Brandon: 0:00

And is this something that I can enjoy with my kid? Like it's, it really isn't important to me that I can do those kinds of things, or at least, know better than to take them to the, to the, you know, to the movie with me. Because take, for example, like Deadpool and Wolverine. You know, I've seen the previous Deadpool movies, and I was asked, Can we go see it? No, watch that together when you are 17. Hello and welcome to the Cup of Tea Critiques Podcast. I'm your host, Brandon Chaisson, and like always, I'll be joined today by the great team that brings you cupofteacritiques.com we are excited to get started on our podcast where we will share our perspectives on several areas in movies and television. At Cup of Tea Critiques, we review movie and television series and tag them with a tea brew that evokes a feel for the production. In this way, you can decide for yourself if they're your "cup of tea." Here on the Cup of Tea Critiques Podcast, we will dive even deeper into the productions and topics we broach on our website, engaging in conversation and sharing our unique perspectives. Ready for a deep look with the deep brew? This week's topic, Part 1 of a 2-part series on the history and impact of the movie rating system. And, Mom, you actually wrote this new article that you can find on the Cup of Tea Critiques website, at cupofteacritiques.com and this is in our Crumpets area. Mom, you're talking about the rating system. Can you tell us what inspired you to start this article and give us a bit of the history of the rating system as

Reba: 1:42

Sure, sure, what we now know as the Motion Picture well. Association, or MPA, was established in 1922 to ensure the financial stability of the film sector. And to do that, the association sought out the support of Wall Street institutions. By 1930, which is just eight years later, the MPAs mission shifted, though, from ensuring the industry's stability to resolving to maintain what it called a clean, moral tone across the industry. So William H. Hays, a former politician and head of the Republican National Committee, was installed as head of the then MPA to lead this cause. And he was installed, by the way, by politicians, clergy and others who were concerned about, you know, the moral tone of films. Now, Hays developed something called the Hays Code, or what has also become known as the Production Code. So think of the Production Code as Hollywood's first rating system. It had two tiers. It was a two tiered rating system, and the film was the film, excuse me, was either accepted or denied. It was that simple, two tiers. To add a little context, though, religious clergy and politicians were becoming increasingly concerned about nudity and what it considered as morally gray matter in movies. So examples of some of these movies, or what are known as pre-coded films, pre-production code films are The Divorcee, which is a 1930 film about a woman responding to her husband's cheating on her by doing some cheating of her own.

Excerpt from The Divorcee: 3:55

Excepts from The Divorcee

Reba: 3:57

Another was The Public Enemy, which is a 1931 film starring James Cagney and Jean Harlow, and it is about a guy trying to, you know, make it big in organized crime.

Excerpt from The Public Enemy: 4:10

Excerpt from The Public Enemy

Reba: 4:20

So there's some bootlegging, there's some smoking, there's some drinking, and there's some violence. And then there's Red-Headed woman, a 1932 film where Jean Harlow plays a secretary attempting to lure her boss away from his wife.

Excerpt from Red-Headed Woman: 4:43

Excerpt from Red-Headed Woman

Reba: 5:02

So sexuality, or more specifically, women's sexuality, along with alcohol, smoking, language, violence, were all concerning for politicians, clergy and other influential people who seem to consider themselves to be guardians of morality, found these exhibitions in film problematic. So enter William Hays's Production Code, which is effectively Hollywood's first rating system. It's important to point out that the then MPA was not the only organization that rated films. The National Legion of Decency, which consisted of religious clergy, mostly of Catholic denomination, but not solely. It consisted of clergy from other Protestant denominations as well. They also rated films. Movies were given an A for morally unobjectionable, B for morally objectionable, and C for condemned. Alfred Hitchcock Psycho was given a B rating from the National League of Decency. This environment in film continued through the late 1960s, and if you can try to put yourself in that era as a filmmaker in Hollywood, you can feel just how oppressive the environment was and just how it suppressed the creative freedom at that time.

Brandon: 6:26

Yeah, and as as I was reading this article, I found myself jotting down some notes, because I felt like when this was first initiated, the idea was, and there seemed to be this conflict with the with the filmmakers as well, how we can have this idea of freedom of speech, but it was only influenced by those that were in power. So it was more an idea that only allowed voices that they wanted to feature the most. It seems like it went from an extremely restrictive idea to the filmmakers wanting to make sure that their ability to create influence changes in ratings. What other influencing factors do you think played a role in that evolution?

Reba: 7:03

Two things I want to emphasize here. One is there is a political component to the rating system. As I pointed out, Hays, from the very beginning, came from the political sector. He was actually head of the Republican National Committee. He came from that and he was a politician himself, so he came from that background. And so that suggests to me that there was some push from the political sector to go do something about this film industry. We don't like the content at all. The other side of this is, remember, the National Legion of Decency is actually religious-based. It consisted of clergy members, mainly from the Catholic denomination, but there were also members from other Protestant other Protestant denominations as well. And so you have this, essentially, you have morality being rated or legislated here from the political side and from the religious side, and they are deciding what, you know, what is okay, morally. And so that that, I think is important to understand that that is what's undergirding the rating system. What I think put an awful lot of pressure on changing this was, was, were a couple of things. I think one viewers began to say, I don't know. I don't see things that way. So I think that was part of it. The other thing putting pressure on them is we have the courts now ruling that what the rating system was essentially doing, what the Hays Code, which was enforceable by law, was doing was censoring. And so those cases, those rulings, really helped put pressure on the MPA to say, Okay, you got to find another way. You got to do things differently here. And so when Jack Valenti came along,he heard that, and essentially transformed the MPA rating system. And so Jack Valenti came along in 1968 and took over the Motion Picture Association rating system. Rather than the goal of setting a moral tone. Now the MPAs new mission under Valenti was to determine the appropriateness of a film for children. In essence, it was to help parents decide if a film was right for their children. And he developed what we now see as a gradient rating. It began with four ratings, G for general audience, M for Mature, R for restricted, which meant you had to be 16 years old to get into the film, and X for pornographic, where you typically had to be 18 years old to get into that film. In 1980, M was split into PG and PG 13. And R was changed from having to be 16 years old to get into the film to 17 years old to get into the film. In 1990 the X rating was changed to NC 17, meaning you had to be at least 18 years old to get into an NC 17 film.

Brandon: 10:24

When Chris and I were talking, I was surprised. Surprised isn't the right word, but it it was enlightening, eye opening to realize that I've been alive as this process has transitioned. You know, I was born, then we got PG and PG-13. And I didn't even realize that, you know, in 1990 is when NC-17 actually came about. So I've been alive to see the creation of a few of these levels. What's next? You know, where does it evolve from here? Does it get does it expand more? Do we get more splicing? Are we going to condense any of these, or is it going to go away altogether, given that we know now we're at digital and everything is at home. Everybody can make up their own mind.

Chris: 11:08

Beginning of the PG-13 rating was in 1984 the first film was called Red Dawn.

Excerpt from Red Dawn: 11:29

Excerpt from Red Dawn

Chris: 11:29

And I think I talked with you about this a few months ago that in part, it became up because of parental concerns about violence in PG movies, particularly the new Indiana Jones, which was written by George Lucas while he was going through a divorce, so it was like a darker movie than what people were used to seeing from him and

Excerpt from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom: 11:54

Excerpt from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

Chris: 12:12

So that kind of, that and Gremlins facilitated the, you know, the debut of the PG-13 rating.

Reba: 12:20

The other thing I wanted to touch on a bit was the R rating changed by one year. You know, the R rating went from 16, 16, to 17. I'm thinking, okay, so what's magical about that one year? Now, what would magically change as an individual between 16 and 17?

Brandon: 12:38

I feel like it was another layer. I think it was another layer of control that they wanted to add, because at 16, kids can drive. At 18, they turn into full blown adults. So I felt like pushing it back to 17 was just a control component. I don't think there's really a difference between a 16 year old and a 17 year old's understanding of the world. I really don't. Yeah.

Reba: 13:02

Well, the environment was improved over the production code. This environment under the ratings environment under Valenti, was definitely improved over over the production code, because now you have this gradient rating system as opposed to just this binary system of accept, deny, yeah. It was far from satisfactory, still far from satisfactory, as far as filmmakers were concerned. You know, under Valenti's tenure, they could not get feedback on how they could change their films to improve their ratings. Now this is important to filmmakers, because the less restrictive the rating, the bigger the audience they could garner for their films. So a film's rating has consequences for its revenues. Under Valenti's tenure, there was significant tension between the MPA and independent filmmakers. Filmmakers with major studios, however, were given all the notes they needed to make changes if they were inclined to do so. And so we can fill in some of the gaps here in my overview, you know, as we go along. And I apologize for being so long-winded, but I think that that does a decent job of laying the groundwork for our talk today.

Brandon: 14:21

Yeah, and this, through that transformation of the system, that it went from being what, as they said, more of a censorship kind of deal, it evolved into more it seemed more like informative, and the intent of the rating system as a whole went a bit different. What my question is, I'm gonna throw this now to Dad and Chris. Seems like this was more transitioned from a censorship situation to informing the audience of what they're about to take in. Have you guys found yourselves at all influenced by the ratings of movies? If, does it influence your decision on wanting to go or not go see a film?

Chris: 15:00

I am an adult in my 30s with with no children, so when I see movies or really any entertainment, my first thought is, is purely of whether I would enjoy it or not. So So sometimes it's weighing different factors. It's like, I don't have an example off the top of my head, but I I enjoy a good R-rated movie, and sometimes it depends on the topic of the movie, where I go, Well, if this movie premise is based on something where I feel like it would be better if it's R-rated, but it's not R-rated. I might go, Well, I don't know if this movie is really going to be as engaging as I as I think it should be. And then there's other movies where, if it's a fun action adventure type of movie, which we don't see quite as much anymore, the action adventure like, you know, The Mummy, for example.

Excerpt from The Mummy: 16:01

Excerpt from The Mummy

Chris: 16:31

There aren't quite as many movies like that, but that feels like a good PG-13 movie, and if you see it R-rated, it's like, Well, alright, maybe this one goes a little darker or more grim than what I actually want to see. So I think it's multilayered, but it's kind of the rating compared with whatever the premise of the movie is.

Terry: 16:56

It's interesting because I look at a rating when it comes to whether or not I want to see a movie, I look at it through two different lenses. One is, if it's something that I want to go see, I'm sort of in line with what Chris says. If it's a R-rated movie, I think it will probably have a type of content that I'm looking for. But when I see a movie that's something that's more geared towards children. I think about whether or not it's something that I'll take my granddaughter to see or to share with her. So I look at it in those two different ways, depending on what the movie is about.

Brandon: 17:35

Yeah, I kind of, I have to agree with that Dad. You know, it's funny. It's a question I just asked. I was actually asked of myself, and it is a parallel feeling for me. I'm simultaneously trying to decide, is this a movie that I want to watch, you know, and the rating does influence the type of film I'm expecting to see. And so I'm simultaneously thinking about this for myself, and is this something that I can enjoy with my kid, like it's it really isn't important to me that I can do those kinds of things, or at least know better than to take them to the to the, you know, to the movie with me. Because take, for example, like Deadpool and Wolverine. You know, I've seen the previous Deadpool movies, and I was asked, Can we go see it? No, no, absolutely. Watch that together when you are 17. Like, this is not not happening because I understood the content in that movie. But at the same time, I was like, really a eager to go see it myself, because I knew what type of experience I was going to have. And I know that those this was something they were thinking about as they were creating the movie. Can we create a rated R movie, given now that this particular production had switched hands into Disney, and so they were wondering if it needed to fall under the PG-13 directive. It seems like it comes from that studio, but ultimately, it did not. It went and stuck with the rated R-rating. And I'm glad because I got the movie I wanted to see language at all violence and all I'm glad, though, that they slapped that rating on there instead of something else. That made me think it would have been acceptable, and it turned out it wasn't in, oh, my goodness, now my kids seeing something wrong. So yeah, it plays for both ways. Go ahead, Chris,

Chris: 19:12

I, I, I don't have, I still have a specific movie like you did, but I do have. I like mob movies. I'm a big fan of mobster movies. A PG-13 mob movie probably isn't going to do it for me. You know, if you got gangsters, you got gangsters calling each other jerks and sons-of-biscuit-eaters, I don't, it's just not going to come across as very authentic to me. So, you know, I need to, if I'm going to see a mob movie, I need to know that they're going to be using all the language mobsters probably use, doing all the things, you know, not giving a stern talking to to somebody who ratted on them, you know. Like it's gotta be seeing the actual experience of a mob movie. So.

Brandon: 20:09

Mom, how about yourself? Have you found yourself influenced or as you've as your movie going experience has evolved over time? Has the rating even played a role on whether or not you want to take something in?

Reba: 20:22

No, not really. I cared a lot about ratings when I was a kid, because it dictated whether or not I could see the movie and back then, you know. As I said in the article, they they carded you back then. They didn't play. They carded you back then. And that's not the case today. But today, the ratings are not a big deal to me. I do notice that if it's PG-13, it's, you know, I tend to prejudge the movie as flat, like it's probably not going to appeal to me very much. I'm probably not going to enjoy it very much. That's not always the case, though. But, yeah, I don't pay that much attention to them anymore. I tell you what I do pay attention to is the length of the film. I'm not going to pay my money to see an hour and a half movie. I want a movie.

Brandon: 21:11

I'm with you there. That could be a whole separate topic, and we might have even some other ones, but I'm in agreement with you. It's an hour and a half. I'll catch it when it's released on digital.

Chris: 21:22

But it goes ways though, because goes both ways though, because I think some people saw the runtime of like, Killers of the Flower Moon, and we're like, damn, like.

Brandon: 21:39

Mom, you, you've talked about the evolution in in the way the rating systems work, which also we talked about a little bit of the influencing factor. So the original rating system was a little bit more geared towards censorship. It seemed to have evolved now towards the type of audience that is allowed to watch it. And it's kind of a permission structure for parents as to if they'll allow their children to go ahead and see it. Now, the film industry, the way this, this process worked, they will get that rating before the movie is released, and then they're given an opportunity to make whatever changes so that it can fall under the category that they want, most of them wanting to be PG-13 so they can appeal to a wider audience and make the most money. My question is, what are your thoughts on editing a film to fit certain ratings?

Reba: 22:26

I don't have a problem with them doing that at all. I think the filmmaker has to be realistic about the business that they're in. One, they are creators, of course, and they want their film to be an expression of their ideas, and they should be given that opportunity to do so. However, film is a business. If their film doesn't sell, they won't be in that business for very long, so they need to balance those two priorities. And you know, sometimes they are competing priorities. And if their film doesn't get the rating they need in order for the film to make money, well, okay, guess what? I think you may be forced to make concessions if you want to stay in this business long. So they have to make a decision. Do you want to recut that film so that you can get it to an R or get it to a PG-13, whatever your goal rating is? That's up to you. They have a decision. I have no problems at all with with them, you know, exercising that option.

Chris: 23:26

And I think it's worth it to add movies have reshoots and re edits pretty routinely anyway, for other reasons. You know, sometimes they get focus groups and to find out people don't like the ending, and they'll reshoot the ending entirely, you know. So I think that when DVDs came along, we kind of got more of a glimpse into this that they have, they have Director's Cuts, they have in Director Commentary, sometimes they'll, they'll give you some insight into how they change things on the fly or after the fact. And then we saw in DVD features pretty routinely, there would be alternate endings. I remember for Joy Ride, there were like the, you know, it's a horror movie in the early 2000s there were like four different endings for it on the on the DVD. So it's not like it's introducing something filmmakers aren't routinely doing anyway. They're just doing it for a little bit of a different reason.

Terry: 24:16

Yeah, um, along those lines, the thing that struck me most about that was a bit of the unfairness in terms of that and independent filmmakers didn't seem to get much feedback when it came to the things that were considered objectionable to the MPA, whereas those that were associated With the larger studios got detailed information as to what the objections were in terms of getting to the rating that they wanted to get to. So I thought the dynamic going on there was interesting and unfair, obviously, to the independent filmmakers.

Reba: 24:58

So, yeah, I absolutely agree with you on that, and that was under Valenti, the system was definitely unfair. What Terry is referring to is, if you were part of a larger studio, you, keep in mind that the Motion Picture Association is a member Association, and larger studios are members of that association. They pay a lot of money to be members of that association. So what do you get? What benefits do you get being a member of an association, especially an association like that. Some, there are some benefits to being inside already and being connected to decision makers, not to mention your studio is very wealthy. So Warner Brothers has tons of money, right? Sony has tons of money. So if you are making a film as a part of Sony, you're gonna get your R. It's very loaded, the feedback won't matter, you're gonna get your R. Or if it's too risque, you get some feedback. You're gonna get tons of feedback. That's gonna allow you to get the R you want. With your mini filmmaker, if you're a little filmmaker, an independent filmmaker, well, you're working on a tight budget, and you submit it, and they give you an NC-17, where are you going to get the money to recut your film so that you can get your NC-17 to an R. So that's, to your point, that is just inherently unfair, and that is a huge source of tension between filmmakers and the MPA. Fortunately, though, things have changed under Charles Rivkin, who, since 2016 has been head of the MPA, and he now provides feedback to even independent filmmakers on what they need to do with their films in order to move their rating where they would like it to be moved. So things have changed in that regard.

Brandon: 26:53

And that will wrap up part one on today's topic. Be sure to tune in next week for Part w as we continue our discussion of the movie rating system as it stands today. As always, we thank you so much for listening and figuring out your cup of tea along with us. You can see we can go on and on, but we look forward to you joining us again next week as we continue our discussion, be sure to rate and follow the podcast and leave a comment on any topics you'd like to hear us discuss. You can stay in the loop on all things COTC, by subscribing on our website at cupofteacritiques.com. you can also find us on Facebook. Check out our Instagram,@cupofteacritiques and on Letterboxd at COTCritiques. For Reba, Terry, and Chris. I'm Brandon. We'll see you next week for another deep look with a deep brew.