I'm convinced, people have nothing better to do with their time. A recent study (NYT registration req) from the Harvard (I wonder where the endowment goes) School of Health, has found that the last decade in film gave birth to what they call a "ratings creep". It seems movie ratings are much more lenient than they were ten years ago. You mean to tell me that we had to do an in-depth study at a major university to find out that film content is more violent and sexually explicit? Sometimes I think I'm in the wrong profession. Some of these people are being paid way too much. In the New York Times article on the study, Rich Taylor, a spokesman for the Motion Picture Association suggests that the standards for judging acceptable depictions of sex and violence in American society are constantly changing. I give you my case for the fight against moral relativism and situation ethics in this country.

Co-author of the study and associate professor of get this, risk analysis and decision science (you're kidding me right...that's a real professorship?) Kimberly Thompson notes,

"When you look at the average, today's PG-13 movies are approaching what the R movies looked like in 1992 [and] today's PG is approaching what PG-13 looked like a decade ago."

That's not even counting the tripe and sexual innuendos Disney throws in most of their rated G movies. I've always said the ratings system is a joke and an excuse for people who want a shortcut to doing their jobs as parents. This is the danger in allowing the Motion Picture Association to dictate to us what is and isn't appropriate. It's ALL relative.

Ultimately, the result of the study appears to have left them with more questions than anything. Questions such as "What's the difference between sensuality and sexuality?" or "violence and action violence". Their end hypothesis? There's no fool-proof way to rate films. Well, duh.

Posted by Ambra at July 13, 2004 4:34 PM in Culture