The “R” Rating and Rating Movies In General

by Roger Leatherwood

Rather appropriately for the director of this film about movie theatres, I am the manager of the Grand Lake, in Oakland, California, where last month (as I write this) we began our engagement of Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. In an unprecedented, and widely publicized move, we chose not to enforce the MPAA’s “R” rating given to the film.

We were the only theatre nationwide to disregard the MPAA rating, and so publicly. It was up on the marquee, in fact, in 12" high plastic red letters: “WE WILL NOT ENFORCE THE R RATING FOR FAHRENHEIT 9/11” and a picture of our theatre was featured on the home page of Michael Moore’s website as well as us being mentioned on the IMDB news page.

This garnered a lot of local attention (and may have been the final straw that caused Jack Valenti to retire early), mostly because the MPAA’s rating system isn’t well understood – it seems inconceivable, blasphemous, even illegal, for a movie theatre to refute it so openly, and with the possible charge of contributing to the (political) delinquency of minors.

Well, it isn’t illegal. The film was rated “R” for “some violent and disturbing images and language,” specifically some images of Iraqi civilian casualties and use of the word “motherfucker.” The rating, upheld at the last minute in appeal, presumably prevents anyone under 17 from seeing it on their own without a parent or legal guardian accompanying them. This target audience, people aged 15 and 16, is specifically those whom would be affected by pending legislation to reinstate the draft in 2005, and in a changing age of information dissemination we felt it was our duty to allow as much information, discussion, opinion, and discourse made available as possible to them. (For the full statement of our reasons to disregard the “R” rating, click HERE.)

The world didn’t end. Not many teenagers went to see the film, anyway. There were reports many other theatres let underage kids in, but didn’t advertise it on their marquee. Many multiplexes don’t really police the “R” rating anyway, regardless of the film. Some theatres did beef up security to make sure no one snuck in.

This widely diverse reaction made it clear: the rating system is outdated and irrelevant.

The MPAA positions itself as an industry-sanctioned guidance committee devoted to help concerned parents choose and monitor what films their children should see in theatres. It was created in 1967 before the age of cable TV and the Internet, and the media glut of information available to everyone with a computer. It never had the force of law, but was created to allow the industry to self-govern itself to avoid governmental interference (which occasionally threatens, but never gets beyond talking stage). Theatres are not required to enforce or follow the ratings - the MPAA cannot fine us or sue us.

It is, however, generally in our interest to follow the ratings. Certainly, allowing underage kids to see adult material would have the local parents up in arms...at least it used to. It suits us, those who work in movie theatres, to not allow immature kids or giggling teens into films where they’ll just misbehave, throw spitballs, or jeer when Brad Pitt drops his toga.

We actually don’t like immature adults to come in and giggle, smoke, or talk either. But it’s harder to identify them before they misbehave (there are, of course, exceptions). The age thing is arbitrary but a useful profiling guideline. And may not be legal in itself.

Unfortunately, many of the parents dropping off these kids don’t seem to understand the reasons for the ratings.

When presented with the fact that the film is rated “R” for some reason, either gore, sexuality, or drug use, the parents of these underage kids, wanting to drop them off to go have a night of adult entertainment for themselves, invariably say, “It’s okay, they’ve seen worse at home."

Presumably, they saw it on TV, and not at the dinner table over dessert.

The parents are often in the car outside, waving at us and smiling, “It’s okay - see you in 3 hours!,” and don’t understand they should be interested in what material their kids are consuming (whether it’s “The Matrix Reloaded,” (rated “R” for overly silly fighting), “Half-Baked” (rated “R” for insistent drug use), or “The Passion of the Christ” (rated “R” for graphic images of our Savior being beaten to a pulp).). Households are filled with images and words nowadays: double entendres on sitcoms, T&A cable movies, and porn and beheadings on the Internet - the potency of all this material has been deluded by its sheer mass.

It’s impossible to impose a rigid age deciding when people are able to handle certain material. Immature people (of all ages) will not treat the sight of Anthony Hopkins eating brains in “Hannibal” the respect it deserves. It would be nice to be able to filter jerks and assholes out at the door when we sell tickets, but in the absence of actual membership cards to these large and growing clubs, restricting people by an arbitrary age is the most effective if imperfect first step to reduce problems.

And as I said, 17 years is a guideline rather than a rule. An error rate of 2 or 3 years is acceptable, as is the “kids” price cut-off at 12. If you’re 14, you’re close enough. [And the parents still try to save $3.00 ("He’s 11.” “No, dad, I’m fourt—” “Shut up!"). Good lesson.] (Could a 12-year-old convince me she was 16?)

We once kicked 4 15-year-olds out of Kill Bill Vol. 2, in spite of their best efforts to get in, including buying tickets to “Home On The Range.” Pissed and defiant, they walked down the street to the local drug store, bought a copy of Kill Bill Vol. 1 on DVD and walked back over waving it in their hands at us, proving they did have practically infinite access to as dangerous material as they could find (and “Vol. 1” was so much bloodier, more immoral, and narratively transgressive than “Vol. 2").

So why stop them from coming in?

Because they talk during the movie.

The larger multiplexes let people wander from theatre to theatre, sometimes seeing 3 or 4 films in a day for one admission price. They figure they’ll spend $20 or $30 on food at the concession stand over the course of the day; all profit the theatre actually keeps (the ticket money all gets sent to the film distributors, so why maximize that?).

If they cause minor commotions in the theatres they sneak into, everyone tends to shrug it off. Of course, if the teenagers actually sat down quietly, watched the movie, and didn’t draw any attention to themselves, we’d be much more forgiving. As soon as you get on our radar, it’s over. I’ll kick you out rather than deal with the angry patron who’ll complain about you later. Either because you came at the wrong time, were loud trying too hard to be clever with your friends, or so obviously sneaking in you practically defied me to catch you.

Cleverly sneaking in is permitted. No one here at the movie theatre wants to prevent anyone from seeing a really cool movie – as long as you actually sit down and watch it.

My mentor Don Crane once let a 14-year-old kid in to see an “R” rated film he was trying to sneak into at the old UA, with this caveat: he had to sit down and watch it, then tell him about it at the end. No playing, no letting his friends in the side exit, no theatre-hopping. Well, the kid couldn’t take it, and left after 10 minutes. The prize was so much less sweet when not earned.

More than one mom took their 2-year-olds in to see Se7en (yes, that’s a typo), well within the rules indicating the legal guardian or parent must accompany them. But the other customers in the theatre were made insane seeing these very impressionable 2-year-olds watching all that deviant behavior up on the big screen. (With wide silent eyes.) They likened it to child abuse and wanted us to call the cops on the mothers.

We’re not the parents. We only show the movies. But we need to preserve order as best we can.

So we don’t let them in to “Scary Movie” ("I’m sorry, you can’t see this movie...it’s just really bad art.") or we let them in to see “Fahrenheit 9/11” ("These people want to send you to war.")

How nice to be in the movie theatre business, and feel like you’re making a difference in these kids’ future.

---

Why We’re Not Enforcing The “R” Rating For “Fahrenheit 9/11”

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) upheld its recent decision on Tuesday to give Michael Moore’s new film “Fahrenheit 9/11” an “R’ rating. This means no one under 17 is to be admitted unless accompanied by a parent or legal guardian.

The reasons given for this rating are for “some violent and disturbing images and language.” Specifically, Daily Variety reports that there is “some footage of civilian casualties in Iraq and use of the word ‘m-----f-----.’ ”

This “R”rating will prevent anyone 14, 15, and 16 years of age from seeing the film on their own. This demographic is the target of pending legislation reinstating the draft, and may have serious consequences for these young people who may be asked to fight in a war waged for unclear reasons by an administration refusing or unable to explain its motivations, strategies, or agenda.

We at the Grand Lake Theatre feel it is our duty as responsible citizens in the business community as well is in the political sphere to allow young people access to as much information, opinion, discourse, and debate on these topics as possible. We will be treating the film as being rated “PG-13,” meaning only those under 13 years of age will be discouraged from coming in, unless accompanied by a parent or legal guardian.

The MPAA is an often useful guidance committee designed to help concerned parents to help choose and monitor what films their children should see in theatres. It does not however have the force of law and it is up to the individual theatres to enforce these ratings at their discretion.