Movie Ratings: Who Decides and Why? I Don't Know

Sex in movies is one thing.We can see Kate Winslet’s breasts in “Titanic,” and it's okay, still PG-13, which I believe is appropriate - Italy airs nudity on TV and less murders than the U.S. As for violence, however, territory seems heavily traveled on R ratings. You, Professor Bock, brought up “Saw,” which is surprising it didn’t get an NC-17 rating because it’s practically a snuff film. How movie ratings are decided is curious. I don’t know if “tastefully done” is at all relevant. 

I’d like to talk about one of my favorite movies: “Natural Born Killers.” It was very artistically done. Take that great horrifying scene with Rodney Dangerfield, playing the role of Mallory’s, one of the main characters, abusive father. It changes from the sitcom format with lush, saturated colors and rich with background laughter and applause from the televised audience to a 35mm black and white scene of her decadent and depraved father squeezing her ass. The main word slipping the lips of many critics about the film was “controversial,” because many thought the violence was done too over the top. Although controversial, this crime-drama is packed with cultural satire – media being at its center. It’s not just the story of husband and wife tearing across the American heartland on a murder spree. Well, it is that, but it’s not violence for the sake of violence. There is so much to it. 

I don’t know if any of this matters. Who am I to say “Saw” isn’t well done, but tastefully done, I personally don’t think so. I do know, however, that movies are not, say, cigarettes; they won’t harm you. I don’t believe ratings should be handled with more care; in fact, I think there should be less intervention. Warning labels, as we’ve learned from cigarettes, are almost meaningless. Why not go as far as to put ratings on books? I nearly passed out reading Chuck Palahnik’s short story “Guts.” It’s people’s work that’s being judged, which I think can be more troubling than seeing a little gore or an ass or breasts. Time is also a factor. What’s considered on the margins one day, Hanson says, might shift to the middle where it’s accepted the next, which, once again, makes ratings meaningless.  

War of the Senses

Despite the number of times it was announced that Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds” was just a dramatized radio program, all disclaimers soared over some people’s heads, and they headed for the rooftops. Without first hearing the broadcast, it may be hard to believe it sent people into such a panic, but after listening to it and taking into account the year it was done, its brilliance and effect on some audience members is really an outstanding thing to achieve if you think about it. The symbolic interaction which went on in this instance is a curious thing.

Driven by the collective fear of the unknown, some people mistook fiction for what could have passed as an actual news broadcast. The way in which it was done may be simple by today’s standards, but for the technology available then, it couldn’t have been better. Its simplicity adds realism to it. There are also interviews with what would be extremely credible sources had the whole thing not been fake. Interrupting the music by a special bulletin about something crashing in New Jersey, and brushing it off and nonchalantly returning to the music was a genius move to create an authentic reality for listeners. Increasing concern and updates slowly builds the story. The believability of the broadcast must be factored into the hysteria it stirred.

Radio was one of the main places people got their news. Imagine coming home and switching it on to find a professor saying Martians were invading Earth. Most of us want to believe we’d have been smarter, but look at the Onion News. People have been tricked before and will likely be tricked again. Common sense is often retroactive, and it had probably not dawned on people it was silly to think Martians annihilated the U.S. military in 34 minutes.      

The Mobile Marketplace

I read an article on mediapost.com called “Mobile Rocks.” The point highlighted in the article is that people are increasingly using mobile devices for things other than “talking and texting,” getting its information from the comScore 2010 Mobile Year in Review report. This tells us nothing we don’t know already. People are walking around with computers in their pockets, so of course they are turning to their mobile devices for things other than chatting. The question which pops in my mind when I read the article is left unanswered: What does this mean for media companies and for the marketplace of ideas?  

“The challenge for marketers and brands,” the author says, “will be how to successfully navigate through one of the most complex and rapidly evolving mediums.” The main thing which comes to mind is synergy. These brands and markets can potentially reach anyone with a mobile device. On almost every commercial I watch, it asks me to join them on their Facebook page, which is something the author says is a “huge driver of mobile social networking” and is one of the fastest growing mobile content category in the US. Facebook and other markets can use technology to work together and grow – and it is.

This is where the marketplace of ideas is concerned. Facebook can potentially link everyone together in one place where everything can be shared. However, to me it seems that people only want to talk about themselves and things which are familiar to them. The ones who they talk to are likely going to be similar-minded and will reinforce existing ideas rather than advancing discourse, so it stands unanswered whether or not this increase in the use of mobile devices will advance the marketplace of ideas.

The fact that everyone can be reached may be better for the “markets and brands” the author mentions than for people as a whole. It is so new, though, no one seems to know exactly what will happen. Maybe synergy will branch from media and other companies benefiting to everyone benefiting.      

Go Shopping

Oh, where to start: Ads. They are everywhere. I can’t crack a fortune cookie or rest a cup on a coaster without seeing an advertisement. It’s to the point that they are hardly noticeable. I believe that ads are less significant to consumers today because we are relentlessly bombarded with them that it is normal to see ads. Far more choices are presented to consumers than in the past. Also, since fragmentation has become so prominent in media, advertisement has branched out with it because where there are media outlets, there are advertisements. Ads try convincing us that their product is the best, yet they are all so similar. 

You need this; we need your help; you deserve this: these seem to be the main categories – cars, cosmetics, medicine, fast-food, charity, insurance (how often do people change insurance?), candy, entertainment, cleaning supplies, alcohol, etc. These are the main players it seems. After awhile, I seldom had to write down advertising categories; it’s just within those categories there a endless product options to choose from.     

Something which strikes me as strange is seeing ads for things which, to me anyway, don’t need to be advertised. McDonald’s, for example, does not need to advertise for Big Macs. We know where to go to get burgers. It seems it is ingrained in the very nature of capitalism to advertise, as it were.  

Ads not only play a role for consumers, but they also serve the media which show them. Much of media’s revenue is generated from advertisers. Since there are many media outlets, there are many ads – some might argue too many ads. The nice thing about the variety of choices, though, is that we can choose to ignore them if we please.