Christopher Bryan
02/05/2015
English Composition 2
Literature Review
A movie where children and teenagers are
forced to brawl to the death for entertainment, in a fantasy world (Hunger Games), is rated PG-13; whereas a
movie where children are bullied by other children, in the world we live in, is
rated R (Bully). If you’re frowning
at the idea or shrugging it off, you’re already taking a side on the debate of
how the MPAA regulates a movie’s content—possibly how it’s morphed the industry
of Hollywood to a PG-13 frenzy of torture, genocide, drugs, mild language and
decency in clothing. A few movies such as Bully and The Kings Speech were
given the R treatment not because of an over-saturation or glorifying of these
features, but because of foul language. In past cases of R ratings appealing to
PG-13, such as Gunner Palace, “fuck” was permitted 47 times. In the
sense of violence, the highest ranking on-screen body count in cinema history
just so happens to be a PG-13 movie (Lord of the Rings: Return of the King),
at 836. Can the public, and the MPAA itself, say that it’s serving its
purpose—to stand in place for parents when judging the content of movies? To
abstain from speaking for the public, three subject areas will be investigated
and sources presented for judgment: The Success Report of the MPAA, Content
Awareness: Violence and Language, and Controversy and Criticism.
To talk about how well the MPAA serves
the public, more or less the parents, a number of sources will be used to
investigate this topic. From Robert Abelman and Jean E. Gubbins article,
“Preaching to the Choir: TV Advisory Usage among Parents of Gifted Children,”
they provide a lengthy
study on the parental act of guarding children from more mature rated
television and film, dependent on whether the child was “gifted” or not. This
can present a bias in what kind of parent, a necessary trait to be a judge for
the MPAA, will have on their value of not only what a child should see, but how
much value there is in what their child sees. This can be applied to talking
about the parents, the reviewers of MPAA ratings, and how their judging can be
biased according to their children and what they’d normally let them watch. I
will also use it to show how the ratings provided to parents influence their
decision to allow children to watch the content. From talking about the effect
of media to the use of it, Thomas P. Hebert and Daniel R. Hammond’s “Guided
Viewing of Film with Gifted Students: Resources for Educators and Counselors”,
is an article that discusses the uses of movies on educating gifted children,
based on discussion and context. This isn't too applicable to my topic, but a
few statements on the MPAA and how movies reflect to the rating can be quoted.
This should be used when discussing the effects of movie ratings, how children
see similar rated movies at different levels of maturity, and whenever
discussing the brief versus real content inside a movie. Another well-minded
study, “The Role of Television Advisories and Ratings in Parent-Child Discussion
of Television Viewing Choices,” from Marina Krcmar and Joanne Cantor, talks
about the audience, adults to younger children, determining whether they had
noticed what the ratings to the movie they saw was, if it deterred them or
enticed them to watch it, and hypothesis about what this could mean for the
ratings system. This is a very good article for discussing the non-commercial
side of the ratings system, rather how people watch movies based on rating or
if it matters at all. This study can be used when discussing the effectiveness
of ratings. Descending from statistics to heart, Barbara Wilson’s "What's
Wrong with the Ratings?" discusses the repercussions of
children at different ages experiencing violence in media, from a
professional's point of view. This article doesn't focus on studies or surveys,
but comes from well-advised word-of-mouth about the topics that need to be thought
of when violent acts occur on screen. This article can be used near the
beginning to establish how violent acts aren't as simple as gore, and near the
end when advice can be given on how to resolve this dilemma. The last source, a
survey from Worth Keilah, Sonya Cin, and James Sargent, "Prevalence of
Smoking among Major Movie Characters: 1996-2004,” is A study published in
Tobacco Control about the amount of movie characters in the top 100 box office,
for the years 1996 to 2004, that smoked and how it reflects to the MPAA rating
and the public's smoking status at the time. It shows how smoking has become a
bigger part of PG-13 movies, making it more accessible to children. In the same
study, it shows that smoking is on the decline and may not be applicable to
fighting against the MPAA's rating. The study will be used to face MPAA
supporters and then criticize their judgment with the same source.
Is there a risk? That depends on the sounds and
sights in cinemas, and what the MPAA has to say about it. Just how much
violence and language can movies get away—or not get away with? The best way to
introduce this topic is to showcase how far people will go to censor movies
against their taste; specifically James C. Schmidt’s "Sex-and-Violence
Ratings: What's in Them for Libraries?" This article discusses a few
court cases concerning cities and government attempting to apply consequences
to higher rated MPAA movies and defines ratings of all media. The article is
focused on permitting content in public libraries, but it also shows the
lengths people will go to express their distaste towards movies, if given the
chance. This can be used when describing how the MPAA sets up a target for
people to hate and discriminate against, filing mature rated films with things
that should be shunned. The article can also be used in elaborating on previous
struggles for independent, low budget film makers to release their uncensored
version of their movie. Continuing with a late-topical-hot-spot in recent
years, Bully, a documentary by Lee
Hirsch in 2011, is a film about bullying in the US, interviewing and covering
several students in different schooling levels. Not only a good topic on its
own, but also had to censor itself in order to be seen by the audience
affected. This is attached to multiple articles on MPAA censorship and views on
film. It’s worth talking about what this film represents and the message it
delivers. In a major head-twister, the documentary Gunner Palace from Michael Tucker in 2004 had received a very different
outcome. Covering U.S. soldiers in Iraq, the film was released in limited
theaters in 2005 as PG-13 on appeal of 42 uses of "fuck", more than
any PG-13 movie ever. A great debatable point on the ethics and standpoint of
the MPAA, regarding what they rate and the content of why it's rated such. Will
be used in the right point of the argument, since using it too soon can use up
a great arguing point and too late will make it a last ditch effort. Then, five
years in the same theaters, The King’s
Speech from Tom Hooper, was another film rated R for its strong language,
which was cut down to meet PG-13 standards. This is becoming a trend, but it
will apply to how the MPAA sees language as a more damning factor than
violence. This will be used in conjunction to the articles that talk about it
or when discussing movies struck with similar issues. To address the violence
of cinema in recent years, Peter Jackson’s Lord
of the Rings: Return of the King is a movie worth discussing due to not
only it's excessive violence and maturity, but having the highest on-screen
body count of any movie ever, G through NC-17. It's worth discussing, because a
lot of articles don't bring up its violent nature, and it can balance the heavy
language-argument that most news pieces / opinions discuss. Will be used after
discussing the multitude of language-related movies, probably siding next to
Saw 3D for its violent nature as well. To connect all four films in academic
taste, an article by Priya Nalkur, Patrick Jamieson, and Daniel Romer—titled
“Movies From 1950 to 2006”, is a study published in Journal of Adolescent
Health concerning the screening process of violent and sexual content, based
upon judgment from the MPAA. The study concludes that although sexual content
is segregated from R and PG-13 movies, violence that would have been rated R
has "creeped" into PG-13. Another article, a study from Medscape, comes from Kimberly Thompson
and Fumie Yokota. "Violence, Sex, and Profanity in Films: Correlation of
Movie Ratings With Content”, a well-studied paper on the connection of violence
and ratings to content, and the "ratings creep" that has moved
controversial content downwards. This article can be utilized in giving a
professional statement about the various ways the MPAA is letting detrimental
behavior leak into younger ratings and how the purpose of the acts are not
taken into consideration. This can be used when discussing "ratings
creep", profitability, and ignoring the purpose of violence-- in the
research paper. To explain a theory on why I believe, and why many critics of
the MPAA believe this “creep” is occurring, comes from an article by Abraham S.
Ravid, titled "Managerial Objectives, the R-Rating Puzzle, and the Production
of Violent Films”, which discusses the revenue of violent films, not PG-13, but
still in relation to the topic at hand. It reveals that movies with higher
violence and sexual content have better predictability at the box office,
regardless of reviews. This can be used when discussing the ways we watch films
based on their rating instead of their value. To prove this article with recent
evidence, Saw 3D from Kevin Greutert,
a high grossing success, is a movie referenced in a few articles on how movies
compare to other movies in MPAA ratings. Horrifically graphic and deprived of
unique or noteworthy plot (If you dare contest me and a hundred top critics on
Rotten Tomatoes), it shows how we rate violence to language in the same area.
This will be discussed in conjunction to the articles that bring it up. Then to
wrap it up, a few quotes from Richard Nowell’s ""The Ambitions of
Most Independent Filmmakers": Indie Production, the Majors, and Friday the
13th (1980)”, should help transition the subject. A revealing research paper
about someone who'd talked to various artists in Hollywood, the indie scene,
and how both parties are treated when it comes to revenue and MPAA. It's a good
ending piece, but since it's subjects are dated and not too related to PG-13
ratings, it stands for a few quotes in the overall paper I'm writing.
Throughout the years, the public has not been
silent on the actions of the MPAA and the ways movies have changed to adapt. An
old article, dating back to the 1970’s, from Roy E. Bates’ "Private
Censorship of Movies." This article gives a well stated history and
position at its time on the demand for higher regulation on movies and those
who stand against it. It will not only help the topic feel greater than it’s
been portrayed recently, but can also give insight on more controversial court
cases and their rulings / reasoning. It will help set the backdrop for how long
films have been contested against for their freedom and where the MPAA started.
I will use it for quoting the cases of yesterday and today, then present a
pre-existing problem that has yet to be solved. To follow up with this issue is
a more recent, less academic article from Tierney Sneed’s "Don’t Expect
Any Major Changes to the MPAA Ratings System in 2014." A news article
that not only states the semi-current status of the MPAA's stance on its
criticism, but also gives a brief look over and understanding of the MPAA and
how it affects movies. It'll be a good introductory source, plentiful on
everything my research paper’s about and lots of ways to launch off into
several planned topics. To follow up past articles showcasing “ratings creep,”
Jake Coyle’s "MPAA Defends Ratings System: Parents Are Happy,” is an
online news article taking a fierce stance against the recent ruling of R-rated
films whereas PG-13 films have become far more explicit. It works into my
research paper by providing emotion and reaction to events which if I stated
myself would look biased. It basically represents the protesters for the MPAA,
and their reasoning for it. Quotable, but not a major development on its own.
When applied to certain highlights of the research paper, it can swat rebuttals
or parade criticism. It will be used in conjunction with the opening paragraphs
and wherever applicable for rebuttal. To add spice to the prior article, Miriam
Krule’s "A.O. Scott’s Explanations of MPAA Ratings Are Even Better Than
His Movie Reviews,” has a lot of good statements to quote from. This is a brief
article about a movie reviewer who bashes the MPAA for its ratings on movies of
genocide to language. Good for a quote or two, just to sound snappy without
being outright so. Will probably be used after a rebuttal on the MPAA's side
about its ratings, but with good taste. This will lead back to Bully, a
previously discussed film, with Amanda Kehrberg’s "Bully Ratings
Controversy Sparks Criticism of MPAA System." Kehrberg wrote an opinion piece about how
Bully was rated, due to its language, and how it reflects to what happens in
real life to what we see through a camera. This piece is very quotable, and can
be connected to other articles and debated with other movies such as Gunner
Palace. This will be used later on in the research paper, after the statements
from surveys have been used, because it has a lot of points and statements that
can stick to readers for the rest of the paper. In a last ditch effort to give
the MPAA credit for the movies they’re shaping today, I’ve found an interesting
article from David Franklin, called "The Professor As Censor: Creative
Limitation and Film Production Pedagogy." It’s an article about a film
professor that censors his students for a year, then relates it to others who
have censored their students and achieved interesting results due to it being a
challenge. This can be used when talking about how censorship / the MPAA could
be channeling the best content out of how films restrict themselves. Used in
the middle, after statements discrediting the MPAA's efforts are made. To
refute his ideas about limitation, specifically for the MPAA, Roger Ebert wrote
a great piece in 2010, called "Getting Real About Movie Ratings." It’s
an article that comes from a highly regarded movie critic, criticizing the MPAA
for its ratings and reviewing the taste of cinema in his past 40 years of work.
It doesn't have much factual statements, and his rating system is below
serious, but he’s legendary to movie critics anywhere. It will probably be
another article to emotionally support the surveys and scientific conduction.
Since the name is synonymous for film, it’ll be a good source to end the
research paper with when stating the current affair with the MPAA. To wrap up
the subject, I’m using Phillips, Michael Phillips, "There's a Word for the
MPAA...." An article about a writer whose recent outrage of The
King's Speech and Saw 3D being both rated R, and how other countries have rated
it. He quotes others and riffs on the PG-13 movies with more mature content,
and it makes for a very quotable article.
