Ratings Overhaul

"Too much smoking in movies" say researchers, who recommmend R-ratings for movies that depict characters smoking.

This is not a new idea. Anti-tobacco groups have been pushing for R-ratings for movies with smoking for years. On one hand, the numbers mentioned in the article are compelling: 80% of PG-13 movies feature smoking somewhere and 50% of the G and PG movies. The biggest fear is that impressionable young kids will be 1) associating smoking with 'coolness' when they see movie characters do it, or 2) at least see a large enough quantity of smoking in the movies that it registers subconsciously as 'normal', 'common' and 'not a big deal--everyone does it'.

On the other hand--an 'R' rating for using a legal drug? Isn't that a little extreme? How many people are really seriously 'offended' by seeing someone light up a cigarette on screen? You don't want your kids to smoke, of course, but is seeing someone smoke in a movie really the equivalent to seeing a movie with graphic sex or violence? How much 'revisionist history' would have to be done to reclassify previous movies with lots of smoking, particularly old movies? ("Casablanca", anyone? I can imagine members of the older generation getting a rude shock when they go into the video store and seeing the previously 'PG' classic now sporting an 'R') Is tobacco use really more damaging to the youth of this generation than alcohol?

Adding smoking to the R-rating scope will only make the R-rating more bloated, and thereby less effective. But then again, one can also find studies showing that exposure to images of smoking has a direct link to starting the habit yourself. One can argue both sides, and instead of taking a stand one way or the other, I'm going to use this article to discuss what I think is the real problem: the current movie rating system stinks and needs fixing. The movie rating categories as currently constituted are:
1) Too broad and unspecific
2) Arbitrary and subjective
3) Subject to outside influences (i.e. major directors and studios get more 'favorable' ratings than independant movies)
4) Vary greatly depending on local culture (which becomes obvious if you've ever seen a European 'PG' movie which contains rampant nudity)
5) Degrade over time (meaning the same content gets a lower rating now then it would have a decade before)

A complete solution is not possible, since there isn't a absolute scale where 'objectionable' content can be classified with any accuracy. Still, even some simple and minor changes would make a world of difference.

Here's one idea (presented to the movie industry by The Baron free of charge):

Separate 'objectionable material' into distinct catagories: "Profanity/Language", "Sex/Nudity", "Violence", and "Drug Use", for example. The fact is, a movie that's R for violence, one that's R for explicit sex, and one that's R for drug use are completely different and the rating system should reflect that. Each individual category can be rated on a scale from 0-5 with 0 meaning no content whatsover, and 5 meaning an extreme amount. A color system could also be used, with white, green, yellow, orange, and red marking the points on the scale, for example. Then, we'd abandon the G,PG,PG-13,R classifications, which are pretty much useless, and rate movies by each category individually. The "Lord of the Rings" movies, for example, might be a 1-0-4-2, while a typical romantic comedy might be a 3-3-0-1. A simple number or color rating system like this could be attached to movie ads just as easily as the current rating box, and it would give potential viewers more detailed information about movie content; important, since everyone is likely to have different personal standards for each category. Using this system will remove some of the cultural differences in ratings, such as US movies currently being stricter on sex/nudity (as far as giving a higher rating), and more lenient on violence, while European movies are the opposite.

(Note: this is hardly a new idea. There are many movie rating groups that use a similar system to the one I've just outlined. See www.psvratings.com or www.kids-in-mind.com)

Arbitrary? Yes. Subjective? Yes, but there's no way around that. The benefit of this system, though, is in its detail: a four-category, 0-5 scale means a movie can get one of 1296 distinct ratings, far more specific than the current system of four, which can't seem to tell the difference between "Whale Rider" and an Adam Sandler gross-out comedy. Using this system, those who want to classify smoking as 'drug use' have a easy means to do so, without impacting the choices of adults who don't care about smoking in movies, but do care about sex and violence.

So, what do you think? Reasonable, or not? And is anyone at the MPAA willing to listen and make some common sense changes?