That a PG-13 rating would prevent any girl (or boy) from seeing it is depressingly indicative of all that is wrong with the current system.

Any child of any age can get into a PG-13 movie. The label does not describe who is allowed in the theater. Only R and above ratings can limit who is allowed in. And, by the way, those are policy rules, not law. No legal infraction on a movie theater’s part for allowing an underage kid to see an R-rated movie (though local news stations love to send a kid to purchase a ticket so they can do an exposé). Only X-rated movies are legally prohibited from being show to minors.

The purpose of the ratings system, as I understand it, is to help parents make informed decisions concerning what their children see. If, as earlier respondents stated, the movie 'Whale Rider' was rated PG-13, then we must assume that many children under the age of 13 of 14 were prevented from seeing that wonderful and inspirational film. If that is not the case -- as you seem to claim -- then the current system should be abandoned at once, because clearly no parents are using it to make decisions for their children. Meanwhile, the American moviegoing public is being treated like children due to the current system, as when adults here were not permitted to see Kubrick's version of 'Eyes Wide Shut' as shown in the U.K. and Europe. Though you have seemed stangely keen on defending the current system from the beginning of this discussion, you didn't respond to that point.

to the extent that parents may have kept their children away from a movie with a PG-13 rating, thinking the children would not be allowed in on their own. The rating system identifies such movies are more suitable for kids 13 or older, but that is very different from saying no one under 13 admitted without parent.

On the other hand, television now uses similar ratings. I don't think kids under 14 or whatever are whooshed out of the room when The Simpsons comes on. These age listings along with ratings are (as other posters have acknowledged) one kind of tool that can help a parent decide what their children should see. It seems to me that, by your logic, the very fact that any aged kid can get into a PG movie as easily as a G is a sign that the ratings system is flawed. To that extent, I do not agree with you.

However, I do think the MPAA is a hypocritical, manipulative system, and parents should not let it do their thinking for them. Many of them don't. My friend took his underage child to see Chicago, but on the other hand vetoed her seeing Scary Movie. Both were rated R.

For what it's worth, I agree with your latest post, especially your criticism of the current system; there is nothing I can add. Thank you for your respectful exchange concerning (an article discussing a new movie regarding) an issue of great interest to us all. Peace Out.

If you strip this issue of all purported agendas for a moment, you're still left with the fact that the MPAA ratings "system" really isn't worthy of the name. A system aspires, first and foremost, to consistency. Vague, subjective or hidden rules don't help anybody -- parents, children, filmmakers, or studios. If an NC-17 rating means a movie will be financially penalized, the penalty is only unfair if the rules are unknown or inconsistently applied. Similarly, if the ratings are based on a specific belief system, they're an ineffective tool for parents if said parents don't know where the rules are coming from.

Consistent, defined rules and a more transparent process could only serve to bolster the MPAA's legitimacy. Everything else is debatable.

Right back at you. I enjoyed the exchange.

Compare the MPAA's rating system and process with that of the BBFC in the UK. The latter has well-defined age-limited ratings, instead of the nebulous 'R' that South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut parodied. It provides clear guidelines on what needs to be cut in order to get a lower rating. It places the rationale for its decisions online. For instance, the probably-awful 'Beerfest' lost nine seconds of 'sexualised asphyxiation' to get the '15' rating that its producers desired; left uncut, it would have been handed an '18'. In the US, it's 'R'.

Mccoffey writes:

Zacharek's tone throughout the article regarding children makes it appear as if she resents that fact that children exist within our culture, and we must make alterations and accomodations to their existence in order to protect and guide them through the murkey channels of growing up. This surely cannot be the case, but must be a reflection of Zacharek's overreaction to the MPAA's existence and practices.

I'm really sick of parents who feel that I should have to put up with a cookie cutter ratings board so that your kid won't see a tit.

Why should I have to go to a head shop to buy a lighter that's not child proofed? Why should I have to buy a senior citizen medicine bottle if I want aspirin that doesn't require a college degree to open? Why can't I swim in a pool that is deeper than 4.5 feet? Why can't I find a diving board, anywhere?

The answer to all of those questions amounts to this: because parents can't keep a lid on their children, they expect the "culture" to do it for them.

The MPAA ratings board causes a chilling effect. Moviemakers, instead of focusing on their art, must focus on pleasing the ever cryptic and mercurial Wizard of Oz.

I can't speak for Stephanie, but as for myself, I don't resent children at all. I resent the attitude of parents like you. This sentence of yours really sums it up:

we must make alterations and accomodations to their existence in order to protect and guide them through the murkey channels of growing up.

Thank goodness Mark Twain didn't feel that way, because we never would have had Huckleberry Finn, as proven by the fact that, these days, idiotic parents and school boards call Huck Finn a racist work !!!!! How ironic, since at the time his critics called him a n***** lover for the very same work .

As to your assertion that the ratings board has become more lax over the years, I just find that laughable. How do you explain that Airplane got a PG rating, even though it showed bouncing, naked breasts, and featured every curse word I know, and some I didn't know, but "The Breakfast Club" got an R? Which movie is more suitable for children?