parents to care about what their children see and watch, to focus their attention on movies so they can know more about a film before they consent to their children watching it.

To oversee the Rating Board, the film industry, has set up a Policy Review Committee consisting of officials of MPAA and NATO. These men and women set guidelines for the Rating Board to follow, and make certain that the Board carries them out reasonably and appropriately.

Because the rating program is a self-regulatory apparatus of the film industry it is important that no single element of the industry take on the authority of a "czar" beyond any discipline of self-restraint.

Commentary:

Instead of platitudes and obfuscation, all that moviegoers want are facts--not excuses- just a clean-cut statement of facts.

Give those facts real identity, not a set of ambiguous symbols. How? By providing simple labels that convey far more real information than any of the symbolic devices the MPAA employs.

If there is sex in the movie, label it S; if there is violence, label it V, if there is patently offensive language, label it L.

And for good measure, still keeping matters intelligible and easy to understand, measure the intensity of Sex, Violence, and Language by explicit language: occasional, frequent, widespread.

And, oh yes, these labels can still be squeezed into the customary tiny disproportionate boxes that presently contain a film's rating.

If the MPAA really wants to help parents--and children--and all adults, more space should be utilized to convey such information and more, something comparable in size to the warnings one sees in cigarette advertising.

Space of that dimension would permit real information to be added as explanatory data to go with proper labeling.

From the MPAA:

ADVERTISING AND TRAILER POLICY

Film advertising is part of the film industry’s self-regulatory mechanism.

All advertising for rated motion pictures must be submitted to the Advertising Administration for approval prior to its release to the public. This includes, but is not limited to, print ads, radio and TV spots, pressbooks, videocassette packaging and theatrical and home video trailers.

Trailers are an important aspect of the program. They are approved for "all audiences," which means they may be shown with all feature films, or "restricted audiences," which limits their use to feature films rated R or NC-17. There will be, in "all audiences" trailers, no scenes that caused the feature to be rated PG, PG-13, R, or

NC-17.

Each trailer carries at the front tag which tells two things: (1) the audience for which the trailer has been approved, and (2) the rating of the picture being advertised. The tag, for "all audiences" trailers will have green background, the tag for "restricted"

trailers will have a red background. The color is to alert the projectionist against mismatching trailers with the film being shown on the theater screen.

Commentary:

Policy? There is no policy. And who is the Advertising Administration? Trailers pop up in programs throughout a network schedule and really, "No scenes that caused the feature to be rated PG, PG-1 3, R or NC-1 7"???

And, by the way, just what is Hollywood producing?

Wouldn't it be a more responsible industry if it embraced a philosophy that the Primary objective is to produce more quality films--if there was a conscious industry effort to elevate quality and to diminish those elements that are best described as offensive to large segments of the population?

Why doesn't the MPAA take the lead in promoting quality--the kind that one remembers in The King And 1, Gone With The Wind, Sergeant York, The Wizard Of Oz, Casablanca--all produced, to the best of my recollection, under a system that eliminated much material considered offensive even by so many today.

From the MPAA:

THE PUBLIC REACTION

We count it crucial to make regular soundings to find out how the public perceives the rating program, and to measure the approval and disapproval of what we are doing.

Nationwide scientific polls, conducted each year by the Opinion Research Corporation of Princeton, New Jersey, have consistently given the rating program high marks by parents throughout the land. The latest poll results show that 76 percent of parents with children under 13 found the ratings to be "very useful" to "fairly useful" in helping them make decisions for the moviegoing of their children.

On the evidence of the polls, the rating system would not have survived if it were not providing a useful service to parents. The rating system isn't perfect but, in an imperfect world it seems each year to match the expectations of those whom it is designed to serve - parents of America.

Commentary:

Research?

Nothing is so lacking in significance as the research produced by the Opinion Research Corporation of Princeton, New Jersey.

Their "research" consists of asking parents with children under 13 just one question year after year:

The question: How useful do you think the motion picture industry's rating system--with the symbols G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17--is as a guide for deciding what movies children should see--very useful, fairly useful, not very useful, or have you not heard of the system?"

The figure of 76 percent is the current number.

But--what kind of figures would result if there was more than one question asked?

What if the research was fashioned so that it compared the MPAA symbols to more factual labels that revealed more of the true content of motion pictures?

Would parents possibly like more factual information?

Do parents, even using the quite limited "research" produced by the MPAA with its research firm, find the results "very/fairly useful" in deciding NOT to attend the movie, or does the number equate with those who actually do attend?

No, the rating system used by the MPAA, contrary to its assertion, is not designed to serve the parents of America--to the contrary it is designed to serve the financial interests of its eight-member companies by simply concealing real information from those it only professes to serve. The MPAA can do better. It should do better. It should behave responsibly and not hide behind clever verbiage, truncated research, and refrain from doing all in its power to conceal from parents facts and truth about the content of its product.

From the MPAA.-

WHAT EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW

ABOUT THE MOVIE RATING SYSTEM

G: GENERAL AUDIENCES - Nothing that would offend parents for viewing by children.

PG: PARENTAL GUIDANCE SUGGESTED - Parents urged to give parental guidance. May contain some material parents might not like for their young children.

PG-13: PARENTS STRONGLY CAUTIONED - Parents are urged to be cautious. Some material may be inappropriate for pre-teenagers.

R: RESTRICTED - Contains some adult material. Parents are urged to learn more about the film before taking their young children with them.

NC-17: NO ONE 17 AND UNDER ADMITTED - Patently adult. Children are not admitted.

Commentary:

What everyone should know is that the MPAA places the interests of the MPAA first, not that of parents and children. They profess to have the interests of parents at heart. They don't because they deny real information to those they profess to serve.

Blood sister to the MPAA is the AMPTP--Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers--(a misnomer for that organization consists not of "producers," but rather of production companies chaired by the same official who heads the MPAA) which functions in the main as the representative of the production companies negotiating terms of employment with the creative guilds--WGA, PGA, DGA, SAG, and others--in short, the AMPTP is, in fact, an adversary of the creative community.

How then can the MPAA and the AMPTP be counted upon to be fair and balanced in their approach to the creative community? Can leadership from that area be free of the potential charge of a conflict of interest?

How is it that the Chairman of the MPAA already has dismissed labeling as "absurd?" Of course it is not absurd; it may be the best way to convey information of real value to parents. Parents do not need to be just warned about elements of a movie that might be unsuitable or inappropriate for youngsters--just look at the MPAA figures--out of 12,848 films rated by the MPAA, 11,791 fall into the PG, PG-13, R, NC-17 categories-all of this since 1968. A glance at the chart on a previous page demonstrates that the G-rated film is a minor breed--R makes up more than half of all films rated.

Is there a message in all this? Yes--Hollywood is determined, through the MPAA, to produce films of questionable social value and to rate them through the use of a system cleverly designed to conceal facts.

Does the television/cable industry want such a myopic, minimal system to define its programming? Let us hope not.

Let us hope, instead, that this spotlight on the MPAA persuades the CEO's of those eight major enterprises to discard their policy of hiding behind the circumlocution of their spokesman, and to recognize the utter vacuity of their rating system, leading them to do what they should be doing as a service to their paying customers--setting forth in clearly defined labels motion picture content--with the real truth.

As two poets have said:

"This above all, to thine own self be true,

And it must follow as the night the day

Thou canst then be false to quite a few."

Is that the real image of the MPAA?

Epilogue

In the past couple of weeks two double-truck ads - covering two full pages in The Los Angeles Times - heralded two new movies.

Last Man Standing had this MPAA rating:

Three Wives Have Arrived had this MPAA rating:

Is that sufficient real information - are those almost invisible ratings adequate in size in a double-truck ad capable of conveying real information? Should the CEO's of the MPAA feel pride -- or shame?

The American Medical Association released its own survey on September 10 which showed that 68 percent of parents "want a stronger, more effective" movie rating system. Further, the AMA released research which showed that 81 percent of parents want a TV rating system, clearly not some watered down version of the current MPAA system.

The MPAA, according to Daily Variety, countered with a survey of its own conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation of Princeton, one that finds that 76 percent of all parents polled who have children under age 17 find the current rating system "very useful to somewhat useful".

Question. Whose research should a parent believe--one put out by the eight motion picture companies of the MPAA or one put out by the American Medical Association?

Wouldn't it be a sign of statesmanship and objectivity if the MPAA, rather than countering the AMA with its own limited research, voluntarily offered to sit down and work out independent research which both organizations could support? To benefit children and parents? The AMA is ready to join with the MPAA in such an effort.

Is the MPAA??