Chris: 0:00

I think the rating system was largely for when there was less information coming out about a movie and people didn't have so many resources to turn to, and also for movie theaters to know who to let in and who who not to so if those two things aren't as big of a factor anymore, I would say that the rating system isn't quite as relevant as it used to be.

Brandon: 0:34

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 a 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, you 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 root. Last week, we discussed the history of the film industry, as well as groundbreaking and controversial movies that incited change, like The Public Enemy, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, The Divorcee, Red Headed Woman, and Psycho. This week we're continuing our discussion on the impact and usefulness of movie ratings and the future of rating films. Yeah, you guys touched on a few different things here. I'll try and do them in order here. One, as part of my original question. Originally I I did take issue with the idea of editing a film to land on a particular rating, and that had more to do with the fact that I wanted to know the filmmakers original intent. I wanted to see their full expression as they intended to come across. But to you guys'point, we now have Directors' Cuts of these movies and such, and so they're part of the releases that will be available. And so I guess in that sense, I'm satisfied and I'm glad that that's an opportunity I get to have today that was not available in the past. During our pre-production meeting, we talked about Soul Food, and that particular movie was brought up under this next question, which is the idea of, do we think over a period of time a movie should have a chance to maybe resubmit for a rating? And that's under the idea of, for example, something that maybe came across in the 90s, that was NC-17 today might fall more under an R-rating. And so as the distribution of that production may still have an NC-17 label on there today, we wouldn't consider it under that same idea. So should movies have a chance to resubmit? And one of those that came up in this instance was Soul Food, because it received an R rating. But under our judgments at least, and based on what we've seen get released today, it doesn't seem to touch an R. It would definitely fall under, you know, a PG-13.

Excerpt from Soul Food: 3:11

Excerpt from Soul Food

Brandon: 3:28

Do you guys think, like, let's, let's kind of expand on that for our audience to take in. But also, do you think that there should be an opportunity for movies to resubmit further or reclassify?

Reba: 3:39

Honestly, I don't think there are the resources to do that. To be honest, I understand your question, though. It has to do with, should we consider re rating films as the social climate changes, as our appetite for, you know, nudity, sex or violence, whatever it is, as our appetite changes, should we re rate films, given that, and I don't see anything wrong with that, I just don't see where the resources to do that would come.

Terry: 4:09

Part of your question is, should there sort of be an automatic thing that goes on that would be an interesting take, but again, there's so much content out there, I'm not sure there's anyone willing to take that on. But yeah, movies like Soul Food, which probably deserved more of a PG-13 rating, again, based on how we feel about things. I always laugh when I see some of the descriptions for movies and why they were rated a certain rating, and one that always kills me is rated blah blah, blah for things like smoking. And it's like, okay, you really took smoking into consideration in terms of how you rated this film. And that, in and of itself, may be a dated idea.

Reba: 4:58

But wouldn't it be erasure? So that's the, I guess that's the concern I have. To go back and reread films. I'm not a fan of that. I'm not so sure we can, I'm not so sure we should do that.

Chris: 5:11

I don't feel like it's, there's the practicality behind it of, okay, so I'm watching all these currently released films, and now just anything that gets resubmitted to me, like, what are the parameters around resubmitting? Because if everyone can just resubmit their film, either, I think either no one would bother to, or there would just be this giant backlog, and I don't see the practicality behind it. And I think even in general, I think it would be to Mom's point, maybe erasure, but also it requires acknowledging some bias that's probably still there, you know. And they talked about this in the documentary. This Film is Not Yet Rated, you know, they had these kind of vague or nondescript parameters around why movies got certain ratings, and it was largely, it was based on some heteronormativities and a preference for violence over sex or pleasurable sex. And so I think resubmitting them or changing a lot of their ratings would revolve more around people changing their perspective or acknowledging bias that went into that initial rating in the first place.

Terry: 6:31

Yeah, but we do have some films that were resubmitted and reevaluated. Granted, that's few, but I mean, it has happened. Just Midnight Cowboy, which had an X rating, actually, and that rating was changed and a couple of others.

Brandon: 6:54

Yeah. I mean, I get everybody's point of view on this. I just, there's certain things to me where I look at'em, and there's no way this rating really should hold, hold weight. And maybe this applies more to older movies before we had the way of splicing them today. But I'll take, for example, Major League, okay, Major League, the first one rated R, and that's purely based off of language. And I mean, I'm not trying to be funny here. I know there was language in the movie. There's no language in that movie, though, that makes me feel like it should be rated R, like only kids that are 17 and older should be experiencing this. And part of my reason for feeling that way, too is that I watch football, and depending on what team you watch, you may have a lot of expletives you shout out throughout a three hour game, and I don't think I heard anything worse than that. In fact, I don't even know if I saw anything to that level when I watched Major League; however, it got a rating R. Its sequel got a rating of PG. And we know that there was language in that one as well. So how did the sequel, even though there was only a five year separation, get a PG rating, whereas, you know the other one? So 1994 is when Major League 2 came out. 1989 is Major League 1, and Major League 1 got an R rating. Today, do you think it really would hold as a rated R movie? I don't think so. I think it would probably land under PG-13. And that doesn't necessarily mean it won't get distributed differently, but I'm just saying, when I look at these, I'm like, I understand the social climate may have changed, but I do think to a certain extent, some of this needs to be reevaluated. I don't know the parameters with which we do that, but they do feel that way. And when we discussed Soul Food, that was another one that we take into account a few sex scenes in here. We understand that those existed. We understand there was a little bit of language. But when you take a step back and look at the movie as a whole, especially as it's the presentation of it. Chris, you pointed out in pre-production, this was from the vantage point of a kid. How did that end up being a rated R movie in that sense? So does that rating still hold weight?

Reba: 8:55

I think it's important to remember that the ratings are intended to be a guide for parents to determine the appropriateness of the film for children. So when you look at it from that perspective, what the ratings do is let parents know, okay, that this has an R, okay. We are suggesting that there's, there are some things in here that are probably not appropriate for kids under 17, and now they have a box that tells you what were those things that made us feel that people under 17 should not be watching this film. Now parents can decide from that whether or not they're going to take their kids or let their kids go see that film. And so my point is simply that it's meant to be a guide.

Terry: 9:51

Yeah. But then it still begs the question, though, as social climate changes, should that also be adjusted? I mean it's a fair question in that respect, because, again, what was considered R when Soul Food was released. Is it the same? Does it have the same bearing on people's decision? Now, would that movie be rated the same way today? If you're talking about the fact that, just for the sake of argument, say that it falls into a PG-13 category. Well, yeah, maybe my 13-year-old is someone that could watch this movie, whereas rated R, you go, well, I'm not so sure about that.

Brandon: 10:32

I'll keep this in mind as well, like, let's say I'm a 22 year old when Soul Food came out, okay, and it's rated R, but I don't have any kids at that time, so I'm not really paying attention to that rating. And then fast forward to me now being, you know, 35/40 years old, and I have children. But since I didn't necessarily take in that movie, my kid has now expressed an interest in this movie, I'm going to rely on that rating to tell me exactly if it's appropriate. And given the transition in time back then, they didn't give us a reason as to why it received the rated R-rating. So all I can go off of is seeing it's rated R, and my 10- or 12-year-old that probably could take this movie in won't get to see it because I'm like, up it's rated R, no, that's not appropriate for you. But it really should be more of a PG-13 and closer to that kid's age range that they can understand the content that maybe I should let them watch this. Obviously, I should be watching it with them. But I think that that's the reason for this question is, you know, as people have changed, as time has changed, and we're relying on these ratings to help guide us, maybe those need to be reevaluated over time as well.

Chris: 11:35

Well, you know, I real quick. I want to double back to Major League real quick, because I think, I think sexual content is always the kind of the thing that pushes movies, you know, over the edge, pushes them up in rating. And I think the the documentary, This Film is Not Yet Rated, mentioned this as well, that if you have a PG-13 movie, you could say the F word once, maybe twice, but it can't be in a sexual nature. You have to be asked to be like, F that guy, not I'm going, I'm going to F that guy. So and so. I think, you know, when I think about Major League, yeah, I think there is, I think there is, like, one sex scene in it. But a lot of the humor in that movie and the language in that movie is kind of crass and it's kind of and it is sexual in nature. I think about the scene when you know when Tom Berenger's character goes to the apartment of his ex and meets her new fiance, and as he's walking to the elevator, he says, "Stay away from her" walking to the elevator, he says a you know, fairly crass in nature insult back to him, and so I think it's, there's a lot of humor like that in the movie that's like, okay, it's not even just a language. It's the context that the language is being used.

Brandon: 12:59

But should that, should that one line, because I, I don't, I don't recall too many other ones. Th, there's the scene after the after Charlie Sheen got cut, and then he goes into a fight. Good.

Excerpt from Major League: 13:14

Excerpt from Major League

Brandon: 13:19

And I understand they dropped a few F bombs during that scene, which technically would fall under what you're saying there. But there's that scene, there's one you mentioned with Tom Berenger. Then there's the sex scenes. They're actually there's only one implied sex scene, and then two other scenes where, apparently, it occurred, but you don't see. There's no graphic nature of it. There's really, the closest we get to it is that scene with Tom Berenger, where he's making out with his ex. And you kind of figure that's where it's heading.

Chris: 14:14

Yeah.

Brandon: 14:15

If that movie were made today, the same implications - if we're spoiling something for somebody from 1989 that's on you. We are using that those same parameters for movies that we've watched today. Would would you say movies you watched today for that content would have still fallen under PG-13 compared to some other things we've seen. I'm saying today, if you watched Major League from beginning to end, cover to cover, babe, If you watched that with Major League, wouldn't you say, oh, that's a PG-13 movie based on today's standards.

Chris: 14:51

I think it would still get rated R. I mean, yeah, I think it would still get rated R, um, um. I would, would I show it to a 13 year old? Probably, probably I wouldn't. I wouldn't really have qualms about it, but I don't think that would change the rating of it necessarily. And I think that, I think we also got to include the other reasonings for ratings, and I think I mentioned this before, but way we got information and how much we knew about movies was, I think, different. At the time when a movie was coming out, you didn't necessarily know much about what was happening in it, and so the rating system is largely based around this initial release. When it's first coming out. You have no real perspective on it, and you don't have word of mouth. Now, people talk about movies on Reddit sometimes, you can find out stuff about movies that haven't even come out yet. And I just think back then, we were relying on film critics for the idea of how good a movie was or wasn't, and we were relying on the rating system for how, you know, risque a movie was or wasn't. And I think over time, as we have more information coming out, and as theater attendance is going down and home entertainment is going up, I just think it's a little bit of a different climate that's kind of taken the emphasis off of those things, a little bit.

Terry: 16:17

A lot of this is from the vantage point of American film viewing. And I think it's interesting that they actually took America out of MPAA because of the global film industry. Yet there are regional differences when it comes to that. There are a lot of foreign films that are unrated, and I'm sure that the audiences in Europe and and other places have different viewpoints when it comes to what category their films have fallen in terms of rating.

Reba: 16:52

Yeah. I mean, there's no doubt there are cultural differences across countries, obviously, and so what is permissible in film content in one country is not necessarily permissible in others. Um, Chris, do you mind jumping in here and talking just a little bit about, you know, you talked about it a bit in pre-production, if you could just, do you mind?

Chris: 17:13

No, no. Um, so, uh, overseas, they they have different value systems for their entertainment. And it's, you know, for European, nudity is not, it's not a big deal. if it's Middle Eastern, nudity is a no go. Sex is a no go. Same sex romance is a no go. So there's, there's different value systems based on who's receiving the entertainment. And so it can be in the same way the rating system here lets violence go, but doesn't let sexual content go. It can be a reflection of value systems in a way.

Reba: 17:58

Yeah. I mean, yeah, that's absolutely true. And so I think it takes us back to Brandon's question regarding whether or not a movie would still get an R if the climate changed. And I think, yeah, the climate changed. I think still a Major League that got an R 20 some odd years ago, I'm sorry, 30 some odd years ago, would still get an R today. And the reason, I especially say that is because the MPA did a survey in 2021 I think it was, where they surveyed 1500 parents who represent a broad demographic across the country in terms of age, in terms of region, in terms of the age of their kids and so on and so forth. And so they represent a nice, broad demographic distribution, and the parents, more than 80% said the MPA is doing a great job of guiding their decisions about whether or not the content is appropriate for their children. That's one but the second thing is, when they rated the priority issues for them in film, the top 10, like seven, about seven of the top 10 were nudity and sex. They are concerned about nudity and sex. That is a huge, huge, huge, huge issue, male nudity, female nudity. I mean, the items are very specific, and you don't get to violence until you get to number 10. So that's why I say Brandon, yes, Major League would still get an R today, because that was not about violence, that was about sex and pro you know, and profanity, nudity, those kinds of things; it would still fall under that. Let me add to that, though, that to your point as well Terry, in the documentary, This Film is Not Yet Rated by Kirby Dick, which was done in 2006, he talks with a number of filmmakers about, you know, what are their issues with the MPA. And needless to say, they had a lot of them at that time. There were some serious issues with the MPA. You know, they had to stick with the rating they got. They didn't get any kind of feedback. They had to guess what they needed to do to change their films, and so on and so forth. There were a lot of issues, but in that there were a number of filmmakers who had a real problem with the fact that the raters were hypersensitive to rating their films for sex and nudity. As a matter of fact, one of the actors, Maria Bello, who's filmed The Cooler, was rated NC-17 because the raters said a strand of a pubic hair was seen in one of the scenes.

Excerpt from The Cooler: 20:48

Excerpt from The Cooler

Reba: 21:02

And the comment she made was that the Raiders are"desexualizing sex." And so they were told to recut it. And so, my point is that there's been a preoccupation among the raters to look at sex and nudity, and based on the survey, it seems to reflect the priorities of the parents as well.

Brandon: 21:28

Well as I went through the article, another thing that I, I had never put too much thought on exactly what it is, at least I should say, I never put down on paper what it is I go through when I'm deciding on if something's appropriate or not for my kid. And I realized, as I was reading this, and I wrote down basically in no particular order, that my four particular criteria were like the weight to racism and racial tones. I wanted to weigh the graphic violence and the violence type because, you know, watching something that is gory versus something that is like action violence, they seem to be two different types of violence. So that's why I mentioned that the weight to sex and graphic sexual content, meaning, obviously, how much nudity is in place, how much sex itself is in place, or how much implied sex, because all of those are different levels to me. And then, of course, language, how much am I willing to expose my kids to like, that's important to me to figure that out with each one of those categories. Now, I mentioned all of those, though, because one thing I really enjoyed, and I believe this came in place, when Charles Rivken took over the MPA, I have enjoyed the transition from just giving a rating and saying stick with it. And more so for the for all of us out there, and me as a parent, I'm not looking at PG-13 and trying to figure out what that is. He is actually expanded on that where it gives more detail as to why a certain production has received those ratings. I'm going to kick it to you, Mom and Dad first, like, how much do you feel that has been an improvement and how, how much do you wish that was in place when Chris and I were growing up? Like, how would that have really helped you out?

Reba: 23:12

It's hard to say, and my thinking is, yeah, I probably would have become accustomed to using both the rating and the additional box they now have to provide an explanation for why they rated things that way. I think what I find problematic - I have a huge issue with decontextualizing things. Just counting the number of F bombs or counting the number of sex scenes are quantitative. They don't give me a sense of what context. Again, going back to The Cooler, Maria Bello's movie, the scene they're talking about was an intimate scene between two lovers. And so it's not like it was a pornographic scene. It's not like it was graphic violence or anything; it was an intimate scene between two lovers. And so that was the context of it. And so just looking at the box, it doesn't give me any sense of the context still of the rating. And so that's why I'm saying is I think it's still limited because it lacks that element.

Terry: 24:15

Yeah, I mean, more information is always better, as far as I'm concerned. So trying to think back how useful that would have been, yeah, I would have considered it useful. But to your mother's point, the huge hole in that whole thing is the lack of context. And I'm not sure exactly how you would do that in trying to give a brief description of something, so that that one's, that's a tough call for them. But I do, I appreciate the fact that there is at least that information associated with the rating.

Brandon: 24:55

Maybe if we were to add that to previous productions. So let's say like going back to the Major League conversation, if they said rated R based on language or whatever, maybe that satisfies my issue with thinking certain movies should be possibly reclassified. But I do think that in general, I can say that any movie that I've been unfamiliar with, this has been helpful for me to figure out whether or not it's something acceptable for my child to watch. Or if even I would be interested in something like that, or exposing them to anything like that. It at least gives me the first inkling on if this is acceptable or not. That being said, we also discussed during pre-production the digital component to all this. For example, these ratings play a role as to if these movies are even available at certain vendors. For example, like, we talked about Walmart, and Mom, you mentioned this in your in your article, Walmart doesn't release things that they deem as inappropriate for children. And Chris, I'm sure you can go ahead and comment about how contradictory they are in their their business practices. But nonetheless, given the change to digital exposure here, is the rating system even relevant today, or does it even at least have the same impact as it did in the past?

Reba: 26:11

I mean, I don't know about the past because I didn't see surveys then about how helpful it was to parents 40 years ago, but today, the survey suggests that it's quite useful. Like I said, over 80% of parents said it does help inform them on what films to show their kids. The concern I have, though, you know, is that I don't know if I alluded to this earlier, but the concern I have about the survey is, while the demographic distribution of the survey respondents seems to be representative of people in the United States, I just can't help but feel that there's just not enough of the movie-going, movie-watching, public represented there. And I say that because violence ranks so low in terms of the priorities as listed by the respondents of that survey. Violence is a huge issue in this society. You have domestic violence, you have burglary, you have robbery, you have rape, you have all those things going on in the communities. It's it's at a higher frequency and more intensified in poor communities of color. And the families in these communities watch movies and go to the theater too. And so when I look at a survey that ranks violence well below 10 as concerning in films, it makes me wonder to what degree parents who live in these communities were represented among the respondents. As well as you know, the fact that raters only rate for things like sex and nudity, but not violence, it makes me wonder how well represented these communities are among even the people who rate the films. So that is something that is concerning to me. And don't get me wrong, it isn't that I don't like films that, you know, things blow up and there are bank robberies and things like that, but to what degree are those factored into the ratings of films? So that that little box they add can say this film is rated R because, you know, because there was a lot of shooting going on, or rape going on, or whatever it is. So I anyway, I have some concerns about that.

Chris: 28:32

As I was saying earlier. I think the rating system was largely for when there was less information coming out about a movie and people didn't have so many resources to turn to, and also for movie theaters to know who to let in and who not to. So if those two things aren't as big of a factor anymore, I would say that the rating system isn't quite as relevant as it used to be. And I mean, I give, I tend to give people more credit. I think people, they can kind of figure out one way or another, rating aside, whether they would let their kid go see a certain movie. You, you know when Marvel movies come out, you generally have a good idea of what's going to be in them, right? So you know whether you're okay with that or not. You know Disney and Pixar movies are going to be fine. You know what's going to be in a spy thriller? You know what's going to be in a mob movie. You know it's going to be like, we, I think most people generally know what box movie is going into and whether or not they would want their kid of whatever age to see it. I think we can basically tell just from the genre. I mean, is there a Quentin Tarantino movie you would let Abella see? You know what I mean, like you kind of know, you kind of, most people know from all the other context whether or not they would let their kid go see it. So as far as the parental, the guardian, aspect of it, I think it's a little it's not quite as impactful as it might have been at one point.

Reba: 30:11

I agree that, you know, as I said before, I paid attention to them when I was younger, because it dictated whether or not I could see a film. And as we said today, you can walk into the theater. Heck, the person checking your ticket, checking your phone for your ticket, is a teenager himself. So, um, so yeah, to that degree it isn't, I don't know now that I think about it. You know, parents don't really have a whole lot of say about what they're 16- and 17-year-old goes to see anyway. I was thinking only 17-year-olds can get into R-rated movies. That's, that's what it's supposed to be, right? Yeah, under 17 requires a parent?

Terry: 30:51

Yeah.

Brandon: 30:52

A parent or guardian to be with them.

Terry: 30:53

Yeah

Reba: 30:54

Under 17? Oh, come on. So, we know that ain't happening, right? That is not happening, that that is not happening. But I tell you something, you know, your dad and I went to see a Anora yesterday that won all of the Oscar awards. It's an incredible film. It is just an amazing film. And it's probably in, it's one of the best films I have seen, probably in my top 10. I'm not sure if you guys have seen it or not, and I don't want to give anything away. But I will say I, when, I am shocked that that film was an R and not an NC 17. I was, I was really blown away when we were on our way home and your dad told me it was an, I said that film's probably an NC-17, right? He said, "Nope, it's an R." And so, I was really, I was really, very surprised by that. I'll give just one scene away. There's one scene, for example, where, where a guy answers, answers, the door

Terry: 31:58

And even including language, I would toss that one in his boxer shorts, with an erection, obvious erection. Okay, and, uh, I was just surprised that that movie got an R and that, that's mild. But it was a great, it was a great film, great story, moving story, don't get me wrong, but I'm just very surprised that movie had an R instead of an NC 17. I don't know what studio did it. in there too.

Reba: 32:28

You name it, it had it. And so I'm, but it was a really, really good film. The actress definitely deserved, It was a really, really good film, so taking nothing away from it. But I just don't understand how raters can sit in a room when their preoccupation has been with nudity and sex and give that film an R. I'm just blown away by this. Like, how did y'all get that when they give, I don't know how they get there. I just don't know how to get there, when they gave an, you know, an NC-17 to The Cooler for a pubic hair.

Terry: 33:04

Right.

Reba: 33:04

I just don't know how you get there. So the inconsistency is concerning to me, as well as the absence for the, for the coding of violence.

Brandon: 33:14

That is in part why I'm in agreement with you. What as much as I appreciate the rating system, I really do, because it does help me with trying to determine if something is good for my children. I still also take a step back and wonder, well, who, who are the ones doing the ratings? And that is a concern for me, because naturally, I want to make sure that the people that are rating these have the exact same type of values as mine, because the closer they are to mine, the more I know that that rating will align with what I would, you know, want to expose my children to. But I'm also, I also spend time questioning if a rating was given based on race. And I don't mean to call the people out there as being racist. That's not what my point is. I'm trying to say that the race of the characters possibly influence why they gave a rating to, you know, that a particular rating to that movie. You know, if you're seeing some violence and sex with Black and Brown people, are you a little bit more sensitive to that than you are if they had been White people? If there's an interracial component to it, are you a little bit skittish to that, or are you extremely open to it? And that's why it influenced your rating on it. That is why, to a certain extent, like as much as I enjoy, that the rating system helps me with my kids, I still question if we have arrived at the right rating system today.

Terry: 34:33

Well, historically, that has been the case. Those things have factored heavily into into ratings of movies.

Reba: 34:41

Yeah, I mean one, to your dad's point, one rater, for example, in This Film is Not Yet Rated, one of the raters who had finished his tenure, actually broke his silence and talked to the filmmaker. And what he said that, during his tenure, he actually served as a raider during Jack Valenti's term, and he said once, Jack Valenti didn't like the way the group rated the film, and he said,"Come on, you guys can do better than that." And what that tells me is that when your film is, has been produced by a studio that is one of the MPAs members it gets, you know, it gets a preferred rating, okay? And so that is, you know, whether or not you're a member of the MPA influences the rating that your film gets. Now, you add to that a number of other things. You add, there's no doubt in my mind that race is a factor. I think class is a factor as well, there's no doubt in my mind. And so my point is, there is an intersection of things. There's this, there's this kind of synergy going on that influences how these movies are being rated. Because the people on the ratings board, what the filmmaker found out, what Kirby Dick found out, they were connected to the industry, which says there's this bias there. In addition to that, most of them overwhelmingly, they were from affluent backgrounds and they were highly educated. I mean, what does that tell you who's being represented? You know where those are biases. You know, inherent in the ratings, is what that says. And so that is what concerns me about, concerns me about the degree to which, not only who's represented in the survey sample, but more than anything, who's being represented in the ratings when you find these gigantic holes, like films not being rated for violence. You know, it being such a low priority that that is, that's, that's problematic for me. That's that just raises questions. And it's not that the MPA hasn't progressively done better over the last century, because they have, and I'm quite appreciative of that. They've been in existence for just over a century. And they have, you know, greatly improved that system. It's just there's more work to do, in my view. I just want to make one comment about the future of MPA. It has made all of these changes over a century. So what is the future of MPA? And my thinking, my thinking is given AI, and the degree to which it is being proliferated across, frankly, every kind of system you can imagine, and when you add to that, that the film industry seems pretty determined to move AI into the cinematic world. What do you think the MPAs thinking is on the role of AI in perhaps rating films? Because my thinking on that, when I asked this question in the paper is, is, is there a chance that raters, in an effort to, you know, to neutralize the biases we're concerned about, will raters be replaced by robots in the seats that are tallying scenes with nudity, sex or whatever, and, you know, generating an automatic rating? Or will they stay with the system as it exists today, accepting the human flaws inherent in it.

Terry: 38:24

The interesting part about that is, in terms of using AI to do that. If they wanted to do it, they could program it in such a way that you try to feed it in such a way that you can feed in the type of demographics that will give you a more even distribution of of people, class, race, gender, etc, etc, etc. If it advanced to the point where you could feed those kinds of factors into it, and they would give you something that's close to what those demographics would give you naturally,

Chris: 39:05

I feel like there's a power element to this, that because it exists there in you know, it, as we've said, it can create inequities between independent filmmakers and studio filmmakers, or how the rating system is influenced by the background of whoever's submitting it. I just think that's not going to be surrendered to a machine. You know? I just think there's always going to be a committee of people, and they're always going to bring in whatever their agenda is. And so I have trouble believing that's going to be automated or just given up to something that's supposed to be more objective.

Brandon: 39:49

So I personally feel like we will always keep humans involved in the process. I think Chris and I are aligned on that. I think that as long as there's a chance for a human element, particularly a human agenda to be enacted, it's going to still involve humans making the final say on it. I don't, I just can't see completely forfeiting it to computers to help us figure out what the answers are.

Chris: 40:11

Maybe AI will count the, count the pumps. They'll just use it to do that.

Brandon: 40:19

Yeah, that's a great way of ending it with that. We're going to wrap up this edition of the Cup of Tea Critiques Podcast. Thanks so much for listening and figuring out your "cup of tea" along with us. Honestly, we could go on and on like we do at our dinner table, but we look forward to you joining us again next week for another great 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 to 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.