Movie ratings should be monitored more closely
In the past, if you wanted to pay $12 for a movie ticket to the bloodiest film playing in the box office, you had to show your ID and verify that you were over the age of 17. But nowadays, as long as you’re at least 13, you can gain access into almost any violent film you want.
That’s because a recent study published in the Pediatrics journal found that the amount of gun violence featured in recent PG-13 films has increased exponentially, containing as much or more violence than R-rated movies. Upon identifying the steady increase of violence in PG-13 films, the study concluded that even if youths are not using guns, they are being predisposed to aggressive behavior.
The increasingly violent number of PG-13 films being released year after year, as noted by the study, shows just how deeply embedded the appeal of violence has become in this country. Box offices nationwide thrive off of gunshots and bomb explosions.The production of violent films is rising for a reason — because society clearly relishes carnage enough to allow Hollywood to continue thriving economically.
Whether or not violent films actually encourage youth to act with violence and aggression in the real world is one topic that continues to be debated. What is undeniable, however, is the fact that violent films do influence young minds to some extent. It’s what allowed the industry of gory films to flourish in the first place — if violent movies had zero effect whatsoever on the psyche, then people wouldn’t keep coming back for more. In this sense, the study published in Pediatrics makes a valid claim that perhaps youth are being provided with scripts for gun use, although the assertion is still extremely general and seems to imply that any young person exposed to film violence will become aggressive.
As the study notes, when the PG-13 rating was first invented in 1984, films initially featured about as much violence as today’s G and PG-rated films did. But as time progressed, filmmakers jumped at the opportunity to produce violent films. Since 2009, the amount and degree of violence featured in PG-13 films have been comparable to the content featured in films with R-ratings.
So then, what seems to set a PG-13 film apart from an R-rated film? According to the Motion Picture Association of America, PG-13 films “may [include] depictions of violence … but generally not both realistic and extreme or persistent violence,” while R-rated movies allow this kind of violence. It is overtly evident, however, that PG-13 movies nowadays are injected with just this kind of violence. The implications this are twofold: one, that filmmakers today judge that it is appropriate for youth to be exposed to extreme violence and two, that because of this, exposure to violence is far more accessible than it had been in past decades.
It appears that while the MPAA seems to have qualms with explicit sexual nudity and intense drug abuse, which are reserved for R-rated films, the type of violence also reserved for R-rated films has been appearing more often and more intensely in top-grossing PG-13 films. Why is it that the MPAA chooses to bar the exposure of sexuality and drug abuse to our youth while allowing them full access to extreme violence? After all, there must be a valid reason that films including such crude sex and drug scenes are made significantly less accessible to the youth using the R-rating.
Regardless of whether or not violent films affect the youth to the extent that they become violent and aggressive in real life, the fact of the matter remains that they do certainly influence our society, as evidenced by the popularity of bloodstained films among younger demographics. Perhaps the MPAA recognizes this as an economic opportunity, and for that reason treats violence much more liberally than it does sex and drugs. Nonetheless, it is now undeniably more difficult for parents to regulate what their children are exposed to, since they can no longer rely on the MPAA to appropriately regulate which age groups should be able to see which films. Though the debate will forever continue over whether films inspire the youth to commit violent crimes, one thing is for certain: An enthusiasm for violence has become deeply embedded within our culture, and its impact upon society will only continue to increase.
Rojine Ariani is a sophomore majoring in political science and international relations.
I wonder if the author actually ever saw these violent films she is disparaging.
If she has – then I would ask – how soon after she watched said violent movie, did she herself commit an act of violence towards another person? What – you say she didn’t? Well then why does she and other sanctimonious people think they are intelligent and self-controlled enough to not have a violent film transfer violence onto their behavior but then not think others can do the same?
I am tired of us constantly created a society the caters to the dumbest common denominator. Raise the bar – expect more from people. If you can’t watch “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” without cutting up people afterwards – then YOU are the problem, not the movie.