| In a better world, George Clooney’s naked ass might have opened an entire can of worms.
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) recently gave Solaris an R rating – meaning that anyone under the age of 17 wouldn’t be able to see the film without an accompanying parent or guardian – due to the fact that it contains a brief scene in which Clooney bares his derrière. Following an appeal by the film’s distributor, 20th Century Fox, the rating was changed to PG-13, meaning children of any age may see the film, but that parents are strongly cautioned that some material may be inappropriate for children under the age of 13.
The incident not only makes one wonder how such decisions are made, but also whether we need ratings boards at all – and if we must have them, how do we ensure that they operate responsibly?
The first thing that many Canadians need to know is that MPAA ratings hold no sway in Canada. Six regional classification boards, including Alberta Film Classification (AFC) in Edmonton, assess films for theatrical exhibition in the Great White North – although decisions made south of the border sometimes lead distributors to release edited prints throughout North America. Secondly, in Canada, film classification is legislated by provincial governments, whereas the MPAA is a private body that oversees what it calls a "voluntary" ratings system, whereby distributors choose whether or not to submit their films to the organization for rating – knowing full well that many exhibitors, including some of the United States’ biggest chains, won’t show films that aren’t rated.
In Alberta, though, it is against the law to commercially exhibit a film that hasn’t first been classified by AFC.
So, what’s the big deal? AFC doesn’t regularly ban or censor movies – it just categorizes them according to their imagery and thematic content. For instance, in the case of Solaris, the film carries a PG rating in Alberta (with an advisory that it contains mature themes), which is roughly equivalent to the MPAA’s revised PG-13 rating.
Granted, AFC is more progressive than some other classification boards, including the MPAA and the Ontario Film Review Board (OFRB), both of which occasionally refuse to pass films if they aren’t edited to the board’s liking. Canadian directors David Cronenberg (Crash) and Atom Egoyan (Exotica) have run into problems with the MPAA south of the border, while the French films Fat Girl and Baise-moi have been censored in Ontario (Fat Girl was banned outright).
So how did AFC, out here in conservative Alberta, become so liberal?
"Well, our purpose has changed," says Sharon McCann, manager of AFC. "…We’ve evolved into consumer advisors, and we fully acknowledge that advances in technology have pretty much outstripped the potential for any government regulatory agency to effectively regulate, as we did in the old days."
Indeed, back in my days as a film exhibitor in the mid-’90s, I would anxiously await the advisory that said "extremely gruesome scenes throughout." It sounds cynical, but that kind of thing can really help to sell an R-rated film to certain adult audiences. It’s the same rationale that led to advertising campaigns for Fat Girl that ran outside Ontario, alluding to the fact that the film was banned in that province. There’s nothing like a prurient interest to drive up ticket sales.
As societal attitudes toward sexually explicit and graphically violent material have become more relaxed, McCann believes that AFC’s role as an advisory body has grown more important than ever. But she also acknowledges that the ratings system has its limits.
"While we can’t regulate access, and while, yes, it is certainly possible to download movies… and it certainly will become easier the more technology advances and the more… new kinds of convergences are upon us, we’re not attempting to fight that," she says. "And we’re certainly not trying to create new, more restrictive legislation, thinking that we’ll be able to actually prevent early exposure to disturbing content.
"We’re trying to advance the cause of better parent media-management through education."
This is an argument that is frequently put forth when discussing the relevance of film classification – that it helps parents protect their children. McCann says that recent marketing campaigns like those for The Lord of the Rings movies makes it difficult for people to know whether films are suitable for their kids.
"Because the marketing has focused on some of these creatures… and you have this wonderful fantasy world, there’s an assumption that parents have that the film is, of course, appropriate for children…. The film contains quite a lot of very violent warfare that is definitely not appropriate for children, but the marketing and the TV advertising make it very difficult for parents to have the correct information."
McCann says her organization exists to help parents decide which films their kids can see.
"We’re not in the business of promoting films. We are in the business of trying to promote availability of information, which parents can use, which is objective – we don’t gain anything, we don’t lose anything."
Interestingly, some of those who are in the business of film distribution are generally in agreement, even though it costs a lot of money and takes a great deal of time to submit films to various classification boards across the country.
Bryan Gliserman, president of Odeon Films, which acquires and licences feature films for exhibition in Canada, says that as a parent and a responsible businessperson, classification just makes sense.
"I believe, and we believe, that it’s appropriate that the public be properly informed so they can make decisions about how they sample and how they take in filmed entertainment."
Still, that doesn’t mean he always agrees with the specific decisions of the various boards. Noting that classification is a particularly subjective activity, he says that Odeon has appealed classifications across Canada at various times.
"We are a business and we want our films to be seen by the widest possible age ranges," says Gliserman. "We don’t always agree with decisions made by various classification boards as to which ages would be appropriate for certain films. In those instances, that’s when we would launch an appeal."
Obviously, there are financial ramifications for film distributors when certain films aren’t classified the way they’d like them to be. If children under the age of 18 can’t see an R-rated movie in Alberta, that limits the number of people who can see films like Jackass and Scary Movie, which target the lucrative teen market.
"Jackass: The Movie created quite a lot of interest and many inquiries into this office, as well as an appeal from the industry, who felt that we were being harsh with our rating (R in Alberta). They felt that this material was, in fact, appropriate for 14-year-olds."
But don’t prohibitive ratings just make films even more alluring to kids?
"If Scary Movie has alluring advertising and there’s some suggestion of titillation in the posters of many films, parents can actually sit down with the kids and say, ‘Is this really what you had in mind?’ and use it as the basis of discussion – get into the whole subject of how marketing scams basically are robbing them of their time and their money."
Still, these considerations highlight the subjectivity of the classification process and prompt questions about the determination of a community standard – i.e., the general consensus among a population about what kind of material is suitable for a particular age group. In a multicultural society like Alberta’s, McCann admits that it is not easy to define.
"Basically, we just go through the media that are out there, we respond to… complaints, we confer with colleagues globally and, certainly, we do a lot of public speaking," she says, adding that the idea is not to prohibit people from seeing films, but to teach them critical viewing skills so they can bring their own values into play when considering not just films but all media.
"If ‘protection’ in 1950s terms was censorship and restrictions and laws and enforcement and fines… it’s the opposite, now. It’s individual empowerment – even of young children.
"It is actually the opposite of censorship in that you take the very thing you would have eliminated years ago… whatever offensive material, and you actually use it as a teaching tool."
So, in some ways, George Clooney’s naked ass might one day lead to enlightenment, after all. |
