In 1968 Jack Valenti, the president of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), established the Classification and Ratings Administration (CARA) in an effort to reduce the amount of objectionable material in film. Before 1968, the MPAA required that all films follow the guidelines of the Production Code. The Production Code stipulated what was and was not appropriate to appear in films. In 1966, the MPAA elected Jack Valenti president and he changed the code to a rating system based on the amount of objectionable content in a film. The rating system went through several amendments until the current rating system. A controversy arose when The Weinstein Co. film Blue Valentine received an NC-17 rating for a sexually explicit scene involving the main characters in the film. The controversy over the rating of the film stirred up the question of the effectiveness of the MPAA rating system. Critics were already questioning the effectiveness of the MPAA, but the recent controversy helped to stimulate those questions. The rating system that the MPAA enforces on films is ineffective. The MPAA rating system is outdated. The recent advances in technology allow children to see movies regardless of the rating. The rating system worked well for the early years, but recently “kids slip into the movies they want to see. . . . They also see them at home on widely available DVDs, on cable, and via popular streaming services like Netflix and Amazon” (Ebert 2). Even when kids go to the theater to see movies they can “theater hop” or buy a ticket to a low rated movie and slip into the R rated film of their choice. DVDs and the Internet both provide ways for kids to watch movies that contain objectionable material. Websites that offer the o... ... middle of paper ... ...not restrict violence in movies as much as it restricts sexual content, it allows children of young ages to be exposed to violent content, which could have serious consequences in the child’s future. The MPAA rating system was once a good source for people to find out whether a movie would contain immoral or violent images; currently the system has grown to become ineffective in today’s society. Society changes as well as movies; content and subject matter has changed for movies of this generation. If the system is not changed it will not help parents to know what movies will be appropriate for their children to watch. Because of the influence and prevalence of movies in our society and culture today a rating system is important, if that system fails to do its duty the negative influence that the movies can have on the children and youth of tomorrow will be great.
The incident exemplifies a pressing issue in the ever-topical discussion of the oft-vilified film rating classification system in our country. Is the movie rating system, originally designed to assist parents in guiding the movie-going habits of their children, actually preempting parental choice?
There is no doubt that movies entertain a person. However, over sexualized movies have the capability of poisoning minds which are easily shapeable-for example Fifty shades of gray. Children are told not to view it, however that does nothing to stop the viewing of the movie. Not only does it corrupt young minds it hands them unlimited access to the findings of adult
...ringer that exposes all of the MPAA’s worst kept secrets, namely their unjust criteria and ulterior motives behind the NC-17 rating as well as the identities of the raters. It is a system made to give parents a guideline on what they should let their children watch, but their biased rating methods at the end of the day will only fail parents and their families if they see a scene that justifies its corresponding movie to be given a higher rating than the one it was given. While some may argue that the documentary is one sided, the MPAA are highly unlikely to give an honest point of view when their credibility is at stake. Instead, the documentary tells the untold stories of the filmmakers affected by the NC-17 rating and this is where the documentary gets its drive from, rather than the MPAA defending themselves by denying all the rumours circulating around them.
Going to the movies is a favorite past-time event of American lives. A long time ago, however, there wasn’t any rating system. Making one seemed like a good idea at the time. Today, the system is still the same way and doesn’t fit today’s changed time. Therefore, the movie rating system should be revised because the current rating system is outdated.
Many Americans love films, the meanings behind those films and the impact some films have on people’s lives. Ever since films were created there have been people and organizations that have tried to censor and block what the public can and cannot see. Even to this day there are certain things that if put on film because of censorship, would never make it to the public. This is very sad. Film is one of this country’s great expressive outlets. Many filmmakers and the people who enjoy what these filmmakers put out are effected by the horrible concept of censorship. When a film is put out to the public it is first reviewed by a movie rating board who then assigns the film a rating to tell people what age groups the film is suitable for and what the film contains. Movie selection for minors should solely be the responsibility of that child’s parent, not some critic that watches films and then makes decisions for other people about who can watch it and who can’t. People just need to start to understand the real meaning of free speech and expression in this country. Too many people are taking it for granted. People who are for the censorship of films may argue that it’s for the good of our children, shielding them from violence and sex, and not exposing them to something that they claim may be mentally harm...
The author of “Hollywood, Stop Exposing Our Kids to Violence” claims that filmmakers need to stop producing violent movies. The article argues that many children pick up bad habits from watching violent
Secondly, I think that if a child under the age of 18 views graphic violence in movies or TV shows, they will more likely to engage in those types of behaviors. I think that movie violence is sometimes viewed as a fun and effective way to get what you want to young eyes. Even though kids are taught or should be taught by their parents that it is not right to hit, television and movies portray that it is okay. I suspect that this can lead to confusion for kids to understand the differences between right and
Violence in the media is getting way out of hand. Hollywood realizes that the more violence that it shows in its movies, then the more likely it will have a larger box office draw. Some movies need to start being rated NC-17, we have the rating but it seems as though the only reason it is there is for pornography. What is the point of having such a rating and never using it, several movies come to mind that I believe should have been rated NC-17. One in point, The Matrix, it's heavy gun scenes were not appropriate to the impressionable minds of some young teens around the nation and even to some adults capable of doing horrible things. The shooting at Columbine High School sounded eerily similar to a particular scene in the movie and it is impossible for me to ever see the movie again without thinking of the town of Littleton, Colorado.
This brings about another issue: children’s protection from this kind of content. More needs to be done to protect children’s eyes from inappropriate things on the TV, billboards, music, and other forms of media. Unfortunately, because society has gone as far as it has today, it will be very difficult to take a step back and re examine the effects violent media will have on children. People seem to care less and less about what children see. The need for protection from this type of content relies solely on the parents. Parents must take it upon themselves to guard their children against things on the media that they should not be seeing. Parents should be given different options with technology to help monitor the content their kids are allowed to see and what they are
A young mother has decided to take her children to see the latest blockbuster to grace the silver screen. Her two children, both boys, are aged 9 and 11. She is aware that the film they are going to see, the critically acclaimed Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises, is rated PG-13 but sees no problem with her kids seeing it. The rating states that “some material may be inappropriate for children under 13” and that “parents [should be] strongly cautioned” (Ratings Posters). But what could be so inappropriate in a Batman film that would require her parental guidance? For the following two and a half hours, images of dead bodies, grisly gun violence, and murder as well as implied sex, numerous profanities ranging from damn to a partially enunciated use of fuck, themes of terrorism and a world absent of law and order are shown to the gleaming, action hungry eyes of pre-teens. The mother leaves in utter disbelief that she had just witnessed numerous neck-snappings, head shots, and brutal beatings alongside her children. Movies these days are not what they used to be. Even the modern superhero film can be filled with graphic violence, ear splitting profanity, an abundant amount of sexual material, increasingly dark themes, and still be given a PG-13 rating. As a result of the excessive tolerance exhibited by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), films are being allowed to contain more explicit material than ever before and younger generations are being exposed to mature subject matter outside of their understanding.
Wyatt, Justin. “The Stigma of X: Adult Cinema and the Institution of the MPAA Ratings System.” Controlling Hollywood: Censorship and Regulation in the Studio Era. Ed. Matthew Bernstein. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1999. (238-264).
...any laws and children now days aren’t afraid of taking risks. To make the world a better place violent video games should be censored or banned because it’s not about what type of world we leave our children, it’s about what type of children we leave for the world.
In 1996 congress passed a law about putting ratings, or as they called it codes, on TV programs. Congress told the TV industry that had to make them up or they would make them up for them and there would be no changing them. The ratings system introduced letter codes that were designed to alert parents to programs that may contain sex, violence, language or suggest an appropriate age for the viewing of that program. These kind of codes might be something like a "V" for violence, an "L" for languages, an "S" for sexual content, and some familiar signs, like PG, for parental guidance, that are used on movies today. Now that it has been a couple of years congress has been trying to come up with other ways to help control what is coming into the home through the TV. (Disconsiglio 14.)
The study, initially published online July 18, 2012, recruited more than 1,200 participants who were from 12 to 14 years old and asked them to report which movies they had seen from several different collections of 50 that were randomly selected.(Roach) After additional questions to determine key factors, and six years of waiting, the results showed what all authors agree on at this point. It “strongly suggested that parents need to restrict their children from seeing sexual content in movies at young ages”.(Roach) Roach goes on to say that when parents allow their kids to view sexually explicit films, real lives are impacted.(Roach) Parents may take it for granted but their kid’s future positive behavior is at stake. But, now that the Roach has been proven correct by the study, he can attempt to fix the problem. Roach believes that parents should watch the films with their teens, and pose questions to make them really think about what they are viewing.(Roach) This being the opposite of L’Engle, who believes media needs to influence the change in movies teens view. Roach then goes as far as telling parents to make sure that they are sorting “fact and fiction” for the teens as the view special effects.(Roach) And, being religious and writing this article for Baptist Press, also says that we need to replace current movie types with ones based on The Bible.(Roach) “What teenagers most need is a new set of 'movies'.(Roach) The Bible is the 'novel'.(Roach) Teenagers need to read and study the book, absolutely.(Roach) But they also need to see the 'movie' based on the book".(Roach) But, while no author agrees or disagrees with Roach’s special effect or “bible movie” idea, seldom do they mention anything close. Someone who does agree that parents should be in the middle of teen’s movie interaction is Carol
...onditions that ensure an adequate counterbalance increasing consumption in some cases, end up having a negative effect on children. Children learn best through demonstration followed by imitation, with rewards for doing things the right way. While not all are affected the same way, it can be said that, in general, violence in the media affects attitudes, values and behaviors of users. You run the risk that children end up understanding that it is reasonably practicable to resort to violence. The fear is that the models of aggressive behavior can be considered suitable. Thus, in an investigation, a good proportion of children (third) defined as normal acts of violence they had seen him mightily little. It is not; here is a risk of direct imitation, but rather a change in terms of reference: where extreme violence appears to be normal any more light may seem harmless.