The release of this past weekend’s fourth entry in the Final Destination series not only thrilled gore-loving audiences with body parts exploding in their faces, but also once again brought up the curious categorization of none other than the MPAA, who rightfully graced the film with an R-rating for “strong violent/gruesome accidents, language and a scene of sexuality.” The accidents part was especially interesting given their rating of The Knowing earlier this year, wherein some far less cartoonish, but equally as horrific accident scenes garnered the film a more family-friendly PG-13 for “disaster sequences, disturbing images and brief strong language.” Sensing as good a time as any to take some time to delve deeper into the MPAA rabbit hole, All Movie has decided to republish Jeremy Wheeler and Perry Seibert’s analysis of the group’s uneven work over the last few years. Read on to find out how the MPAA has described the work of directors as diverse as Tim Burton, David Cronenberg, and action-meister Jan de Bont.

(article originally published on September 6, 2006)

Starting in the early ‘90s, the MPAA began providing specific explanations for their ratings of movies. Instead of being a straightforward description of a film’s content, these reasons occasionally indicate how the members of the ratings board feel about sex and violence. And sometimes, they are just downright hilarious. Though their wording has improved through the years, it’s still fun to look back at their judicious rulings of movies gone by.

The ratings board exists primarily to ensure that there will not be any federal, state, or local censorship of movies. Seeing as this is their primary goal, it can be argued that the organization has been a smashing success. For years, the films submitted for the board would get their rating and then be shipped out to the marketplace. At the beginning of the ’90s, however, the ratings board began supplying explanations for their ratings in an attempt to alert consumers and parents. While in theory this is a reasonable goal, they have made no attempts to standardize their descriptions. Because of this, there is a gray area that occasionally allows for confounding, humorous, and occasionally useless explanations. Here is a look at how the MPAA has attempted to communicate instances of violence, sex, and swearing, as well as a list of our ten favorite funny explanations.

VIOLENCE

It’s widely known that the MPAA is far more lenient on violence than it is for sexual matters. However, their different categorizations run the gamut of absurdity when put alongside each other. Everything from “biological and action violence” for the snooze-inducing robot-runs-amok opus Virus can be found here, as well as such shining staples as “frontier violence” (Geronimo: An American Legend), “commando violence” (Behind Enemy Lines), “prizefight violence” (Knockout), “psychopathic violence” (True Crime), and yes, even “zombie violence” for 1993’s My Boyfriend’s Back, which additionally garnered a PG-13 for “a teen sex fantasy and some language” — thus making it sound like one of the best films Disney’s ever released (it’s not). The board can also be downright redundant, as is the case with “shark-related violence” for 2000’s Shark (not to be confused with the Burt Reynolds/Sam Fuller snorer) as well as “shark attacks” for Shark Attack 2. “Graphic violence including some scenes of dental torture” is also a favorite, this one stemming from Corbin Bernsen’s triumphant return in the slasher sequel The Dentist II. Politics are also used as a catalyst for ratings, as demonstrated with In the Name of the Father’s “politically generated violence,” not to mention Bopha!’s PG-13 rating for “apartheid-driven violence,” which no doubt aided countless parents when their kids begged to see a Danny Glover message movie. On certain occasions, the board has even gone so far as to state not only the type of violence, but also how much of it exists within the film. The 3 Ninjas Knuckle Up rating for “non-stop ninja action” comes directly to mind, as does Fist of the North Star’s legendary “continuous brutal and gory violence” assessment.

SEX

Sex has always been a tricky subject for the MPAA. The more cut-and-dry examples usually involve comedies. The Brady Bunch Movie got a PG-13 for “racy innuendos,” while Cops and Robbersons picked up just a PG in part for “some comic nudity.” Sometimes they get flowery with their language, such as when they explain Wayne’s World 2 as earning a PG-13 “for ribald humor.” There are also helpful descriptions of more mature subject matter such as The Boys Club R rating “for violence including a scene of sexual intimidation, language, and some nude pinups.” But for every clear statement such as that, there are just as many problematic explanations. The problem gets stickier when the ratings board feels the need to make value judgments about the acts depicted. Since they are obviously reluctant to describe specifically whatever act they may feel the need to warn parents about, they are led to vague, moralistic decrees such as Dark Backward’s R for “brief scenes of bizarre, comic sensuality.” One of the most egregious examples of this is the description for the R rating for Visitor Q — “strong ‘aberrant’ sexual and violent content, language, and drug use.” Why do they feel the need to put “aberrant” in quotes? Since the members of the ratings board are anonymous, how do we have any idea what their idea of “aberrant” is? The Comfort of Strangers gets an R for “obsessive pervasive sexuality.” Are they saying that the characters are obsessive? The director? Occasionally, this value judgment crashes head-on with the comic aspects of sexuality, leading to It’s Pat’s PG-13 for “bizarre gender-related humor.” All these examples show why very often the MPAA fails in its attempts to be a helpful consumer guide.

LANGUAGE

While the identities of the MPAA board are blanketed by strict anonymity, rumor has it that most of the members are middle-aged and beyond, which makes sense when one studies their attitude toward language in movies. As with the sex and violence ratings, their phrasing cannot be beat, as evidenced in the dual “salty language and innuendo” reasons for Grumpier Old Men and the following year’s geriatric laugher My Fellow Americans. The board has also stamped phrases such as “barnyard humor” onto light family comedy fare such as Sissy Spacek’s Trading Mom. They’ve also developed a tendency to convey to audiences just how much language is in a certain film, with phrases ranging from “plentiful strong language” for [AMGID=P 9838]Steve Buscemi[/AMGID]’s Trees Lounge to “momentary language” for That’s the Way I Like It, and the vague classic “lots of language” for the similarly titled I Like It Like That. Famed British director Ken Russell was even hit with a PG-13 rating for “one use of strong language” from his psychic biographical drama Mindbender, possibly for the inclusion of the dreaded F-word — which the MPAA has continually cursed for its vulgar nature despite its astonishing versatility within the English language.

The ratings board falls back on the same wordings so often that any deviation from the usual terminology can actually produce more questions than answers. For example, D3: The Mighty Ducks earned a PG in part for “some hockey rough-housing.” Why classify it as “hockey” rough-housing? Is that better or worse than regular old rough-housing? Hard to tell since that is the only use of that phrase we were able to find. Sticks and Stones was given a PG-13 “for irresponsible gun use, vicious bullying, and crude language.” Is irresponsible gun use worse than regular, responsible gun use? Class of Nuke ‘Em High 2: Subhumanoid Meltdown offers one of the very few cases where a film was given an R rating in part for “grossness.” Some directors produce work that the ratings board is obviously uncomfortable with, even though they can’t quite define why. That leads to situations like Tim Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory getting a PG partly for “quirky situations,” and David Cronenberg’s Naked Lunch earning an R for “bizarre eroticism.”

And now, the Top 10 funniest MPAA explanations:

10. Mother’s Boys (1994)
“Rated R for language and for a mother’s sociopathic behavior”

9. Indian in the Cupboard (1995)
“PG for mild language and brief video images of violence and sexy dancing”

8. All I Wanna Do (1998)
“PG-13 for teen sex-related material, language, and substance misuse”

7. The Hunted (1997)
“R for strong bloody ninja violence and a humorous drug related scene”

6. War of the Buttons (1994)
“PG for mischievous conflict, some mild language, and bare bottoms”

5. Alien vs. Predator (2004)
“PG-13 for violence, language, horror images, slime, and gore”

4. Skateboard Kid 2 (1995)
“PG for brief mild language and an adolescent punch in the nose”

3. Bushwhacked (1997)
“PG for language and a mild birds and bees discussion”

2. Twister (1996)
“PG-13 for intense depiction of very bad weather”

1. Jefferson in Paris (1995)
“PG-13 for mature theme, some images of violence, and a bawdy puppet show”