PG film designation might be undergoing some ratings creep

After seeing "Marley & Me," with its skinny-dipping, canoodling, postpartum depression, stabbing of a young neighbor (serious but not fatal) and tear-soaked ending, Jim Judy was taken aback by the PG rating.
"I was shocked it wasn't PG-13, which, I've heard, is the same reaction from many parents who took their kids," said Judy, who runs the screenit.com Web site for parents looking for details about movie content and merit.
"I think the biggest issue is that it was marketed as a family-friendly holiday film about a mischievous dog and turned out to be something a lot more complex than that."
That may be why it's grossed nearly $140 million, but it's also a sign that more movies are arriving in theaters with a PG rating and that the classification might be undergoing some ratings creep.
In 2004, the Harvard School of Public Health released a study that found more violence than a decade earlier in PG and PG-13 movies, more sexual content in PG, PG-13 and R films, plus more profanity in PG-13 and R releases.
Now, PG seems to have become an even bigger and more desirable umbrella, given recent movies such as "New in Town," "Inkheart," "Paul Blart: Mall Cop," "Bride Wars" and "Marley & Me," and two that opened Friday, "Coraline" and "The Pink Panther 2."
Judy, for instance, was surprised by the violence in the Kevin James mall-cop comedy. "Had it been in the bumbling-'Home Alone'-crooks mode, that would have been one thing, but shooting at the hero with real guns (and the intent to kill) in a PG film?" he asked.
The Motion Picture Association of America, however, insists there has been no loosening of standards.
"The PG rating hasn't changed; it's the same criteria as it's been for some time now," spokeswoman Elizabeth Kaltman said. In 2007, there were 105 movies rated PG and in 2008 there were 107, and it's obviously too early for 2009 stats.
"The key to the PG is that parents need to use guidance, that we need them to use the descriptors, read the descriptors. The descriptors provide reasons why it was given the rating it was, what they should be looking out for, what they're cautioned about," Kaltman said.
The descriptor for "Marley & Me" is PG for "thematic material, some suggestive content and language."
If that detail is not included or legible in an ad, parents can find it at www.mpaa.org, where they also can register for free e-mail updates called Red Carpet Ratings Service.
"PG urges parents to use guidance," Kaltman said. "PG-13 urges parents to be strongly cautioned and to learn more about elements of the film that might give them pause, that might make them decide that this one isn't appropriate for their children."
Neil Gaiman recently has been answering questions about the animated movie "Coraline," based on his novel about an 11-year-old girl who discovers a secret passageway in her house to a near-identical world with her "other" mother and father. Its PG rating is for "thematic elements, scary images, some language and suggestive humor."
That last one must be for the buxom, aging actress who wears sparkly pasties and a bikini bottom -- before she unzips her lumpy body to reveal a younger, prettier, thinner version of herself.
Gaiman said that he has been asked if the movie is too creepy.
"If you have a kid who can cope with Disney's 'Snow White,' they will have no problems with 'Coraline.' It's just the same amount of scary, possibly less brutal than that."
The animated film "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs," adapted from "Grimm's Fairy Tales" and first released in 1938, featured a wicked queen who sends for a huntsman, orders him to take Snow White into the forest and kill her.
"With something like 'Coraline,' you're trying to write a book that adults will enjoy. You're trying to write a book that kids will enjoy," said Gaiman, whose novel "Stardust" was turned into a movie and whose Newbery Medal-winning "The Graveyard Book" is bound for the big screen, too.
Box-office expert Paul Dergarabedian from hollywood.com agrees that PG is the new PG-13 in terms of its growing appeal, acceptance and potential for ratings creep.
He credits the 2001 blockbuster "Shrek" with removing the stigma. "It was just so great, it sort of bridged that gap where parents could enjoy it as much as the kids. That really kind of ushered in the era of the cool PG movie," Dergarabedian said.

(Barbara Vancheri can be reached at bvancheri(at)post-gazette.com.)

(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.scrippsnews.com.)
Must credit Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The problem with Coraline is

The problem with Coraline is that Neil Gaiman was raised a Scientologist. Scientologists have disturbing belief systems about emotional tone scales, for example not expressing grief or being accountable for the things they do.

Gaiman was raised a Scientologist, meaning he went through countless auditing sessions hooked to electrodes. His movies and books are disturbing to children because they have no ethical core, they are just black holes full of his own pain.... in the case of Coraline; evil twin parents with "Button Eyes," a Scientology term.

Neil Gaiman still funds the dangerous cult of Scientology. All over the web you will find the following information printed in Scientology magazines..

"Neil Gaiman and his family are “Patrons with Honors” of Scientology for 2004 & 2006, (meaning they have funded the cult to the tune of $100,000.00.) Neil Gaiman and family are also “Founding US Patrons" (denoting they have taken a life long oath to support the cult). Patrons are the highest ranking membership - of the International Association of Scientologists of which Gaiman is a part."

These are the facts. Gaiman is a nutty, card-carrying member of the Scientology cult and a buck for Gaiman is a buck for Scientology.

Ahem. The above post is not

Ahem. The above post is not truthful.

It is true Neil Gaiman's parents were prominent Scientologists who raised him in the cult. However, there is little or no evidence that Neil himself is involved. He refuses to comment directly on this, but frequently states that he has no religious beliefs. Gaiman is also close friends with some prominent and outspoken critics of Scientology, Penn Jillette and Alan Moore, something that would not normally be allowed for a practicing Scientologist. It's likely that his refusal to outright deny membership is due to not wanting to be "disconnected" from his family members who are still in the cult.

In any case, the above post's comments about Gaiman's writing are clear outright lies. The idea that his work has no ethical core is ludicrous - ethical ideas come through quite strongly in his work - and the idea of anyone describing Anansi Boys or Good Omens or, yes, Coraline as "black holes of pain" is absurd as well. And there are plenty of children who love his works and don't find them disturbing at all.

Furthermore, a google search on "button eyes scientology" turns up nothing about buttons or button eyes being scientology jargon, so I'm skeptical of this as well.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
zero + = one
Solve this math question and enter the solution with digits. E.g. for "two plus four = ?" enter "6".