It's a familiar situation: you walk into Bloodletting Zombie Cheerleaders (attending strictly for the artistic value, of course), and notice that this R-rated movie has more kiddies at it than a McDonald's Playland. And what's worse is that you see them with their parents, who obviously see decapitation and frat boy talk as critical to the upbringing of an eight year-old. And while you may or may not agree that there should be some enforcement to block young viewers from adult films, I think you'd agree that someone - parents, government, the movie industry - is dropping the ball on this issue.

Now, out of a desire to fully inform the readership of this article (hi Bob!), let me admit my personal opinions regarding children and upper rated movies (NC-17, R, and some PG-13). My ethical and moral stance is that these films are made for the adult viewer who can differentiate between reality and fantasy (whereas a child *might* not), and who already has a moral base (hopefully) to judge whether or not a message from the movie is acceptable (whereas children are much more impressionable). I don't think a little kid should be allowed in to see a film with R-rated themes, ever, not even with parents. There's no necessity for kids to be exposed to this until they're older, and I feel that some of the themes, messages and situations can impact a child's life negatively. It might not make them serial killers or members of Congress, but enough wrong messages presented through film can be a form of peer pressure on the youth.

Those are my sole opinions, and you can't share them unless you ask nicely. However, they're also not the focus of this article.

In an ideal world, sure, it'd be nice if no films had to be rated at all, and everyone was responsible enough to filter out the bad movies and messages for those not able to handle it. But we live in a world where society points fingers every which way except at the parents, saying "Won't somebody please think of the children!" (copyright The Simpsons). We as a society don't like having to be responsible for morality, so we left the door wide open for someone else to come in and take care of it for us.

Which is how we got the current state of the MPAA. The MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) began in 1922 as an organization with members from all major studios. As studio pictures pushed the boundaries of film matter with increasingly graphic language, sex, violence and adult themes, there was some worry that the government would come in and regulate movie content with a heavy hand. To avoid that situation, the MPAA and the studios agreed to a "voluntary" self-rating system to specifically alert *parents* to the content of films. Thus, in 1968, the rating system as we know it began.

And at first, it was a good, ideal solution. The studios didn't have to suffer government interference, parents could send a child off to see a film even if the parent didn't know what it was about, and the MPAA started growing into a major player on the Hollywood scene. However, problems soon arose with this new system. For one thing, it was increasingly difficult to give a film a subjective rating, since it was based on the opinions of the MPAA ratings board. Second of all, studios quickly realized that the MPAA had the singular control over life or death of a picture.

A studio has to get its film rated (even though the rating is "voluntary") to have it released in theaters (since the theater association mostly refuses to release unrated films). Some ratings are preferable to others (as a PG-13 rating could draw in entire families while an R rating would mostly draw in teens and adults), and some ratings (like the dreaded NC-17, or its predecessor, X) causes few theaters to show the movie at all. And since the 1990s, the video rental market (namely Blockbuster) refuses to even stock anything over an R rating. Thus, while an NC-17 film had already subjected itself to a voluntary rating to inform parents, no studio in their right mind would dare release it with that rating. So they take that film back to the editing room to chop and change.

Issues of censorship aside, the MPAA's stranglehold over studio film content presents a major problem to the reason it even STARTED the rating system in the first place - that is, to inform parents and help shield their children from objectionable material. Since no studio wants to release a NC-17 picture, we've seen a continual process develop where a studio will push and toe the envelope as to what an R-rated film can contain. And contrary to being a consistent source of information, the MPAA fluctuates wildly in its decisions what does and does not constitute an R rated film.

Take for instance the two films The Blair Witch Project and South Park: BLU. Both released in 1999. Blair Witch had more F-words in it than South Park, yet instantly was awarded an R rating, while South Park was deemed NC-17, and had to resubmit the film six times until it finally got an R. In addition, it is widely known that the MPAA ratings board will crack down harder on sex and nudity than it will on graphic violence. The infamous "pie" scene in American Pie initially caused the movie a NC-17 rating, even though the only thing that was shown was rear nudity and suggestive motions. Only once the scene was reshot and shortened, did it receive its coveted R. Yet, go marvel at the extreme violence and sadism of The Cell or Se7en, and realize that this was not enough to offend past the R rating mark. These double standards are commonplace and disturbing when you consider the result: a ratings system that is subjective, uneven, a root of censorship, and a poor source of information to help parents make decisions.

One root of this problem can be found in the makeup of the ratings board itself. Jack Valenti, the president of the MPAA, hand-picks the twelve apostles (er, members), who comprise the board. Just twelve. Only eight of the members have to see a given movie to vote on a rating. Although there is no doubt that they do take their position seriously and each have selective criteria, how can twelve people be possibly expected to make objective moral rulings on a movie without running the very real risk of overreacting, misunderstanding and falling prey to personal opinions? And why have we blindly accepted that these twelve people's decisions usurp common parental guidance?

Look at it another way. In America, we elect a hundred senators and God knows how many congressmen to make and vote on laws. We choose who they are and enough of them to hopefully represent the majority of the nation's citizens' desires. While it's not a perfect system, there are so many safeguards and balances that a small group of people just cannot run willy nilly and impose their opinions and beliefs on the masses. Yet when it comes to making moral rulings about the content of movies - again, for the benefit of PARENTS - no one in this country has a say in the selection of who makes those decisions, save one Jack Valenti. We don't vote for the MPAA members, we can't send them our opinions on what criteria should be involved in the decision-making process, yet we're almost bound to following their lead when it comes to who can, and cannot, see a movie - and whether a parent should feel comfortable sending their child to see such a film.

It is slightly more ironic when you consider that the MPAA itself has started to realize, since 1990, that mere ratings have little informational value when it comes to parental guidance any more. That's why they started to include that little microscopic print under the rating, telling you WHY it's rated PG or R ("for excessive gorging, pig worship and truffle-induced hallucinations"). And while I applaud this in theory, it's really just a sign that the whole ratings system has basically no consistency any longer.

So enough whining about the problem - what should be done about it? Little can be done until Jack Valenti retires or dies, but that might occur soon in either case. Here are a few ideas and suggestions (some original, some shared):

1. The ratings system needs to be revamped and better classified. Most specifically, I think that there needs to be some sort of adult-only rating that would NOT be penalized by restricted showings theater or the home video market. In an era where cable TV is seeing unparalleled success with TV-MA shows such as South Park, The Sopranos, Oz and Six Feet Under, the theater and movie industry needs to take a step of faith to see that an adult-only film can succeed on its own merit.

2. The public should be made FULLY aware as to the general criteria for the selection of ratings, and also be privy to the complete notes as to why and how the ratings board made the decision as to a movie's rating.

3. The power to make movie ratings needs to be taken out of the hands of a small, select circle, and into the interests of the public. I'm not promoting turning it into a huge, unwieldy committee, but it should be expanded to represent a larger cross section of society.

4. The movie-going public should have some say as to the criteria for the movie ratings and descriptions, even if that input is in the form of a survey. As long as it's taken seriously, that would be awesome.

5. Parents should be supplied with a concise, yet informative, source that would give them a clear idea as to the content of a film. Here I'm thinking that it should be something less than CAP's overanalyzing attitude, but definitely something more than terse ratings descriptions.

6. Even with a restructured and clearer ratings system, the authority of enforcing restrictions on movie going children and teens should ultimately rest in the hands of parents and guardians, NOT theater ticket takers and Hollywood. Without getting too futuristic and over my head, why not have some sort of system in place where a parent has to approve a movie for a child or teen's viewing, which could be enforced by a quick I.D. and internet check when a kid goes to a movie theater? This would put more pressure on parents to learn about a film beforehand, since they'd be in the position to ultimately say yay or nay to a child's admittance, and if they feel that their 13 year-old can handle a certain R rated film, then it's their decisions as parents. Not the movie industry's. Wouldn't you rather have a parent's subjective opinion guide a child's viewing instead of an anonymous dozen's subjective opinions?

Now, it's quite likely that this article might irk some teen readers on our site, but let me remind you that I'm not endorsing censorship or even debating the right for you to see a movie, as long as parents are involved in the decision. I feel very strongly about the individual's right to choose for him or herself to view creative material (not only movies, but art, literature, and even video games). Both the government and the MPAA are not the right people to be substituting for parental control, but we won't get rid of the power of the MPAA until more parents sit up, take notice of the situation, and start accepting some of the responsibility that they've been given. How parents raise their child is largely up to them, but the fact that parents SHOULD be the first and most important factor in selecting a child's viewing material should not be negotiable.

A QUICK NOTE ABOUT MRFH AND THE RATINGS SYSTEM

MRFH has never taken the position that we're here to keep parents and movie watchers informed as to the objectionable content in a film. We're critics. We rule from our iron thrones made from discarded movie reels. There are other sites that are dedicated to that sort of thing, and people looking to figure out the LSV of a flick should use them. However, we're not reckless maniacs either, which is why we post both the MPAA rating (in The Scoop column) and our own "Offensiveness" rating (in the mutant meter). The offensiveness rating is highly subjective and does not have any fixed criteria. Just to let y'all know.