The question examined is what changes has the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) rating system gone through, and did these changes lead to current television rating codes? The MPAA rating system is self-imposed , so the film industry could avoid government regulation. With the government passing the Telecommunications Act, which gave an ultimatum for a new television rating system, the film industry worried they would be next to be regulated. The founder of the MPAA's rating system was brought in to oversee the design and institution of the new television rating systems. This is a study found that there are many similarities in the ratings of both the film and television industries.

Introduction

Motion Pictures have been regulated with a rating system in one form or another until the Hays codes took effect in 1931. The researcher's question was: has the institution of the motion picture rating system had an effect on and did it lead to the recent implementation of the 1996 television rating system? A history of the changes that the rating system has undergone and a look into televisions regulations will help to make sense of this so called "ineffective" system.

According to Linz & Wilson (1990) that as early as 1921 the producers and distributors formed the National Association of the Motion Picture Industry (NAMPI). The association then drafted a thirteen point code of "taboo" subjects for new movies. In 1922 the association was replaced by the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA). Under the leadership of William Hays, the MPPDA established in 1931 the Motion Picture Code, which imposed restrictions on the depiction of sex, vulgarity and violence in the movies (444).

The Motion Picture Code continued to operate throughout the 1940's and 1950's although it was altered somewhat to reflect changing moral standards. The code which imposed restrictions on films' content rather than on viewers, would have perhaps survived indefinitely if not for two important Supreme Court cases in 1968. In Ginsberg v. New York (1968), the court ruled that a state can regulate the dissemination of objectionable materials to juveniles, even though the same material could be available to adults (Linz & Wilson, 1990, 444-445). In concurring Justice Stewart wrote: I think as state may permissibly determined that at least in some precisely delineated areas, a child--like someone in a captive audience (a reference to a rationale used for imposing more regulation on the radio-television than on other media) is not possessed of that full capacity for individual choice which is the presupposition of First Amendment guarantees. It is only on upon such a premise, I should suppose, that a state may deprive children of other rights--the right to marry, for example, or the right to vote--deprivations that would be constitutionally intolerable for adults (Francios, 1994, 417-418).

Linz & Wilson (1990) go on to say a second decision (Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas, 1968), the court ruled that a local classification system created by the city of Dallas to prohibit children under sixteen from viewing certain films was constitutional. Unless the film industry took some action, it seemed likely that similar local and state classification schemes would develop around the country. Within six months of the Court's decision, the rating system was publicly announced by the President of the MPAA, Jack Valenti (445-446).

Founded in 1968 to ward off government intervention, Morris & Silver (1999) write, the MPAA ratings soon settled into the familiar G, PG, R, and X (68). Linz & Wilson (1990) also write in 1984 the release of Indiana Jones And the Temple of Doom and Gremlins resulted in a series of complaints lodged by both parents and movie critics over the PG ratings given to these films. The films were seen as too violent and frightening for younger children. Because of this public pressure, the MPAA added the PG-13 rating to its system in order to distinguish between content suitable for preteen versus teenage audiences (446). Morris & Silver (1999) say in 1990, NC-17 was invented as an arty sounding replacement for X. The ratings are assigned by a mysterious cabal called the Classification and Rating Administration (CARA), and MPAA division (68). According to Roth (2000, the MPAA states : "the rating system is strictly voluntary and carries no law." Roth continues that it also indicates that the system isn't based on adult standards of content: The Movie Rating System is... to provide parents with advance information on films, enabling the parent to make judgements on movies they want or don't their children to see... While the decision to enforce the rating system is purely voluntary, the overwhelming majority of theaters follow and diligently enforce it (9).

So who applies the MPAA ratings? According to Roth (2000) a small group of anonymous parents gather in Encino, California. Between eight and thirteen of these individuals, whose views are supposed to reflect those of average American parents, constitute the film-rating board CARA and have signed confidentiality agreements enabling them to screen films sometimes weeks or months before their premieres. The MPAA hasn't disclosed how much rating board members are paid (10).

Marks (1998) adds that the MPAA board is parents with children under the age of 17, that the MPAA believes have an "intelligent maturity" and capacity to put themselves in the role of most American parents. "These people are neither gods nor fools, they're just parents," said Jack Valenti, noting the board rated 520 films last year. "You're going to make errors, but these are errors of judgement not of lack of integrity" (1-2).

Roth (2000) writes the MPAA says Cara members make an educated estimate as to which rating most American parents will consider the most "appropriate". However, there is no requirement that guarantees board members are credentialed experts in the process and effects of mass communication. Art degrees and artistic skill aren't required, and non-parents are not represented at all (10).

Back During the early 1970's Roth (20000 writes the industry was dominated by seven majors--huge studios that arrange for the production and distribution of films. The largest studios are members of the MPAA a private organization that assign on of the four ratings to incoming content (9). Valenti (1993) writes Hollywood today is still run by seven major studios, but there are also a dozen mini-majors, 30 or 40 smaller distributors, and thousands of independent producers, directors, and writers many of whom have their own production companies... where the ferocity of competition is senseless, frenzied, often disorderly, and the marketplace is the arbiter of what succeeds and what fails. No one company or group of companies has the power to beckon or banish. (88).

The ratings board has been under fire, because of the confusion and uncertainty of the ratings. Marks (12/17/1997) says the MPAA has consistently stated that the rating system is only a general guide and it's up to the parents to take responsibility for what their children watch (2). Caywood (1994) adds the MPAA rating offers parents an opinion, reduced to simple code, on where a given movie fits in comparison to other movies being released. Its meaning deteriorates over time, however, because of social change. It also does not take into consideration the wide variation in maturity among teenagers. And it lumps together social issues ranging from brutality to alternative lifestyles on which families may also have very different values (50-51).

I.A. Richards Semantic triangle sums up why there is some confusion and debate over the issue. Richards and his colleague developed the triangle works is that a symbol (word) is said, in this study, "R" rating. The reference (thought) is associated with the symbol, violence, sex, drugs, (each person's thoughts differ form one to another). Then the referent (thing) is responded to. Reposes can vary from every person and to every possible human emotion. What one particular individual may find offensive and disgusting, may be the exact motivation for someone else to see a film. Linz & Wilson (1990) put this into perspective related to the research with... "an R rated film could contain thirty scenes of gratuitous violence or it could contain no violence at all, but several uses of profanity" (443).

Ratings are also seen as "bland" and "general". Christians, Rivers, & Schramm (1980) state that inherent to the rating system is the fact that to those seventeen and over, and/or married without children, the ratings have little if any meaning (301). Confusion has also occurred because, some times the ratings are seen as to indicate how "good" a movie is. Valenti (1993) writes, "In context ėgood' means entertaining movie stories told with zest and skill that enthrall audiences. the rating system does not rate movies on ėquality', but only on the accumulation and degree to which language, violence, sensuality, theme, or drug use are exhibited on the screen, none of which has anything to do with whether a movie is ėgood' or ėnot so good' (88-89)."

The MPAA looks for certain factors when evaluating a movie for the level of violence and sex. Linz & Wilson (1990) state that for violence; factor of: reward versus punishment associated with the violence, degree of reality of violence, and the nature of the perpetrator and justified violence. All factors are taken into consideration before the board makes the judgement on a film's rating. Recent movies have been given different ratings for their levels of violence (446-447). Morris & Silver (1999) write reasons are often too vague and euphemistic. The Matrix is rated "R" for "sci-fi violence", (bloodless killings). Inspector Gadget get a PG for "wacky violence/action and innuendo." The Sixth Sense is PG-13 for "intense thematic material and violent images"' (when in doubt just use the word thematic) (69-70). Sexual content is rated according to three factors: Sexual language (particularity sexual terms used as expletives), nudity or implied sexual behaviors and explicit depictions of sex. Christians, Rivers, & Schramm (1980) state that the producer of a film has a right under the rules to inquire as to the "why" of the rating. The producer also has the right, based on the reasons for his rating to edit the film if he chooses to, to try for a less severe rating (303). Morris & Silver (1998) again add film makers can appeal to a board of industry professionals, or re-edit in hopes of a softer rating, as decisions by the appeals board are final. "It's oddly arbitrary," says Craig Perry co-producer of American Pie, which was trimmed three times before getting an R rating. Cuts were so minute as to be meaningless: The infamous pie scene went from "four thrusts to two" of the character's genitalia into the pastry, he said (68-69).

While the ratings have directors and producers watching every step in hopes that they will achieve a rating within the G through R range (all commercially driven theaters refuse to future movies rated NC-17). Directors and producers have no where else to turn in search of a ratings designation for their film. There are no other committees that deal with rating on a recognized scale other than the Motion Picture Association of America. Here is a list of what the current rating symbols mean for the year 2000. These are taken from Everything You Always Wanted to Know About the Movie Rating System (Roth, 2000, 14). G General Audiences--All ages admitted. Signifies that the film rated contains nothing most parents will consider offensive even for their youngest children to see and hear. Nudity, sex scenes of drug use are absent: violence is minimal; snippets of dialogue may go beyond polite conversation, but do not go beyond common everyday expressions. PG Parental Guidance Suggested-- Some material may not be suitable for children. Signifies that the film rated may contain some material parent might not like to expose to their young children--material that will clearly need to be examined or inquired about before children are allowed to attend the film. Explicit sex scenes and scenes of drug use are absent; nudity, if present, is seen only briefly; horror and violence do not exceed moderate levels. PG-13 Parents Strongly Cautioned--Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. Signifies that the film rated may be inappropriate for preteens. Parents should be especially careful about letting their younger children attend. Rough or persistent violence is absent: sexually oriented nudity is generally absent; some scenes of drug use may be seen; some use of one of the harsher sexually derived words may be heard. R Restricted--Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian (age varies in some jurisdictions). Signifies that the rating board has concluded that the film rated may contain some adult material. Parents are urged to learn more about the film before taking their younger children to see it. An R may be assigned due to, among other things, a film's use of language, theme, violence, sex, or its portrayal of drug use. NC-17 No one under 17 and under admitted. Signifies that the rating board believes that most American parents would feel that the film is patently adult and that children age 17 and under should not be admitted to it. The film may contain explicit sex scenes, and accumulation of sexually oriented language, and/or scenes of excessive violence. The NC-17 designation does not, however, signify that the film is obscene or pornographic in term of sex, language or violence. How has television been affected by the motion picture ratings system? Unlike the film industry, the television industry has been government regulated since 1924, because it uses public airwaves which are regarded as a public resource. Also the television industry was given an ultimatum for compliance on a television rating system or face government sanctions. Motion Picture Association of America President Jack Valenti quickly took charge of the crusade for fear it may affect the motion picture industry. In 1996 congress passed the new Telecommunications Act. According to Abelman & Gubbins (1999) the act required that every TV set sold in the United States was required to come with the ability to block programming based on an electronically encoded rating. The television industry itself was required to develop the rating system, which would identify: "violence, sex, and other indecent material," and agree voluntarily to broadcast signals containing such ratings (56-57). The industry was then bombarded with organizations criticizing the new ratings. Abelman & Gubbins (1999) state; The Parents Television Council--the entertainment monitoring arm of the conservative media watchdog Media Research Center--pronounced the MPAA ratings as "hopelessly vague," "inconsistent," and "contradictory." there was also fear that parents would find the ratings system counterproductive when attempting to influence their children's television viewing habits and practices. The industry system doesn't give the parents the information they need to make appropriate decisions for their own kids, and it won't give them the choices they nee to block programming (55-58). The item used to block the system is the new V-chip. The ratings must be devised for television shows that will be encoded in the broadcast signal, as closed captioning information is transferred, so the V-chip can read these codes. These signals will then block the show according to the rating it is given. These will be chosen by the Implementation Group (similar to the MPAA's Ratings Board), and the group will be chaired by MPAA President Jack Valenti. According to Geirer & Silver (1996) the media watchdog groups crave more. The point of the TV ratings is information, while the point of the Hollywood ratings is withholding any information that might drive away viewers. The recommendation is that the ratings measure potentially offensive content. How explicit the sex, how graphic the violence (54-55). This is very similar to how the Motion Pictures Ratings Board achieves its goal of these assessments. There are a few problems that have arisen from the ratings issue. One of them is its time consuming nature. Marks (12/10/1997) quotes Valenti, "Each day, there's two-thousand hours of television programming that would have to be rated as contrasted by the four to six hours a day in movie ratings. You're talking about a logistical problem of insurmountable barriers, incalculable cliffs" (75). Another is that the feeling that parents don't know much about the program and therefore aren't allowed to make a rational decision. Gierer & Silver (1996) write: "A system to gauge sexual content and violence on television should be descriptive like a food label instead of judgmental like film ratings. On a television program of film, descriptive ratings would list such items as "moderate violence" or "brief nudity," for example without making judgements as to its suitability for particular audiences. Under such a system, parents could set their V-chips to block high-violence shows, say, while allowing sexy fare if they're unfazed by it. Tim Collins an engineering professor at Simon Frasier University in suburban Vancouver and inventor of the V-chip, observes. "Parents don't want an external group deciding what's appropriate at what ages." (54-55).

Here is how the current Television Ratings are presented by Abelman & Gubbins (1999), they are broken down into four age-based categories and children's programming into two: TV-M - Mature Audiences only. TV-14 - May be inappropriate for children under 14. TV-PG - Parental guidance suggested. TV-G - Suitable for all audiences. TV-Y7- Suitable for child 7 and older. TV-Y - Suitable for children of all ages.

Results

The information used had some problems with it. Information in some of the articles differed from some in other articles, ( ex. 7 and 13 people sit on the MPAA's rating board). The researcher took the numbers that appear in the articles and combined them due to the difference in the time when the articles were written. Other instances of difference in the years of the previous and present ratings had taken effect. The researcher took the years that were the most recent and used those figures. Other articles were biased against the MPAA and their ratings. These biases were usually found in religious periodicals. While other periodicals and articles did give views of opposition they were in no way petty and inconclusive. The majority of the religious activists were constantly berating the system about how bad it was and has little it actually did to "protect" our nations children. While reading through these articles the researcher reached the conclusion that actually the ratings weren't the problem with the groups. The blame lay solely on the film makers and the film industry. Articles of this nature gave little merit to the project and were discarded. (Note: Religious and parent advocacy groups were the ones who first fought for some kind of regulation in the film industry.)

Another area of research is one that is both intriguing and somewhat sinister. Jack Valenti appeared once again to lend his hand in the television rating systems. The researcher found many articles that called for him to step down from the ratings and let someone different try to clean up the system. The researcher did find very little of the articles "bashed" Valenti for any reason, they just called for his replacement. The research did find that all of the research presented on Jack Valenti was accurate and in the same information, (dates, statements, etc.), in every article.

Another interesting factor was that all of the pro-ratings groups, (television and movies), were fighting for the exact same cause. They all wanted no sex, violence, nudity, or drug use; without some kind of specific warning system. All of the groups are fighting the same battle either by writing letters, or by influencing a specific member of congress. Since each group is basically fighting for the same thing, little is actually being done, because the groups are fighting with each other. They are at odds, because each side has a different view on what is right and wrong to show on the screen.

Discussion

Although there was much research available on the motion picture and television ratings, the researcher didn't find any that broke the two of them down and compared them both closely together. By looking at how they were arrived at and by each individual ratings background a comparison then could have been made. Movie Ratings are less scrutinized, because the public actually has to go and pay and see the movie, and regardless of the rating it is their own personal choice. The television ratings took some hits for being to "vague" and "contradictory". This could be correct, because unlike the movies, television is piped into almost every American household and is sometimes it is left to play babysitter., This is exactly what the groups are for with the institution of the V-chip. The ability to regulate a child's viewing even when a parent isn't around.

The research got the results it did, because in today's society there is a tremendous amount of information via the internet, library, etc. Due to the open marketplace of ideas, anyone can pretty much have a voice and opinion on something. The research was also written at different times and sometimes policies and figures change.

The most important implications of the results were that nothing is perfect. From the rating systems to the authors themselves, there were sometimes mistakes. Everything doesn't work perfectly in society, so a level of tolerance must be placed when a particular system doesn't work correctly. Another aspect, is that, the current systems should be changed or altered to better give parents the necessary warnings that they need in selecting a movie or television show for their children.

To do the project over research on censorship would have to be studied. That research would them be compared to movies that have been changed or re-edited to fit the MPAA guidelines. This study can possibly show that ratings were too harsh and destructive to the director's artistic vision and the film's continuity. The research did allow for the researcher to see that the rating system is an old system. And just like with dress codes and laws, that every system of regulation needs to be looked at an reevaluated to fit present time and the always changing beliefs and standard of society. The rating system has been effective up until recently, but some changes are needed to bring it into the twenty-first century.

References

Abelman, R.,&Gubbins, E.J. (1999). Preaching to the choir: TV advisory usage among parents of gifted children. Roeper Review, 22 (1) 56-64.

Caywood, C. (1994, April). Ratings or responsibility? School Library Journal, 40, 50.

Christians, C.G., Rivers, W.L.,& Schramm, W.C. (1980). Responsibility in mass communication. New York: Harper & Row.

Francios, W.E. (1994). Mass media law and regulation. Illinois: Waveland.

Geirer, T.,& Silver, M. (1996, September 9). Ready for prime time? U.S. News and World Report, 121, 54-61.

Griffen, E.M. (1997), The first look at communication theory. (3). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Linz, D.,& Wilson, B.J. (1990). Applying social science to film ratings: a shift from offensiveness to harmful effects. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media,34, 443-469.

Marks, A. (1997, December 10). One mom's crusade to make cinema safer for young tots. Christian Science Monitor,90, 11-14.

Marks, A. (1997, December 17) Have ėG' movies lost their innocence. Christian Science Monitor, 91, 1-2.

Morris, H.J., & Silver, M. (1999, September 20). G, why R rating so confusing? U.S. News and World Report, 127, 68-71.

Roth, C. (2000, January/February). Three decades of film censorship... right before your eyes. Humanist,60, 9-14.

Valenti, J. (1993, September). Hollywood, the rating system, and the movie going public. USA Today Magazine,122, 87-90.