Another Look at the Ratings

Richard Natale’s article about the movie rating system (“Rated C for Confusing,” March 11) drew a number of letters from readers (Letters, March 18). Some of these letters revealed a lack of real knowledge about the rating system.

The rating system was born Nov. 1, 1968. Nothing lasts that long unless it’s providing some kind of service to the people it aims to serve: parents.

The system is totally voluntary. If a producer doesn’t choose to have his film rated, he can take it to market without a rating. The Classification and Rating Administration (CARA for short) is self-supporting. It receives funding from those producers/distributors who submit their films for rating, paying fees on an escalating scale based on the budget of the film. The rating board members are full- or part-time salaried employees of CARA.

The president of the Motion Picture Assn. of America and the president of the National Assn. of Theatre Owners choose the chairman of the rating board and its raters. That’s why CARA is immune to pressures from studios, producers or directors.

Ratings are always open to disagreement, but if CARA errs, it is an error of misjudgment and not of flimsy integrity.

CARA is insulated from government intervention. Whatever changes there have been have come about because I and the president of the theater owners’ group believe those changes are absolutely necessary.

Does CARA work? Last year, 81% of surveyed parents with children under 13 found the rating system “very useful” to “fairly useful.” The Federal Trade Commission conducted its own independent poll and discovered 80% of parents said they were “satisfied” with the rating system.

To give parents more information, distributors are now putting in the ads the reasons for the rating of each film, as well as posting those reasons on https://www.filmratings.com.

The rating system was designed for parents. It is their voices that the rating system listens to every day.

JACK VALENTI

President and chief executive officer

Motion Picture Assn. of America

*

Congress has caused problems by portraying the R rating as inappropriate for children under 17. That is, in fact, the NC-17 rating. The R rating simply means theaters won’t allow children into the movie without their parents’ permission, a rule that recognizes that children mature at different rates and parents have different ideas about what is appropriate for their children.

By portraying the R as inappropriate for all children under 17, Congress has forced the film industry to start redirecting a lot of material that previously would have been classified R into the PG-13 category, which, ironically, will result in less parental control.

If people would take five minutes to read the MPAA ratings guidelines, I think a lot of the debate over the issue would be deemed irrelevant.

DOUGLAS EBOCH

North Hollywood

*

The entertainment industry needs a new ratings system:

G: General audiences. All ages admitted.

TG: Teen guidance suggested. Some material may not be suitable for geezers.

TG-33: Teens strongly cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for parents over 33.

R: Restricted. Over 17 requires accompanying child or minor ward.

NC-17: No one 17 and over admitted.

ALAN COLEMAN

Port Hueneme