Written by DAVID KEYES

September 29, 2000

As the movie rating system is quarreled over by the masses for its productiveness as a model to arbitrate material viewed by young eyes, voices in the movie industry have proposed the implication of a new assessment into the Motion Picture Association of America�s rating system. This �A� rating, which would stand for �Adults Only,� is proposed to sit in between the �R� (Restricted) and the �NC-17� (No children 17 and under), essentially to relieve the pressure put on the R without drifting into the whereabouts of an NC-17, which suffers limited distribution because the public associates it with hard-core pornography. Such a suggestion, though, seems rather pointless in today�s rating system when the NC-17 shared similar proposal in the early 90s for exactly the same reason. The NC-17 and the A essentially mean the same thing: no children allowed. And if an A rating were ever passed, who�s to say it would not simply share the same fate as the infamous NC-17 did?

The arguments over movie subject matter that inspired this proposal began in July of 1999 with the release of Stanley Kubrick�s �Eyes Wide Shut,� which was initially slapped with an NC-17 because of a 65-second sequence in which Tom Cruise was escorted through rooms in a mansion during intense sexual orgies. The movie�s distributor Warner Bros., realizing the NC-17�s notorious reputation, opted to have the movie�s scene digitally altered to meet the requirements of an R rating. This infuriated countless critics, however, who felt that by altering Kubrick�s final product (which was completed less than a week before he died in early March of that year), they were tarnishing his movie�s intentions. Film critic Roger Ebert, who spoke out against this decision before the nationwide release, was the first person who pitched the idea to the MPAA; like many of his colleagues, he though that future releases with similar material could garner large distribution without the fear of an NC-17 restricting them to limited markets. Think again.

Movies with these kinds of adult-oriented undertones are already bypassing the restrictions of NC-17 all the time, simply by showing up in theaters with �Not Rated� listings. In 1998, for example, when �Gods And Monsters� was issued to theaters, the studio did not submit the film to the MPAA for fear that a distinctive scene featuring men skinny dipping would be too graphic for an R. If studios are intent on having adult-oriented movies like these reaching a wide audience without fear of making cuts to the initial product, why not simply release the picture unrated? Parents have the sufficient resources to determine whether a movie is suitable for their child�s eyes even without the rating system at hand.

Another issue to contend with is how the NC-17 got equated with pornography in the first place. Over the years, the MPAA has demonstrated a lenience towards graphic violence, often slapping pictures with intense blood and gore with a measly R, while saving the latter rating for movies in which sex or nudity is the primary exposure. While revealing physical activity is by no means appropriate for children�s eyes, it certainly pales in comparison to a close-up shot of someone�s face getting blown off, doesn�t it? By applying such reasoning to their judgments, the MPAA is seemingly sending the message, �it�s okay to rip off body parts, just as long as you don�t walk around naked.�

The MPAA�s rating system needs several improvements, no doubt, but perhaps that should start with the �R� rating itself; a film with subtle violence and profanity like �Sleepy Hollow� does not deserve the same classification as a film with gratuitous butchery and nudity like �8MM,� for example. As the case was with the �PG� rating in the late 1970s, the R is becoming to broadly used for movies of varied adult substance. A more reasonable solution in this case would be, like the PG, to split the rating down the middle�an R-15 and an R-17, for example�to separate extreme from mild. An �Adults Only� rating seems like a rather pointless idea, not just because it�s basically a rewording of the NC-17, but because it will be used and thought of in the same manner anyway.