PG-13 at 25: Will the Movies Ever Grow Up (Again)?

In 1984, Steven Spielberg released Gremlins and Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom, two PG-rated films sold to children, and the intensity of this box-office blockbusters (understandably) rattled parents.

Rather than chastise Hollywood's foremost money-machine, however, the MPAA created a new ratings category specifically tailored to serve Spielberg: the PG-13. As a result, the majority of films released since 1984 have been rated PG-13.

The PG-13 rating provides an opportunity for studios to "soften" and, in fact, "dumb down" films to the point where "soft" and "dumb" are presently Hollywood's key ingredients for success.

So while movies have grown ever more mechanically violent, nudity and sexuality have been edged out of mainstream cinema, especially serious and, indeed, "adult" treatments of such subjects.

It's easy to see how PG-13 has diminished the punch of genres that employ sex as a sales element -- e.g., horror and teen farces -- but let us consider what else this lowest-common-denominator-expanding ratings option has cost us.

Specifically: movies by grown-ups, about grown-ups, engaging in that most definitively grown-up activity, presented in a grown-up fashion.

Each year, a sprinkling of titles may contain legitimately mature sexual material (and the real number may actually be close to one), but such elements are usually relegated to dark and foreboding art films.

Two recent examples: the Kate Winslet titles Little Children (2006), about parents coping with a pedophile in their midst, and The Reader (2008), about an illiterate Nazi's love affair with a teenage boy.

Beyond even more accessible dramas, though, the sexual content of classic comedies such as The Graduate (1967), Carnal Knowledge (1971), 10 (1979) and the work of Woody Allen at his '70s peak seems gone forever (not too mention those films' dark undercurrents).

In their stead is an endless succession of Sandra Bullock/Kate Hudson/Reese Witherspoon rom-coms, plus an occasional disease-in-the-family weepie, that function as an extension of family entertainment.

Will Hollywood ever look past the financial attractiveness of the PG-13? Can it afford to? Can it afford not to? Or are we forever at the mercy of adolescent buying power? And how do we get rid of these gremlins?

 

Comments

[BustMyChops]

Spot on. It's important to remember how influencial Spielberg was in destroying cinema and helping to invent the PG-13 Rating. He worked with the MPAA to create it. PG-13 is the reason films have gotten worse.

[XRaraavis]

Yet we get a ton of horrific violence in PG-13 movies but 1 nipple can get a movie an R rating. Somehow torture porn like the Saw franchise is mainstream but a comedy or drama dealing with the real sex lives of adults is edgy. We live in strange days.

[binq56]

It all comes down to risk aversion. Sex is scary. Even if we elected a "liberal" president, the studios see trying to sell something that may be objectionable as a big risk. They understand the mind of a teenage boy, but anything beyond that is too much. If a well-made movie about Darwin didn't find a distributor because they were all afraid of the conservative public, what hope is there for an adult story about anything?

[derrickhoyle]

Thanks for the skinsightful article.

[Daze515]

A movie that "naturally" falls into PG-13 rating is fine. But a movie that is "Wedged" into a PG-13 rating is invariably terrible. For instance... The first "Alien vs. Predator". Every geek fanboys dream, but the studio geniuses decided to take two rated R franchises and smoosh them together into a PG-13 pile of shlock. That's one egregious example, but just about every PG-13 movie that comes out falls into a category like that, i.e. lets make a movie that tries to please everyone (impossible of course). It's not just about nudity, sex or realistic violence... I find it's mostly about language. There's nothing more ridiculous then an adult speaking or reacting in certain situations without the appropriate cuss words!

[liberalgirl31]

What about Watchmen? There's a mainstream blockbuster film that contained male full frontal nudity and a very graphic sex scene. It was not watered down to a PG-13.

Studios put out PG-13 because it's more profitable than R. PG-13 movies can play to a wider audience.

I don't know. I don't need graphic sex/nudity to enjoy a film. I just care if the storyline, acting, and directing are top quality. As long as the movie has those things, everyone can keep their clothes on as far as I'm concerned.

[Mike Sprinkel]

You neglected to mention "Observe and Report," with Seth Rogen. There was a great deal of sexuality in that movie. For example, at one point an obese man runs through a mall, completely naked save for a trench coat. The viewer is presented with a full view of his genitalia, in slow motion to top it all off. So, it may not be as bad as you think.

[rjmiller]

I don't think a man streaking through a mall counts as mature treatment of sexuality.

Sadly, Mr. Skin is right. Sexual films only come out as fairly low budget arthouse flicks. This is even stranger when you consider some of the larger, sexual blockbusters of the 90s (Basic Instinct being the obvious one). But do you think that a major studio would release American Beauty today? I doubt it.