The PG Problem

Jack Mathews made a string of avoidable errors in his commentary, and The Times compounded the problem with phenomenally misdirected headline writing (“Mark Canton’s Wrongheaded Chant,” April 18).

Neither party can claim ignorance about the basis for Mathews’ article, which is the Columbia chairman’s ShoWest keynote speech (it was sent to every leading journalist, including Mathews and his editors at The Times).

Let’s start with the headline, which had little to do with the content of Mathews’ story and was worthy only of a tabloid. It says: “The industry stands a better chance of improving business by broadening rather than isolating audiences.” This is precisely Canton’s point, and he made it clearly in the speech: “The best slates of movies are like well-balanced meals. They offer a good mix: a full range of foods.” Canton went on to attribute Columbia’s success last year to this same diversity.

Canton said we should consider making more PG-rated movies (but not to the exclusion of R-rated movies). At the same time Hollywood is making more R-rated movies, a good part of America has hit a saturation point with violence and profanity. Americans still want a broad mix of films, but they would like more PG-rated titles.

This isn’t just about attracting teen-agers (as Mathews suggests). It’s about getting families into the habit of going to the movies more often, and about appealing to adults who don’t care for R-rated movies.

Canton also wasn’t simply talking about $100-million blockbusters, as Mathews suggests. His speech was looking at the success of movies that achieve the bare minimum for financial success--41% of PG-rated films grossed $20 million or more, but only 27% of R-rated films reached $20 million. Mathews calls Canton’s conclusion “spectacularly false.” I suggest he look at the numbers, talk to theater owners, and then do a spectacular job of recanting. Because he’s just plain wrong.

SID GANIS

Executive Vice President

Columbia Pictures

Culver City