PG-13 turns 25. Thanks for nothing.

[Dennis Willis]

The movie industry marks an auspicious birthday but with all the recent attention given to a certain fallen pop star, it’s understandable if we didn't hear much about it. But indeed, July 1, 1984 was a watershed date in the annals of cinema, arguably a day that changed the face – and sound – of movies forever.

That was the day Jack Valenti and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) introduced the PG-13 rating.

Steven Spielberg claims to have thought of it, and certainly his monkey brain sequence in that summer’s Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom proved his point that there needed to be a rating that walked the middle ground between what general audiences and grown-ups get to see. And if you were 13 at the time, it certainly must have felt liberating to have access to slightly spicier fare.

The new rating also allowed filmmakers to nudge their content just a bit more toward the type of edgy film they really wanted to make, and still be considered “family friendly.” For a good solid decade, the PG-13 worked out pretty well. Shoot-outs were more intense, F-bombs were (slightly) more frequent and occasionally, filmgoers even got a glimpse of flesh.

But as with everything in life, once the people controlling the purse strings got involved, it all changed. Somewhere around 1997, it became apparent that PG-13 was the most desirable and appealing rating, especially considering Titanic had just become the biggest film of all time. Studios began to move away from the most restrictive R-rating because bean counters were able to show investors you could make more money with a PG-13.

The MPAA's ratings poster.

Thus, what began as a content guide for parents became a marketing tool for the studios. Suddenly, the creative process included counting dirty words and nipples. The almighty F-word was broken down into categories. One instance was fine in a PG-13, twice was the limit but it couldn’t be used in a sexual connotation. “F—you” was fine. “I want to F—you” was not. Also, sexually-suggestive scenes were perfectly okay if they were there for a laugh but not to titillate. Remember, Kate Winslet was artfully posing in her Titanic nude scene.

Such nonsensical brain-twisting criteria were responsible in 2000 for two movies to have wildly inappropriate ratings: Erin Brockovich was the true story of a white trash mom who became a public crusader. There was no nudity, sex, violence or gore but because Julia Roberts dropped a dozen F-bombs in the name of character development, the movie was rated R. On the other hand, The Nutty Professor II: The Klumps featured comedic bestiality and a dream sequence that featured a granny removing her false teeth to give a horrifying blowjob. But because there were no F-words, that movie got a PG-13.

Am I the only person who thinks that doesn’t make a bit of sense? .

Curse Free or Die Hard?

It’s only gotten worse. Recent sequels to R-rated classics The Terminator, Die Hard, Alien and Predator have all been shoehorned into PG-13 theatrical releases, only to see their “unrated” versions released later on DVD. Sure, maybe a studio can front-load the picture’s box office with a less restrictive rating but in the long run, true fans (the ones that buy the DVD box sets every Christmas) know the difference. Twentieth Century Fox never even bothered to release the unrated version of Live Free or Die Hard on Blu-ray, opting instead for the neutered version in hi def. It’s just not the same hearing “Yippee ki-yay (MUFFLED GUNSHOT).”

Studios and filmmakers now see PG-13 as the fence and the trick seems to be how high a movie can climb without falling onto the R-rated side. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen may be based on a toy line but that didn’t stop director Michael Bay from including clanging robot testicles, humping dogs (and a 'bot that humps Megan Fox’s leg) and the Twins, two illiterate Ebonic-speaking robots. Appropriate for all audiences? Not even close. But hey, it falls within the MPAA’s list of dos and don’ts.

That mysterious list is the subject of the Kirby Dick’s amazing documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated, an incendiary and piercing look at the favoritism and inconsistencies of the rating system and is worth seeking out if you’ve ever wondered who makes these decisions?

How do the writers and directors feel? The intended rating of a film is now a standard part of every director’s contract, and in the case of a superhero movie, a PG-13 is totally understandable. But take Lakeview Terrace, the gritty Samuel L. Jackson drama that took on corrupt cops and racism. Those filmmakers likely envisioned a darker, grittier, more realistic world, only to have their cinematic legs figuratively and literally cut out from under them. I can’t imagine any 13-year-old interested in lining up for that movie, and yet, Lakeview Terrace was PG-13.

England’s system breaks down the ratings with 15 and 18 settings, which makes a lot more sense. Based on their content, the aforementioned films would comfortably fit within a 15 rating, leaving the real grown-up stuff for the 18. We have an adult rating here too – the NC-17, which was meant to replace the stigma of the X, but since studios are busy chasing the widest possible audiences, NC-17 flicks are as common as Bigfoot sightings.

PG-13 is twenty-five years old, a reminder that the old guard is completely unwilling to consider their content-based system just may possibly be broken and beyond repair. But hey – PG-13 flicks make money, so who’s complaining?

[Sean Novak]

Wonderful article Dennis, there's really nothing left to add but I would like to say thank God for people like Zack Snyder and even Tarantino who have been fighting the "R" fight. When Snyder's 300 broke box office records for that rating it was a glimmer of hope that Hollywood might realize there is bank to be found in the Restricted rating. Then Watchmen came out and, while I wouldn't say it flopped it wasn't a smash either. It was so integral for the R rating war that that film did well and it just didn't. I saw it twice of course in support and I'll probably be seeing the director's cut in theatres next week as well. But I shouldn't speak too soon about Snyder, word is his next two outings will be PG-13 or below, one is animated though. Does Tarantino have anything less than an R in him? And when does John McTiernan get out of the big house? We need a real Die Hard to be made, motherf@#k bombs and all.

Also I'd like to say that I'm sick of this PG-13 thing because it makes what should be an R film into a pussified version, hence allowing the directors to cop out on anything which causes emotional resonance with the audience. I'm speaking about these sorry excuses for action and horror movies that we get. Especially summer blockbusters that have to be "family friendly". Anytime there's action on screen (the primary reason I'm going to see your movie) they cut it too quickly, or ONLY robots die, and of course there's never any blood when 10,000 bullet are flying around. It takes the reality out of the scene and causes no emotional reaction toward the viewer. At the very least the cable-safe violence makes it more forgettable. What pisses me off is there's no counter-balance in most of these films. Ok, the violence has been pussified so my teenager can see it, well, is the dialogue better? The plot? Something that used to be known as character? No, of course not. The $ and ideas have gone into the CGI and set pieces made bigger than Dodger Stadium. So in effect there is no good reason to see these PG-13 "diet" action movies because, like you say, they've been gutted. If you're backing up on the blood at least beef up your story and characters. Give me something to hold on to! Raiders of the Lost Ark or Star Wars ring any bells?!!! Of course, the face melting in Raiders was beyond glorious.

I'm just sick of all the empty calories in Hollywood Dennis.