Does the Ad Say It All?

By RACHEL USLAN

March 11, 2001 12 AM PT

Rachel Uslan is a Times staff writer

The system for advertising movies has changed since the Senate Commerce Committee admonished the entertainment industry last September, but you might have missed it without a magnifying glass.

Take a look at your paper. The ad for “Hannibal” no longer just states that the film is rated R. In a small box directly below the rating, the words “Strong gruesome violence, some nudity and language” appear, although trying to read the writing is not for the weak of sight.

The appearance of these explanations, provided by the same board that decides the ratings, are the studios’ answer to the Federal Trade Commission’s demand that they change their methods of advertising. Charging that the entertainment industry deliberately targeted children and teenagers with R-rated films, the FTC asked the studios to make the ratings system easier for parents to understand by including these explanations on all advertising and product packaging.

“I pledged . . . that the movie industry would treat the FTC report seriously, responsibly and with dispatch,” said Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Assn. of America, in his response to Congress. So he set out 12 initiatives, one of which called for adding this explanatory box, specifically to the print ads and Web sites of films rated R for violence.

Since the FTC concluded in November that it had no legal authority to prosecute the studios, these initiatives are voluntary. But the eight major companies--Disney, DreamWorks, 20th Century Fox, MGM, Paramount, Sony, Universal and Warner Bros.--have all adopted this policy, as have independents such as USA Films. The policy, however, means different things to different studios, as they each determine to what extent they carry it out.

With a follow-up study on the industry’s marketing practices due in April, the studios will soon know what the FTC thinks of their initiatives. Valenti and several studio members believe their response has sufficiently answered the demands. But critics charge that the placement of the ratings explanations--even allowing for the small size of the ads--just isn’t prominent enough.

“You can’t read it,” said Jeff McIntyre of the American Psychological Assn., who testified at the Senate hearings and was a consultant for the FTC report. “Looking at an ad, I can see the words ‘sheer fun.’ I can see ‘PG-13’ and ‘winner, best picture.’ But I don’t see the information that’s important to parents.”

Valenti disagrees.

“I was worried that the words wouldn’t be big enough. I wanted to make sure the studios didn’t bury these ratings reasons. They didn’t,” he said in a recent interview.

Another concern is that the language, which Valenti calls “terse but explanatory,” may be too ambiguous and in need of an update, even though it’s always written with a particular film in mind. Consider “The Wedding Planner,” rated PG-13 for “sexual humor,” versus “Sugar & Spice,” rated PG-13 for its “sex-related humor.”

“By having vague nondescript descriptors, the industry is able to seemingly appease its critics and give information to parents without doing as good a job as they need to,” McIntyre said.

“It’s very difficult to get your message across with catchwords. It doesn’t tell you to what extent violence, drug use or profanity exists,” said Amir Malin, chief executive of Artisan Entertainment, which has been critical of the ratings system. “The system really needs some modifications in order to make it more . . . of a service to its customers.”

Malin and the MPAA faced off in October when the company chose to release “Requiem for a Dream” unrated--and risk rejection by theaters and newspapers--rather than accept an NC-17.

As an independent company not part of the MPAA and thus not required to follow the ratings system, Artisan has chosen to include the extra box only on a “film-by-film basis, when we feel it’s appropriate,” Malin said.

“With [the upcoming] ‘Soul Survivors,’ the sexuality is not graphic in nature, the drug use is a scene of some kids smoking pot, so there’s nothing that we feel we have a responsibility to convey to filmgoers,” Malin said about the PG-13 rated film. “What you don’t want to do is go overboard when there is sexual content of a minimal nature and highlight something that doesn’t exist. If your message is deceptive in nature, simply having the message is not the answer,” Malin explained.

When including the supplementary language, the studios are in general agreement on several key decisions such as expanding the policy to include PG and PG-13 films and running the supplemental box on ads 5 inches tall or bigger. But the actual size of the supplemental box still varies. Graphic Orb, a motion picture advertising firm, has been told by its clients--including Universal, MGM and Columbia--”to be big and legible so the MPAA has nothing to take issue with,” said Laura Noble, an account executive. But on some ads, like the ones for USA Films’ “Traffic” and Paramount Classics’ “Company Man.” the explanations run in a type smaller than both the stock tables and the sports agate in the Los Angeles Times.

There is also hesitation about what to do with television and radio ads, which the MPAA initiative did not specifically cover. A few studios, including Paramount, Warner Bros. and MGM, are squeezing an announcement of the language into their quick radio spots, initially only for R-rated films. With “Hannibal,” for example, MGM chose to announce the ratings reasons on the radio for the studio’s first time. Most other studios have yet to take that step.

“ ‘Hannibal’ is an unusual case, and it calls out for the extra explanation,” said Craig Parsons, senior vice president of corporate communications at MGM. “Do people think of it as similar to ‘Silence of the Lambs,’ or do they know it has some other components? Since it does, we’ve taken great pains not to market this film to 17 and under and have chosen our media very carefully.”

The terms used to explain ratings have been around since 1990, when the MPAA and the National Assn. of Theatre Owners chose to provide film reviewers and theater box offices with the reasons behind the ratings. The September initiative marked the first time the MPAA decided to include these reasons in a film’s advertising campaign.

Despite criticism of the system’s shortcomings, some in the industry believe it’s too early to dismiss the supplemental language as a change too small to make a difference.

“Since this program is just unfolding nationally, I think it would be tough for people to say if it is or isn’t enough until parents have had a chance to try it out,” said Andy Spahn, head of corporate affairs for DreamWorks.

“With terms like ‘strong martial arts violence,’ I agree it would be fuzzy if it was the first time you see it. But as you see more movies, you’ll begin to understand what each of these pieces mean,” said Jeffrey Godsick, executive vice president of publicity and promotions at Fox.

Given the already difficult space constraints, these brief qualifiers may still be enough to tell parents what they are looking for--or, rather, not looking for--in a film, according to Parsons.

“Obviously, there’s a difference to many people as to what’s offensive about strong language only or language with violence. The important thing is that the additional explanation specifies the difference,” said Parsons.

As the system continues to spread and the next FTC report approaches, this may also not be the final step.

“It’s something we are going to keep monitoring and assessing to be sure we’re doing what’s responsible,” said Rob Friedman, vice chairman of the motion picture group at Paramount Pictures.

Warner Bros. recently kicked up its campaign, with The Times receiving a letter last month encouraging all film reviews, features and capsules to “contain the MPAA rating AND reason.” Any unrated press materials should be “destroyed” as soon as rated materials are received, the letter suggested.

As for the targets of this new approach, parents have been surprisingly low-key in their reactions, says Ginny Markell, president of the National Parent Teacher Assn. She wonders if they haven’t noticed or are just glad for any change.

“Our belief has been and continues to be that any time you provide parents with information, you allow them to make more informed choices. While for some families it may not be strong enough, it is still more than we had before.”

Jordan Raphael contributed to this story.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Explaining the Ratings

Here’s how the eight studios represented by the Motion Picture Assn. of America have implemented the policy of explaining the reasons behind a film’s ratings in advertising. The policy initially dictated a change in print ads and Web sites for films rated R for violence and has since been broadened to include other films. Note: “All rated” refers to PG, PG-13 and R.

Disney

Print: First included the reasons for R-rated films, then expanded to include all rated films.

TV and radio: No specific policy.

DreamWorks

Print: Began with R-for-violence films and expanded to all rated films.

TV and radio: No specific policy.

MGM

Print: Included on all rated films.

TV: Reasons are flashed for all rated films.

Radio: With “Hannibal,” the reasons were announced for the studio’s first time. That policy will continue on a case-by-case basis.

Paramount

Print: Included on all rated films.