Roger Ebert Cites Me in MPAA Ratings Op-Ed

Posted on December 12, 2010 at 7:34 pm

I am honored to be mentioned in Roger Ebert’s outstanding op-ed about the MPAA ratings, and thrilled with his support for what I do. Last week, on appeal, the MPAA lowered the rating of “Blue Valentine,” a searing portrait of a deteriorating marriage, to an R. Its explicit sexual material had given it an NC-17, which meant that many newspapers would not accept ads and many theaters would not show it.
Ebert says:

The MPAA should have changed its standards long ago, taking into account the context and tone of a movie instead of holding fast to rigid checklists….It’s time to get pragmatic about this. The current ratings system is useful primarily for the parents of small children who are concerned that images or situations may be disturbing for young minds. They know a G film is harmless and a PG almost certainly is, and a PG-13 may or may not be. It’s an open secret that some naturally PG movies have an element or two thrown in to earn a PG-13, so teenagers aren’t scared off. That’s not a step forward.

Obviously, what parents really want is an evaluation, exactly what Mr. Valenti said the MPAA could not provide. When they’re informed that a PG-13 contains “language, some intense situations and smoking,” what have they learned? On the Internet, useful guides to content are everywhere. Critics like Nell Minow, the “Movie Mom,” write intelligently for parents about the content and context of films.

More Marketing of PG-13 Movies to Little Kids

Posted on May 9, 2009 at 6:00 pm

My friend Liz Perle has a wonderful piece at Common Sense Media about the latest efforts to market PG-13 movies to young children.

The first Transformers movie, which was rated PG-13 but lent its brand to Happy Meal toys aimed at kids 4-9. Too bad the adult meal didn’t come with a person to explain why the movie was a non-starter for kids that age.

Age-inappropriate targeting — arguably begun in 1992 when McDonald’s got scolded for pushing toys to kids for “Batman Returns” (rated PG-13 for violence) — has become a time-honored practice. This summer, the new PG-13 “Terminator Salvation” (whose predecessors were all rated R) ties in with Pizza Hut. Subway is shilling “Land of the Lost,” and Burger King backs “Star Trek,” “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen,” and “G.I. Joe.”

Children understandably expect that if there is a toy or game associated with a film, it is suitable for them to see. Parents need to be very clear that just because a movie is marketed to them is no reason to expect that they will be seeing it.

Liz Perle on Marketing PG-13 Movies to Younger Kids

Posted on September 21, 2008 at 10:00 am

Liz Perle of Common Sense Media has a column on Huffington Post takes on the hypocrisy of the MPAA ratings board. Chair Joan Graves says that PG-13 films may carry parental advisory reminders that they have material inappropriate for kids under age 13 but that doesn’t mean that PG-13 movies shouldn’t be marketed to younger kids. Perle points out that this would include “Vicky Christina Barcelona” (threesome) and “The House Bunny” (a lot of sexual humor) as well as the third mummy film and “The Dark Knight.”
And in the Mummy movie, faces melt, a man is about to be quartered, there are several shots of near decapitations, limbs are dismembered, bodies are stabbed and shot, huge Yetis appear as scary CGI panther-like creatures and there are hordes of skeletal warriors (a la Pirates of the Caribbean). And “The Dark Knight?” Even my teen son turned to me and said, “This is NOT for kids!”
We believe that parents are ultimately responsible for making sure they pick movies that are right for their kids – hey, that’s why Common Sense Media exists. And we absolutely love movies. We just think there are right movies for right ages. And marketing mature movies to kids is irresponsible, plain and simple.

Related Tags:

Understanding Media and Pop Culture