
A possible editorial for Plugged In magazine:
The rating system was invented to help viewers get a feel for the content in a film before they saw it. But however noble the intentions for creating the rating system, there are some flaws.
After a while, filmmakers learned how to play the system, resulting in “ratings creep”. Ratings creep is when a movie manages to slide into a different rating grade (usually lower) by slicing off just the right amount of objectionable content, but still retaining the qualities of a different rating. For instance, a movie that was originally rated “R” cuts some swear words out or some sexual content and garners a “PG-13” rating. An excellent example of “rating creep” is this year’s Best Picture winner, The King’s Speech. It was originally rated “R” for language. There are two scenes of a man using swear words during his speech therapy, during which the f-word and s-word can be heard about 20 times. A PG-13 movie can only have three f-words at the most. An appeal was made by the Weinstein Company, but ultimately The King’s Speech was reedited and received a PG-13 rating. The difference between the two versions of the film? All except one of the f-words had been changed to the s-word. It still retained the same content, but one obscenity was exchanged for the other.
The ‘rating creep’ isn’t a new phenomenon. It happened in the 1980’s, when “PG” movies were getting away with more than they should have. Parents complained and this led to the invention of the PG-13 rating, to level the playing field between the “R” and the “PG”.
But what’s next?
Should there be another rating between “R” and “PG-13” to alleviate the PG-13’s that barely earned their rating? And will that really stop the rating creep?