I’m a bad parent. I let my 8-year-old son see “The Matrix Reloaded.”
I finally faced the dilemma that many parents contend with when it comes to the movies. Because of the nature of my job, my son isn’t immune to the hype – the TV coverage, the magazine covers and the opportunity to listen to Daddy transcribe his Keanu Reeves interview. For the last four months, he has begged to see the film and, despite its R rating, I finally allowed it.
I willingly took him because he’d seen the first “Matrix” film – a movie whose R rating wasn’t even close to being deserved – and I already knew what content in “Reloaded” I wouldn’t want him to see. During those scenes (there are two of them) we conveniently went to get some of the splendiferous Toll House cookies found at the one theater we frequent.
“The Matrix” dilemma is one that many parents faced in the last week. Judging from the movie’s resounding four-day take of $135 million at the box office, there were parents who thought a lot like me.
In fact, at Regal Cinemas last week, there were children as young as 12 lining up to get into the area’s first screenings. Some bought their tickets via online ticketing services. Others boldly walked up to the box office and purchased them on their own. And for some, mom or dad made the purchase for them and gladly let them see the movie alone.
What this reveals is that even after the last alleged correction of the Motion Picture Association of America’s ratings system, it remains flawed. (Do you really think that $135 mill came courtesy of a bunch of 17- to 34-year-olds?)
What the current system rarely takes into consideration is that society and social mores change.
A stink as dense as Los Angeles smog wafted across the country during the PG-13 debate in the early “80s. The same stench greeted NC-17 in the early “90s.
It’s a new decade, so let’s set off another bomb. It’s again time to modify the system. Nothing drastic. Nothing earth-shattering. Hollywood won’t lose any dead presidents.
The current system fails to recognize that there are different developmental stages for teens. A 15-year-old is vastly different from a 13-year-old, and a 17-year-old more often than not is more mature than a 15-year-old. What is wrong with adding a PG-15 or an R-15 to recognize that fact?
Other countries do. Take a look at ratings for “The Matrix” worldwide. In the United Kingdom, the movie is considered suitable for those 15 and older. In Australia, it’s recommended for 15 and older. In New Zealand, it’s suggested for 16 and older.
In Canada, where ratings are decided at the provincial level, “Reloaded” is given more lenient treatment – several provinces deem it suitable for 14 and older.
All of those guidelines are more in line with the movie’s content.
No, this isn’t a call for a more permissive attitude, but it is a call to deal with reality. Quite simply, in the current system, egregious mistakes have been made – especially with respect to PG-13.
Films that gleefully push the envelope, such as “Little Nicky” and the “Austin Powers” movies, manage to secure PG-13 ratings, even though much of their content screamed for the next available option. I suspect that the parents who make up the ratings board didn’t think those films deserved an R, so gave them the benefit of the doubt with a PG-13. Will all due respect, my 8-year-old still hasn’t seen either of those movies, and he won’t for a few more years.
What’s driving the ratings game? My Inner Cynic tells me it has more to do with money than with doing what best serves the moviegoing public.
The reason we seldom see a G-rated film is money. G-rated films aren’t cool enough for Hollywood’s target audience. Even Walt Disney Studios has taken to accepting PG ratings on some of its animated features, such as last fall’s “Treasure Planet.”
Until “The Matrix Reloaded,” an R-rated film performing at such box-office levels was almost unheard of. Why? Because many of the teen-agers who willingly watch the same movie again and again couldn’t get into the theater.
Of the Top 20 films last year, 13 received PG-13 ratings and accounted for $2.45 billion at the box office, according to the MPAA. No R-rated films placed in that list. Quite simply, a PG-13 means a better chance of success at the box office.
Some filmmakers, such as those behind the “Austin Powers” and “Little Nicky” films, view it as a license to push the rating to the brink – and they get away with it.
A classification that recognizes the diversity in teen years is available in many English-speaking countries, where apparently it is readily accepted.
We already have a de facto way of classifying R-rated movies in casual conversation: They’re either a hard R or a soft R. That a rating between PG-13 and R is needed is common sense, but no one will ever accuse anyone associated with the film industry of possessing that rare commodity.
—
George M. Thomas is the movie critic for the Akron Beacon Journal. He can be reached at 330-996-3579 or at gmthomasthebeaconjournal.com.
—
(c) 2003, Akron Beacon Journal (Akron, Ohio).
Visit Akron Beacon Journal Online at http://www.ohio.com/.
Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.
AP-NY-05-29-03 1115EDT
Send questions/comments to the editors.
