Over the last 50 years, the rating system for movies has become a cultural commonplace. It serves as a guideline for helping parents in determining whether or not a film may be suitable for their child(ren) to see. But do casual moviegoers have any idea where those ratings come from, how they’re determined, or what they really stand for?

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) works in conjunction with the Classification & Rating Administration (CARA) in order to determine the rating a film should deserve. When a film is submitted for review, it is viewed by a group of raters who evaluate the content of the film and then determine what rating they feel is most appropriate: G, PG, PG-13, R, or NC-17. However, there is currently no formal outline for what constitutes any of these ratings. This results in personal bias playing a role in the rating process and can cause inconsistencies in the way different films are rated.

            The task of selecting the individuals who make up the ratings board currently falls to Joan Graves, the Senior Vice President and Chairman of the CARA. Granting one individual the power to handpick a committee in which personal opinion plays a role is fundamentally flawed. The result is a clearly biased and ideologically lopsided board of raters, typically reflecting the views and opinions of the individual who selected them. This adds a level of subjectivity that should have no part in the ratings process.  

The MPAA has a troubling history of being homophobic, sexist, and overall more right-leaning in their assessment of films.  Films with non-heterosexual love scenes will often get slapped with the dreaded NC-17, whereas their straight counterparts can typically get away with an R. The same can be said for films depicting a woman expressing signs of pleasure versus a man doing the same, respectively. Essentially, subject matter which may be considered taboo will be scrutinized more harshly. This can be attributed entirely to the personal beliefs and ideologies of the members of the ratings board. For an organization primarily concerned with regulating what children should and shouldn’t see, trends such as these may be instilling unhealthy values in the very audience it claims to protect.

While I recognize the benefit and importance of having a ratings system, when it comes to subjects that go against current societal norms, it should be left to the parents to decide whether or not it is something they want their children to see. In this regard, the MPAA must change its practices to establish a more objective ratings board. The fact that there are no strict guidelines for the MPAA to follow when rating a movie calls into question just how reliable these ratings really are. When so much of the rating process is biased and subjective, it begins to defeat the purpose of having ratings in the first place.

            The MPAA claims that it, “has evolved with the times in order to promote the success of our core mission: advancing the business and art of filmmaking, protecting the creative and artistic freedoms of filmmakers, and ensuring the satisfaction of our audiences worldwide.” It is long overdue for another evolution.  Since the MPAA is a private organization, there is no authority directly governing over them, however by raising public awareness of these issues and educating society about what the current flaws with the MPAA, I believe that in time, the Motion Picture Association of America will be forced to change its ways.