I think the problem lies with the nature of the rating systems (or at least the system in the U.S.; I'm assuming something similar happens in the U.K.). Basically, the systems are setup to rate movies based on identifiable acts. So there's a difference between violence and implied violence, and drug use and implied drug use. The former kicks your movie up into R rating territory, the later lands you back in PG-13.
So it's a math equation -- how many times did the Joker slice someone's face open on screen? 0. How many times was it implied? At least 2. But close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, so PG 13 it is, even if the total emotional impact of the "implied" acts is greater than that of the explicit ones.
The thing is, I can't really fault them for that. It's easier to say "your film had three acts of [X] in it" then to say "we felt this was emotionally disturbing enough to warrant an R rating."
The first standard is objective, the second is editorial, and ultimately, I guess I'd rather leave the reviewing to the reviewers to avoid having things get *really* hairy.
Mon, 08/04/2008 - 12:34pm
I think the problem lies with the nature of the rating systems (or at least the system in the U.S.; I'm assuming something similar happens in the U.K.). Basically, the systems are setup to rate movies based on identifiable acts. So there's a difference between violence and implied violence, and drug use and implied drug use. The former kicks your movie up into R rating territory, the later lands you back in PG-13.
So it's a math equation -- how many times did the Joker slice someone's face open on screen? 0. How many times was it implied? At least 2. But close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, so PG 13 it is, even if the total emotional impact of the "implied" acts is greater than that of the explicit ones.
The thing is, I can't really fault them for that. It's easier to say "your film had three acts of [X] in it" then to say "we felt this was emotionally disturbing enough to warrant an R rating."
The first standard is objective, the second is editorial, and ultimately, I guess I'd rather leave the reviewing to the reviewers to avoid having things get *really* hairy.
»