Pressure’s On Again to Edit Film Rating System

In tiptoeing toward tighter policies on marketing violent movies to children, Hollywood risks misreading people such as Sheree Johnson.

The 44-year-old Los Angeles middle school teacher admits she doesn’t know what an “R” rating really means. She was comfortable enough to take her 10-year-old son to see the romantic drama “Waiting to Exhale.” But her 15-year-old daughter saw the explicit horror spoof “Scary Movie,” and it was so gross that the teenager wished she’d skipped it. In Johnson’s eyes, the two R-rated films could not be more different.

Johnson has a lot in common with a growing number of Hollywood filmmakers and writers. As a Senate Commerce Committee prepares to skewer studio executives today over the marketing of violent movies to children, pressure is building within Hollywood’s creative community to overhaul the industry’s voluntary ratings system--before someone else does.

“When 67% of movies have an R rating, the R becomes one big receptacle for everything from two swear words to two hours of carnage,” said writer and director Gary Ross. “This isn’t about capitulating to the [Senate] committee, it’s about seizing control of a very real issue that should be determined by the filmmaking community.”

Earlier this month, a Directors Guild of America task force on violence that includes Ross, Rob Reiner, Michael Bay, Wes Craven and David Fincher proposed a new rating that would identify movies that are clearly inappropriate for children because of violence or sex. They know what they are talking about. Craven directed “Scream,” Fincher made “Fight Club” and Bay made “The Rock,” all films with loads of violence.

“While some films may be appropriate for children to see with parental accompaniment, some are inappropriate for younger children under any circumstances,” the directors said in a joint statement. The group urged a rating between the current R, which requires a parent or guardian to accompany a child under 17 into the theater, and NC-17, which prohibits children altogether.

Such a proposal might make sense to Westwood apartment manager Diana Mitchell, mother of 12-year-old Jessika. Mitchell complains about the lack of specifics in ratings, and suggests R-rated movies should include more explicit information about how much violence she should expect to see.

“Once in a while we end up in a movie that I think is going to be OK and it’s not and so we do the ‘close your eyes’ thing,” Mitchell said. “I don’t want to limit what they are filming but I don’t want my child to see everything that is out.”

Johnson, the Central Los Angeles teacher, also would like a red flag.

“When these movies are advertised, if they said something like ‘R-17’ I would know that it’s very objectionable,” she said. “Right now it is out of control.”

Trouble is, the studios and their chief lobbyist, Motion Picture Assn. of America President Jack Valenti, have long resisted efforts to substantially change the system Valenti created 32 years ago. The ratings system works, Valenti believes, because it advises parents before they make decisions. But many charge that it also leads to some extremely sexual or violent films being re-cut just enough to receive an R instead of an NC-17 rating.

“This has the effect of not only compromising filmmakers’ visions, but also greatly increasing the likelihood that adult-oriented movies are seen by the very groups for which they are not intended,” said the DGA task force statement.

To cut or not to cut is the crux of the ratings debate. That, and economics. Movies that are rated NC-17 are prohibited from advertising in many media outlets, being shown in many theaters and stocked in some video stores. So movie studios usually require directors to whittle films down to at least an R rating.

But even that process is not very consistent. The ratings board, which consists of 12 Los Angeles men and women whose only qualification is that they are parents, enjoys enormous latitude in evaluating film content.

Among the guidelines they generally follow: any drug-use content requires at least a PG-13 rating; the single use of a particular curse word as an expletive merits at least a PG-13 rating; two uses of this same “harsh” and “sexually derived” word as an expletive requires an R rating, as does a single use of the word in a sexual context. Moreover, if nudity is sexually oriented, or if violence is too rough and persistent, the MPAA guidelines recommend that a film should be rated R.

The idea of more restrictive ratings doesn’t sit well with studios, which often market R-rated movies with a wink by selling them to younger teens with an appetite for more grown-up entertainment. In its report, the FTC found the industry systematically marketed R-rated movies to kids--a finding that comes as no surprise to many in Hollywood.

“When these movies get an R rating, studios want to bring kids from 14 to 17 into the theater. It’s disingenuous to say we’ve made the movie for adults,” said writer Charles Pogue, whose films include “Psycho III” and “Dragonheart.”

And Hollywood isn’t about to stop advertising in media outlets just because they are popular with teens. MTV draws the college-age kids studios are targeting, but also millions of teens under 17.

Industry resistance to change was evident Tuesday when Valenti unveiled 12 mild concessions that studio executives will formally offer the Senate committee today. The pledge was loaded with phrases like “will seek,” “will strongly encourage” and “will review.” Any modifications will be on Hollywood’s terms.

Still, a growing number of creative people in Hollywood are beginning to speak out about the need to address parents’ worries.

“These are very valid concerns parents have,” said Oscar-winning screenwriter Ron Bass, whose films include “Rain Man” and “My Best Friend’s Wedding.” “You can’t sit and watch what your kid is watching every single second in case your 7-year-old sees an extremely violent trailer that makes him want to see a movie. Everyone has an interest in addressing those concerns.”

Director Brad Silberling agreed.

“I don’t know whether it’s a few extra letters or what, but we need specific indications of content so there’s no stigma attached,” he said, calling for a new system under which “if parents don’t have a problem with brief nudity but object to graphic violence, they’ll be able to choose. It’ll broaden their ability to make selections and allow filmmakers to try to ply the sorts of stories we like to without fear.”

*

Times staff writer Lorenza Munoz contributed to this report.