WHY I HATE MOVIE RATINGS

By Martha Brockenbrough
MSN Cinemama

Not every parent cares about movie ratings. Nor does this apathy mean their kids will grow up stunted, perverted or sociopathic. I know this because my in-laws took my husband to see "The Godfather" -- which richly deserved its R rating -- when he was just 6 years old.

He turned out fine. More than fine, if you can forgive his otherwise inexplicable dislike of horses.

Had I seen this movie when I was 6, I probably would have had a nervous breakdown. When I was that age, I had to leave a slumber party early because we were watching the "Little Rascals" episode where Alfalfa drank liquid dynamite. I couldn't stand the tension, and remember retreating to my bottom bunk at home saying, "It's only a TV show. It's only a TV show."

This is part of the problem with using any sort of system that tries to link movie ratings with age. Fairies do not come and sprinkle maturity powder on our kids' heads as they sleep.

Like their grown-up counterparts, kids are unique. Some are going to be sensitive to scary stuff on-screen; some won't. My own 7-year-old, for example, could happily watch a "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" rerun, but runs blindly from the room when Santa appears on-screen.

We have to know our kids well to decide what movies are going to be right for them. This is one reason kids shouldn't watch TV alone -- you're not going to know what bothers them if you're not paying attention.

Of course, this is easier said than done. Few parents, if any, have the time, money or paranoia to prescreen movies for their kids. That's a bit like pre-chewing hot dogs, just to make sure little Rupert doesn't choke. Who's going to do that?

Still, parents of 3-year-olds who saw "Finding Nemo" in the theater will agree that the G rating on that movie meant nothing. If I had a nickel for every parent who said, "My kid screamed and climbed on my head when the diver first appeared on-screen," I'd have enough money to take my entire family to a double feature.

Even a G-rated movie like "Nemo" can contain images that will shock kids not used to seeing a scary man roughly the size of their house on-screen.

Still, we rely on the Motion Picture Association of America ratings. Members of a secret board called CARA, which stands for the Classification and Rating Administration, come up with the G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17 designations.

I want to like these people. I really do. They're all parents. We have to assume they're doing their best to help us choose films that make us and our kids comfortable. Ultimately, though, I'm not a fan. Or maybe I just don't like the values of the American parents they're trying to please.

Let's consider the respective ratings of two movies I love: "Rushmore" and "Casino Royale." Granted, neither was meant for kids. But both are movies kids might be interested in seeing. "Rushmore," after all, is set in a boarding school. Children and young actors play key parts. "Casino Royale" is a Bond movie -- the definition of cool for many, many tweens.

In one of these movies, a 15-year-old boy on scholarship at his school falls in love with a teacher there, only to watch her start to date his businessman mentor. In the other, a British secret agent earns his "00" designation after brutally killing two men. Both deaths happen on-screen; the first is particularly vivid. The same agent (Bond, of course) is later stripped nude, strapped to a bottomless chair, and beaten with a knotted rope until he's unconscious. I won't say where the rope is whacking him, though the chair is missing its seat for a reason.

Which movie got the R rating?

"Rushmore." For "language and brief nudity."

Applying the letter of the ratings system, they made the right call. A movie must be R-rated if the F-word is used more than once. So perhaps "Rushmore" earned its R. I didn't count the curses, so I don't really know.