Where there are rules . . .

The flood from my computer continues on Sunday morning. Mrs. MSR is working a day shift, so I'm here alone. She has the car, so I can't go anyplace. My knee still hurts, so I can't run. The Redskins don't come on for four hours, and I am desperate to avoid the pile of work I brought home. So, I blog.

There's an interesting piece in today's Washington post magazine on the PG-13 rating. The author's point is that movie studios are desperate to get the PG-13 rating, which allows them to admit everyone (unlike R) while still being fairly racy (unlike PG) This in turn lets them tap the lucrative young teen market. She reviews the history of the ratings system, especially how the PG-13 rating emerged as a central position between R and PG. Of course, this middle position has been abused, which she describes as "ironic":

Movie executives took note: Responding to the negative publicity, they promised never, ever to market an R-rated movie to a child again. What they began doing, instead, was making more PG-13 movies, which could then, legitimately, be marketed to the same demographic. In a supreme irony, it was public concern about violence and its effects on children that led to more violent movies that can be, and are, marketed to children.

Not to be too critical, but this is not ironic at all. Rather, it is the natural consequence of regulation. No one can write rules that deal with every situation, and it is impossible for regulators to keep ahead of business. If you don't believe that, glance at the Federal Register sometime.

The central point about these PG-13 movies is that they are complying with the regulation, notwithstanding how racy and violent they are. And they really are: This article makes the point that, as an adult, you take for granted that you can see any movie, and forget that some of the violent and racy movies you see are actively targeted to 13 year olds. So the current system deflects responsibility from everyone; parents can just let kids see what they want, trusting the regulators, and the producers can sneak some stuff by at the edges of the regulations.

This is why government is better off to regulate less, not more. Here, if there were no ratings at all, parents would be obligated to take some control. And if there were fewer ratings then, as the author ponts out, "films would have to rise and fall, once more, as PG or R."
- posted by Anonymous @ 8:36 AM