> I was under the impression that movie ratings were getting
> more lenient over time... gradually more and more
> "inappropriate" material seems to be slipping into films
> with lower and lower ratings.

While Ferrick's right about the absence of the PG-13 having a lot to do with the PG rating meaning something different prior to 1984, I think you're right. Planet of the Apes had rear nudity and was rated G in 1968. Logan's Run had full frontal nudity and was rated PG in 1976.

The weird thing is that the opposite thing is happening on the other end of the scale. More than ever, it seems, movies must be cut in order to qualify for the R. American Pie didn't qualify for an R until a certain number of pelvic movements were removed -- yes, somebody somewhere on the ratings board counts these things. The frustrating thing about these cuts is that it doesn't make the material any more suitable for a younger audience. Did putting CGI bodies over key areas of Eyes Wide Shut make this movie about sexual depravity more suitable for children?

In the middle rating, the PG-13 is the confluence of both ends. Spiderman got the same rating as Scary Movie 3 and Austin Powers In Goldmember -- what universe that makes sense in, I don't know, but there are a dozen such pairs of movies every year. One movie gets a PG-13 rating because it contains one usage of one of the harsher swear words, as an expletive and not even as what it really means, and another gets a PG-13 because it contains wall-to-wall innuendo. Why polls still indicate that the MPAA ratings system is helpful to parents, I have no idea.

Fortunately the MPAA has so far not listened to such groups, but I read with increasing frequency about advocacy groups trying to get more stringent rules about the ratings movies get for particular content. Drinking and smoking don't tend to be considered all that much in the ratings, and I really don't think they should be, but there's some advocacy group out there that wants an instant minimum PG-13 if anybody takes a drink on screen, and some other one that wants an instant PG-13 if anybody is shown sucking on a cigarette. The heck? Even if you're concerned about that stuff, doesn't it make more sense to start at PG and *then* work up?

We're moving toward a binary culture. It requires so much less mental effort to label things as "GOOD!" and "BAD!" and knock out the bad half. If it's "GOOD!" your kids can see it. If it's "BAD!" they can't. Expletives are "BAD!" so throw out Quentin Tarantino and Whale Rider. Drinking...well, hmmm, drinking can lead to drunkenness, which can lead to alcoholism, and that's "BAD!", so throw out any instance of drinking, including instances of responsible drinking, because it'll go bad eventually.

I keep thinking we need more ratings, to avoid situations where Whale Rider and Austin Powers keep company, while serious mature works are cut to fit into inappropriate but more saleable rating categories. Create an "A" (adult) rating between R and NC-17, to accommodate mature work while avoiding the unofficial media/theater boycott of the NC-17. Divide up PG-13 into a category that's actually suitable for 13 year olds, and a category that's merely softer than the average R. But I dunno. It seems to me, upon reflection, that we do have all the ratings we need already -- it's just that out of five theoretically viable ratings, we only ever use two of them.