Problems With Movie Ratings Go Beyond Categories

In her article “Do Movie Ratings Need New Categories?” (Aug. 10), Amy Wallace quotes a number of qualified people, but for all their critiques and suggestions, they haven’t touched the biggest problem for moviegoing parents: There just aren’t enough films

that are appropriate for kids, regardless of what alphabet soup label the Motion Picture Assn. of America sticks on the package.

Roger Ebert is right about the “summer of raunch,” but these films are in bold relief because there’s so little else available. Anyone who’s half awake knows that “American Pie” isn’t for children, with or without a rating. The question is, why aren’t there a lot more films that are appropriate?

We have a young teen and a preteen, and by mid-July we’d run out of things to see as a family. My kids counted up the movies in the paper, and out of 35 films, 20 were R-rated, six were PG-13, five were PG and four were G. This is Hollywood’s idea of summer fare, a season when children have more time to see movies with their parents than any other time of the year?

Where are all the “October Skies”? Why only one “Winslow Boy”? The family film, something we can all see together and enjoy, has become the rarest of species.

So by midsummer it’s time to play “interpret the ratings,” and this is where Matt Stone’s suggestion to break down the R for language, drug use and so on is right on the money. Shall I take a chance that this or that R has just some discreet nudity, and no greater quantity of F-words than my daughter usually hears on the school bus? We went to Sayles’ “Limbo” because I felt safe, knowing his filmmaking style, and afterward I couldn’t even figure out why it got the R.

I took heart: Could there be other safe Rs out there that all four of us could actually see together? After puzzling at length over “The Red Violin,” we gave it a try. It earned its R with one very brief scene of sexual nudity, but apart from this it was what I consider a good family film--and we all liked it.

Even if the MPAA did come up with a more specific rating system, it would still be confusing for parents because of the way studios market films for audiences who don’t fit the rating--so you can end up with a PG-13 that practically deserves an R but is aimed at 11-year-olds.

Ebert’s idea for A-rated films that would exclude anyone under 17 is probably called for, but begs the question of how it would be policed. When I took my son and his friend to see “The Blair Witch Project,” three other friends entered the theater with no adult, bragging that they’d purchased tickets for “Inspector Gadget.” An usher appeared and promptly ushered them out, but of course they sneaked back in later.

As for the idea that parents can’t bring their kids to an “A” even if they want to, tell that to the family we saw at “Blair Witch”--with two tots no more than 4 years old.

Well, fall’s almost here, and with that we can look forward to at least a few tasteful Oscar contenders, maybe even some that are suitable for family viewing--when the kids are busy with school.

But until then, since we’ve seen all the non-Rs that we find palatable, we’re learning how to satisfy our film urges outside the multiplex--at revival houses, festivals and the art museum. I’m off to buy us tickets for a screening of “Rebecca” at the motion picture academy, which I suppose would be rated PG-13 today--but I think we can handle it.