As a teenager, I paid close attention to ratings because they dictated whether or not I could get into the theater to see a movie. If it was “R,” I simply wasn’t getting in, as they were serious about ticket admissions back then! Things have softened quite a bit now. I can’t remember the last time I saw a ticket agent card a young person. Also, now that we can buy tickets in advance on the Web, and just show our phones and grab a seat, who is stopping to question anyone about seeing any movie these days! After all, the ticket checkers are teenagers too. I even hear toddlers yelling in the theater when I’m there to watch an R-rated movie. 

When I was young, I envisioned movie ratings as a task done by committee — you know, a bunch of people in a room who watch movies all day and ultimately agree on a rating after deliberating over its content. You know, like a courtroom jury trial. It turns out, I wasn’t far afield in my understanding of the process. But there is a bit more to it than that. This paper covers the film industry’s rating system and reports on the usefulness of the ratings to many of us today. Indeed, more interesting than the ratings themselves is the history of Hollywood’s system of rating films.

Hollywood’s History of Rating Films

Hollywood’s system of rating films didn’t begin with the goal of rating movies at all. Its goal at the outset was to “ensure the financial stability of Hollywood.” So, the new Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA), founded in 1922, set out to secure funding from Wall Street to do this. Perhaps there was a quiet quid pro quo, but soon after, the organization resolved to maintain a “clean moral tone” across the film industry in the United States. The studios were already ensuring that the directors, actors, and other talent they had under contract adhered to a “code of conduct.” The next step, in the view of executives and the MPPDA, was to get the film content inline. This is where the  MPPDA came in, effectively inserting itself as gatekeeper and enforcer of the film content.

Through 1934, films were not rated, or what was then referred to as not “coded.” In this pre-code era, religious clergy and politicians carried a great disdain for films with scenes of nudity, and what they called illicit dealings and morally gray matter. In 1930, with the support of congressmen, senators, and other influential people in the U.S., former politician and Republican National Committee chair William H. Hays assumed leadership of the MPPDA and established stringent rules for rating film using what became known as the Hays Code, also referred to as the Production Code. 

The rules of the Production Code became legally binding and breaking them was punishable by law. Hays even established the Production Code Administration (PCA) to enact and oversee the ratings process, empowering it to make the binary decision to either approve or deny films and to dole out $25,000 fines for rules violations. Some filmmakers would be penalized or their works denied for displaying such social activity as liquor use, ridiculing clergy, miscegenation, and even engaging in same-sex behaviors. This glimpse back in time, though nearly a century ago, feels like an oppressive creative environment for filmmakers, who not only were required to submit their films to the MPPDA for ratings, but had no recourse on the decisions made about their films. In many cases, they were forced to re-edit their films as a condition of the films’ release. 

The MPPDA was not the only film watchdog during the early 20th century, however. The National Legion of Decency, a consortium of partially Protestant but predominantly Catholic organizations, evaluated films and assigned ratings using “A” for morally unobjectionable, “B” for partly morally objectionable, and “C” for condemned. The group assessed more than 12,800 movies between 1936 and 1959. But this represents only a partial list since the Legion continued to operate through the late 1970s. Alfred Hitchcock’s 1960 film, Psycho, was among those given a “B” rating by the Legion because, according to Daniel Gauss of Taste of Cinema, the shower scene was sadistic and “Marion [laid] on her bed with a man while only wearing a bra.” 

It is important to note that not everyone agreed with the MPPDA’s and the Legion’s censoring of film during this era. Letters to the New York Times Screen Editor regarding the Legion’s rating of Psycho pan this out. Upon seeing the movie at the theater in 1960, one gentleman wrote a response to an enthusiastic supporter of the Legion’s “B” rating of the film. He replied, To be more specific, [the supporter] objects to a scene which presents, he says, “the stabbing of a naked woman in a shower in ugly detail," a description which would be more accurate if the scene were either ugly or detailed. Another individual writing to the Times noted, I realize that it is not to everyone's taste … As for Psycho's being ‘deliberately sadistic,’ I certainly don't think it a film for children, but can mature audiences take it as anything but a macabre prank …? Even then, some viewers of the film appreciated Psycho as a brilliant work of art, even though it was scorned by others and condemned by the Legion.

Consider also that such rigid ratings of film decontextualize the work’s visual content, failing to account for a scene’s mood, the story that encompasses it, or even the film’s overall themes. As we pointed out during the Cup of Tea Critiques Podcast on short films, even the shortest films use dialog, compelling media images and creative cinematographic techniques that when viewed collectively tell strong and powerful stories. In the end, the films often pose searing questions that encourage us to think critically, ultimately broadening our perspectives. The early rating systems reduced the works to a scene here or there, failing to account for these crucial elements of the art form, not to mention being oblivious to the breadth of cinematic tastes of audience members.

Hays left the MPPDA in 1945 when, coincidentally, the organization changed its name to the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). This is not unusual, as many organizations, companies, and sometimes even people, adopt this tactic to decouple from the past and reset their respective identities as something different. The Production Code, though, was not repealed until 1968, when the industry summoned a collective exhale, and filmmakers once again enjoyed exercising their creative freedoms. By this time, the National Legion of Decency’s influence had shrunk tremendously thanks in part to a series of Supreme Court decisions ruling against censorship. Burstyn v. Wilson is one such case, where the justices in 1952 unanimously ruled that free speech in film is guaranteed based on the first and 14th amendments. Another is the 1964 Jacobellis v. Ohio case, where the Court reversed the conviction of a movie theater manager accused of showing an obscene film. The justices opined that the film was “not obscene” and that obscenity needed to be based on a national standard. Together, these and other cases chipped away at censorship across the film industry and the Legion’s influence along with it. 

Although the Hays Code was not repealed until the late ‘60s, the MPAA had already begun to signal a new day in the way the organization conducted its business around rating films. Taken over by Washington D.C.-insider Jack Valenti in 1966, the MPAA no longer required filmmakers to submit their films for rating. And rather than using a code to effectively censor films, the organization, which soon shortened its name to Motion Picture Association (MPA), established a new objective: providing information about the age-appropriateness of a movie. Valenti ushered in a more nuanced system for rating movies, one which we are most familiar with today, The Motion Picture Association Classification and Rating Administration (CARA). You probably know it best as the movie rating system.

The Movie Rating System and the MPA

Today’s movies are slotted into one of five ratings categories, each of which is listed in the table below, under columns “Rating (1990).” As seen by their predecessors to the left (“Rating (1968)” and “Rating (1984)”), the ratings have varied ever so slightly over the last several decades. In 1984, M became PG and PG-13 to signal the appropriateness of content for children ages 13 and under, and the age limit for R was raised from 16 to 17.

The most significant change to the system was ushered in in 1990, with NC-17 replacing the notorious X rating which had been assigned to what were then deemed pornographic films. 

One X-rated film included Bernardo Bertolucci’s Last Tango in Paris, which was the seventh highest grossing film in 1973. Marlon Brando and Maria Schneider led the cast as a couple involved in a relationship based only on sex. Another film is John Schlesinger’s Midnight Cowboy which won the Oscar for Best Picture in 1969. The film starred Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman, with Voight’s character as a male sex worker for gay men. 

Best Picture honors are typically not given to bad films. So, despite Midnight Cowboy containing a lot of nudity and/or sex between persons of the same or different sex, the movie had a powerful story with strong themes that likely left the audience with deep searing questions about ourselves and some aspect of the world around us. In doing so, it proved the point that film as an art form has great value. As for Last Tango in Paris, Gauss suggests it encourages us to question if sex without intimacy is fulfilling enough. As a professor of mine once said, “chew on that for a bit.” While doing so, consider that being among the top 10 grossing films in any year is itself an accolade and attests to the broad cinematic tastes of viewers.

While one would think the X ratings for these films would directly convert to NC-17 under the current rating system, a quick lookup in IMDB shows Last Tango in Paris with an NC-17 and Midnight Cowboy with a rating of R. A recent article in Vanity Fair painstakingly explains how this inconsistency came about. In short, the MPAA begrudgingly gave United Artists's Midnight Cowboy an R rating along with strong suggestions that they make changes to it. The studio steadfastly refused. The studio did, however, consult with a psychiatrist about the film. Since the doctor expressed concerns about the sex and sexual innuendo, the studio made the decision to give the film an X rating.

Midnight Cowboy’s ratings journey, though, is highly unusual. Filmmakers are typically coerced into making concessions to get the ratings they want for their movies. This means recutting the films to make them more palatable to the MPA in order to get an R rating. R is such a coveted rating because it means the films are more accessible to the public and can thus maximize its earning potential. The substantially smaller audience for X rated films makes it difficult to achieve these goals. To get the R rating, though, filmmakers must agree to edit some scenes. This complexity around ratings in film is a good place to segue into a discussion on the longstanding tension between filmmakers and the MPA. 

The Tension between Filmmakers and the MPA

Kirby Dick’s 2006 documentary, This Film is Not Yet Rated, highlights the sharp divisions between the MPA and filmmakers. At the center of the breakdown, according to Dick, is the rating of films as NC-17 versus R. To put it mildly, filmmakers bristle at NC-17 ratings because the films potentially lose millions of dollars in sales. According to several directors featured in the documentary, an NC-17 rating presents marketing challenges for films. Walmart, for example, will not carry an NC-17 movie, which is where many people, they say, buy their DVDs.

Another point of contention is that the MPA will not provide the filmmakers with notes, so they can potentially make adjustments to their films to get them from NC-17 to R. They are simply told that they can “recut it.” This area is a special point of agitation for filmmakers because they have discovered that deferential treatment exists for independent filmmakers versus those producing films for large studios. For example, the 1997 independent film, Orgazmo, received an NC-17 rating. When director Trey Parker asked for suggestions to get the film to an R, the MPA representative told him that they don’t give specific notes and he was “welcome to recut it.”

Parker’s experience was quite different, however, when he directed South Park at MTV Entertainment Studios. When South Park initially received an NC-17 rating, he was given “extremely specific edits” to get an R rating. This suggests that a level of discrimination is occurring at the MPA, to the detriment of small, independent filmmakers. This is especially the case when the films contain sexual content.

In the documentary, actress Maria Bello complains that the ratings board has “desexualized sex.” Expounding on this, she explains that her film, The Cooler, was given a rating of NC-17 because they said some of her pubic hair could be seen in a love scene. Filmmakers also note that intimate acts involving persons of the same sex consistently receive NC-17. Others remark that the raters seem to have a number for sexual thrusts, and that when there’s more than two, then the film is doomed to an NC-17. Still, others say that the distance of the shot is also a factor. The closer the camera is to the sexual activity, the more likely it is to receive an NC-17 rating.

While NC-17 ratings may seem reasonable to some given the stated mission of the MPA to advise parents on the appropriateness of content for children, the problem, filmmakers insist, is the built-in bias, the lack of accountability or explanation for the ratings, and the lack of transparency about who is making the ratings decisions. UCLA professor and researcher, Theresa Webb, added to this by noting the MPA’s preoccupation with sex but little attention paid to violence. So, what are we not getting about the way the MPA operates?

The Disconnect Between the MPA and Independent Filmmakers

Today, the segment of the MPA whose direct and sole responsibility is to watch films and rate them is parents. They are believed to serve 3–7-year terms, with the requirement that their children be between the ages of 5 and 16-years-old. The rationale for using parents is related to the organization’s mission regarding the appropriateness of film content for children. Given this, it makes sense to have parents perform this function, as long as their demographics are representative of the parent population in the U.S. with respect to race, education, income, religion, and even region. If due diligence is paid in this regard, then the rationale for choosing parents is reasonable.

As for the MPA itself, it is a member association, where major studios like Disney, Netflix, MGM Studios, Paramount, Prime, Sony, Universal, and Warner Brothers essentially agree to the terms and conditions of the MPA and its strategy for rating films. That the MPA and the studios work in tandem is not new. As I alluded to earlier, major studios historically controlled all aspects of the film industry in the first several decades of Hollywood. Each studio had exclusive and binding contracts with the talent in front of and behind the cameras. Each controlled the distribution of its films. And each owned the theaters where the films were shown. This vertical integration broke down in the wake of the 1948 Supreme Court ruling in the United States vs Paramount. But the social relationships between studios, as facilitated through politically-connected organizations like the MPA, religious clergy, and executives’ similar values and sensibilities, allowed for the “studio system” to thrive and remain positioned as the arbiters of film and the film industry. 

For the most part, studios have enjoyed their stronghold over the industry. The benefits have outweighed the drawbacks. When they don’t like the ratings of their films, they have not only obtained the feedback for the necessary changes, but they’ve had access to the financial resources to recut a film if necessary. This is still the case today. Studio heads are well-connected enough as MPA members to cajole leadership into giving a film the rating they want. A rater in Kirby’s documentary revealed that Valenti regularly broke ties in their votes and tried to cajole raters to vote a certain way when he didn’t like their rating of a film. According to the rater, he appeared before them once saying, “Come on, you can do better than that.” What this suggests is the studios get their movies to their target rating (and ultimately to market fast), while small studios and independent filmmakers languish. Will the MPA ever evolve to support the full filmmaking community while fulfilling its mission to parents?

Today’s MPA and What Parents Have to Say

Today’s MPA is significantly more user-friendly than it was under Valenti, who retired in 2004. Its mission as it regards the rating of films is still the same, but Charles Rivkin, a former U.S. diplomat, has been the new head of the organization since 2017. Rivkin describes his role as “the best job in the world” and talks of creating “new ways for storytellers to reach even bigger audiences” and adapting to “changes in consumer tastes and behavior[s].” Indeed, under his relatively short tenure so far, streaming channels like Disney, Netflix, and Prime have come into the MPA fold. Independent filmmakers are now provided with an explanation of their films’ ratings, including suggestions on how to make changes to the movies to reach their rating goals. Extending upon the gradient ratings ushered in during Valenti’s tenure, the MPA also now augments the rating we see on the film with a descriptor that explains the basis for it (see image below). And there’s even a weekly bulletin published listing the films reviewed, along with their ratings and the explanations for them. This newfound transparency is undoubtedly welcome to filmmakers and even satisfies the curiosity of cinephiles like us!

One way to assess the effectiveness of the ratings for the consumer, though, is to see how they are resonating with a representative sample of parents. As recently as 2022, the MPA commissioned a survey to understand how well the organization helps parents in determining the appropriateness of film content for their children. The 20-minute online survey was administered to 1,500 parents of 5 to 16-year-olds. More than 70% indicated they are quite satisfied that the new descriptor does a good job advising them on the amount of sexual content, violence, and profanity in films. They also agree that the ratings themselves are accurate. There is some variance by region, though. While parents in the South Atlantic region of the country (Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, and Kentucky) believe the ratings to be accurate, their “familiarity” results indicate they are less aware of the ratings than parents in other regions. Belief in the accuracy of something we are unfamiliar with, though, is paradoxical, which suggests the survey respondents in the region take the validity of the ratings at face value rather than having a true understanding of it.

When asked about their content concerns, parents listed their top 10 in the order below.

While parents are uncomfortable with numbers 1 through 4 and 6 for PG-13, they are most uncomfortable with the N-word, even in R-rated content. They are quite flexible, however, on the F-word, as evidenced by its absence in the top 10. Twenty-five or more uses of the term, however, pushes the film firmly into R territory. And related to Professor Webb's point regarding raters' oblivion to the violence element, parents' concerns about violence in film run a distant second to their anxieties about sex and nudity.

Summary

The MPA, throughout its history, has been self selected as an arbiter of morality and a guardian of privilege. It has maintained a studio system that advantages the powerful, helping them to sustain their positions of power at the expense of creators who lack such influence and affluence. To its credit, however, the organization has evolved and continues to do so. It operates in a much more inclusive manner toward independent filmmakers than it did a century ago. And based on its recent survey, its work, as it regards the movie ratings system in recent decades, has been useful to most parents. 

Having said this, about a third of adults go to the movies each year (even to a G or PG movie with a child). While the demographic representation of survey respondents seems balanced, the paltry number of individuals sampled leaves me questioning the strength of the survey results. Still, though, I am both informed and impressed with the MPA’s continued progress.

Regarding the matter of violence in film. The survey indicates that parents are not very concerned about this element, which hearkens back to Webb’s statement regarding raters’ not assessing the films for violence. This is troubling because it suggests that the neither the rating panel nor the survey sample is sufficiently representative of a large swath of the movie‑watching public. All communities are affected by violence such as domestic, burglary, robbery, and rape, but poor communities of color are subjected to it with great frequency and intensity. It is beyond the scope of this paper to delve into the structural factors contributing to it. Like other families, however, families in these communities go to the movies and watch television. That sensitivity to their lived realities is not reflected in the ratings of films, is problematic and requires addressing.

There is undoubtedly a subjective component to rating films. Consciously or subconsciously, the parents who rate them bring in their own values, experiences, and yes, even their biases into the assessment. Knowing this, I wonder how the MPA is thinking about the future for rating films given the move toward what are mistakenly viewed as “bias free” intelligence technologies. Couple this with the lack of political will in the United States to limit their use or curb their proliferation. Consider also the film industry’s eagerness to use these technologies to replace some functions around cinema production. 

So, what do you think is next for the MPA’s rating system? Will robots programmed to tally sex scenes, nudity, profanity, and perhaps even thrusts soon be occupying the theater at the MPA in place of parents, and automatically assigning a rating to the films? Or will the films’ digital media be downloaded to "RaterGPT" to do this work? Or — will the MPA accept, live with, acknowledge, or tolerate the human flaws in rating films as it does at this moment, while continuing to strive to improve it?

References

Abreu, Rafael. (2023). What is the Studio System — Hollywood’s Studio Era Explained. (2023). Studiobinder, (2023 January 1). https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what-is-the-studio-system-in-hollywood/

American Parents’ Views on Movie Ratings. (2023). Motion Picture Association, (April 2023) https://www.motionpictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/American-Parents-Views-on-Movie-Ratings.pdf

Dick, Kirby (Director). (2006).  This Film is Not Yet Rated [Film]. Independent Film Channel. https://watchdocumentaries.com/this-film-is-not-yet-rated/

Film Ratings. Motion Picture Association. https://www.motionpictures.org/film-ratings/

Frequency of going to see a movie in theaters among adults in the United States as of May 2022. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/264396/frequency-of-going-to-the-movies-in-the-us/

Gauss, Daniel. (2017). 20 Films Banned by the Legion of Decency That Are Worth Your Time. Taste of Cinema, (2016 January 2017). https://www.tasteofcinema.com/2016/20-films-banned-by-the-legion-of-decency-that-are-worth-your-time/3/

Glenn, Frankel. (2021). X-Rated: Inside the Myths and Legends of Midnight Cowboy. Vanity Fair, (2021, February 26). https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2021/02/inside-the-myths-and-legends-of-midnight-cowboy?srsltid=AfmBOorTKptBhmiYOHWoAbx_e7d1tb-vuF8RDrc3Vj3GrB4FksflDCfv

Hudson, David. (2009). Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964). Free Speech Center, (2009 January 1). https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/jacobellis-v-ohio/#:~:text=Jacobellis%20(%20Jacobellis%20v.%20Ohio%20)%20's,not%20obscene%20and%20was%20thus%20constitutionally%20protected.

Heckman, Sam. (2021) Movie Censorship — A History of Film Censorship in America. Studiobinder, (2021 June 20). https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/movie-censorship-in-america/

Johnson, Ted. (2024). MPA Renews CEO Charles Rivkin’s Contract For Three More Years.

Deadline (2024 January 17). https://deadline.com/2024/01/mpa-charles-rivkin-contract-1235795088/

Kench, Sam. (2022). What is MPAA — History of the Hollywood Ratings System. Studiobinder, (2022 August 7). https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what-is-the-mpaa/

Knight, Rich. (2024). 6 Famous X-Rated Movies And What Made Them So Controversial At The Tim. Cinema Blend (26 June 2024). https://www.cinemablend.com/movies/famous-x-rated-movies-and-what-made-them-so-controversial-at-the-time

Legion of Decency Collection (1933-1968). Catholic Historical Research Center of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. https://archives.chrc-phila.org/repositories/2/resources/33

Motion Pictures Classified By The National Legion Of Decency 1936 1959. https://archive.org/details/motion-pictures-classified-by-the-national-legion-of-decency-1936-1959.

PG‑13 Rating Debuts. History. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/pg-13-rating-debuts