Trailing the Trailers

Nell Minnow, the columnist for beliefnet.com who first reported the MPAA's new rule change regarding the content of movie trailers, has provided a new update, including a response from the MPAA attempting to further defend the new policy.  The MPAA explained, in part, that under the new rule "the content of the trailer is appropriate for the audience viewing the trailer with the movie they have chosen to see," and that the MPAA has "received feedback from parents that content for some movies in a trailer with an "All Audiences" tag was misleading. This new change reflects the Advertising Administration's increased vigilance to target advertising to appropriate audiences."

I think I understand the MPAA's intent here.  Under the old rule, you could go see a "PG" movie and theoretically see a preview for a movie that was rated "PG-13" or "R" but it would be acceptable because the trailer was approved for "all audiences."  Under the new rule, it's intended that you would go see a "PG" movie and see only previews for similar "PG" movies.  I can appreciate that, but its still an imperfect approach. 

Will the MPAA now allow additional content for "appropriate" previews, including language and violence?  As Ms. Minnow argues, you could conceivably go see a movie rated "PG-13" for language and encounter a preview for a movie rated "PG-13" for violence. This could create create a wide range of standards between the old green-band and red-band trailers of the previous regime (perhaps the MPAA should adopt the now-discarded Homeland Security color coding?).  Again, the standards and sensitivities of the individual viewer (and parent) are so subjective. 

I still remember taking my pre-schoolers to see a Pixar film a couple of years ago where they were subjected to previews for the latest "Harry Potter" movie and the "Bratz" movie.  Those are arguably "appropriate" previews because children are the intended audience, but I didn't think they were appropriate for my little ones.

Ultimately, the choice of which previews get placed on movies is left up to the individual theater.  A true solution, then, would be for each theater to post (or provide upon request) a list of previews attached to each movie.  They already have to keep track of what trailers they are showing and typing it up on a neat little piece of paper is hardly a real burden.  Many parents would probably not take advantage of this information, but it would be a welcomed bit of customer service for those that would. 

The bigger problem, as Ms. Minnow points out, is the accessibility of trailers on the internet.  Anybody of any age can go online and watch any trailer.  Trailers can't be matched with "appropriate" content when they're indexed on apple.com/trailers.  But is this really a good argument for the old trailer system versus the new one?  Even under the "all audiences" standard, previews left very little to the imagination in terms of the violence or sexual content that would be found in an upcoming movie.  And "red band" trailers which are supposed to be restricted online are easy to access anyway.  Regardless of how they are rated, kids have the ability to watch the movie trailers they want to watch (and much worse, too).

This brings me back to my original post on this subject:  there's no substitute for a good parent.  Not only should parents be responsible for monitoring their children's use of the Internet, they should be responsible for raising their kids in such a way that they can make appropriate choices for themselves about what to watch, and can process those things they do watch in a healthy way.  No action taken by the MPAA or the FTC is going to do that for you.

This blog has been approved for all audiences

The always volatile issue of ratings for media content is once again in the spotlight.  On August 13, Ted Baehr, founder of the Christian "Movieguide" website, called upon the MPAA to abandon it's "failed" ratings system for movies and replace it with an objective "Code of Decency."  Baehr laments so-called ratings creep that seems to stretch the limits of the "R" and "PG-13" ratings into arbitrary meaninglessness.  He even calls upon readers to sign an online petition that will be submitted to the Federal Trade Commission, presumably so they can investigate and regulate the matter.

But on August 31, the Federal Communications Commission went even further when it released a report to Congress on the effectiveness of parental control technologies which states that the FCC will begin an inquiry into the issue of a universal ratings system that would cover all media platforms, including television, video games, and wireless devices such as cell phones.  Because motion pictures are eventually distributed to televisions and portable devices, such a ratings system would necessarily apply to movies as well.  Members of Congress appear to be open to the idea.

The MPAA, for its part, decided to inadvertently throw some more fuel onto the fire with its unheralded decision to replace its previous green-band system for movie previews.  In short, the previous banner stating that "This preview has been approved for all audiences" has been replaced with "This preview has been approved for appropriate audiences," (emphasis added) which is just all kinds of confusing.

As a parent, I am sympathetic to the frustration here.  I know of people who took their youngsters to see "Land of the Lost" (rated PG-13) following the relatively sensible notion that it was a family film based on the Saturday morning show of their childhood.  What they got instead was Will Ferrell dropping f-bombs.  Quite an education for the kids!  And I myself have cringed at some of the previews that show before children's movies.  There was a period of time when I wouldn't even take my children into the theater until the movie was actually starting because the previews were so unpredictable.  And now my kids are old enough to send me text messages on their mother's phone and to get online to play with their Webkinz, and it just gives me the willies thinking about what lies ahead.

But do we really want to ask the government to solve this problem for us?  I think I can safely say that I have absolutely zero confidence that a federal bureaucracy is going to come up with a standard that matches my own values.  Is the President supposed to appoint a new Czar of Good Taste?  And what about the inevitable enforcement of such a new ratings system?  Are we going to see new civil penalties or criminal penalties?  Oh, I know, the government just wants to make sure parents have tools that they can use.  Uh, no thank you.  I don't want the government having any role to play in making moral judgments about what I choose to watch and what I choose to allow my children to watch.

And honestly, the intrusion is unnecessary.  The current ratings system is certainly flawed, but any new system would also have its flaws.  If nothing else, the current MPAA ratings system at least gives you an idea of who the intended audience is (it seems to mostly function as a marketing tool these days).  It's up to you to decide if you agree with their assessment.  Parents today have plenty of resources to help them discern whether new movies or other media are appropriate.  But it is incumbent upon parents to be proactive in their children's lives -- acting as the filter when kids are very young and teaching them to make wise choices as they grow older.  No amount of hand-holding from Big Brother is going to change the ultimate responsibility of being a parent.  Call me old fashioned, but I tend to think I can do a better job than the government when it comes to deciding what's best for my children.