Stuff You Should Know: SYSK’s Summer Movie Playlist – How the MPAA Works
Hosted by Josh Clark and Chuck Bryant
Release Date: June 27, 2025
Source: iHeartPodcasts

Introduction

In the episode titled "SYSK’s Summer Movie Playlist: How the MPAA Works", Josh Clark and Chuck Bryant delve into the intricacies of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), exploring its history, rating system, criticisms, and its role in the evolving landscape of digital distribution and online piracy. This comprehensive discussion aims to shed light on the often opaque processes that govern movie ratings and their broader implications for the film industry.

Origins and Evolution of the MPAA

Historical Context:

The conversation begins with the historical foundation of the MPAA. Chuck provides a timeline starting from the early 1920s:

Chuck Bryant [07:36]: "It's 1922 Hollywood, and Vine is a viable intersection in Hollywood at the time. Unlike now, although people are going to say no, they built that area back up."

Josh and Chuck explain that the MPAA was established as a self-regulatory body to prevent local censorship and ensure that Hollywood could maintain control over film content, thereby safeguarding their commercial interests.

The Hays Code Era:

Will Hays, the first president of the MPAA, introduced the Hays Code in the 1930s, imposing stringent guidelines on film content:

Chuck Bryant [08:19]: "He installed the Hays Code and said, 'You're either going to pass or fail. It's either going to be stamped immoral or moral.'"

The Hays Code enforced moral standards, restricting themes like government criticism, explicit sexuality, and clear-cut distinctions between good and evil. This self-policing mechanism was designed to avoid inconsistent local obscenity laws that could disrupt film distribution.

Transition to the Rating System

Loosening Restrictions and the Birth of PG-13:

Post-World War II, societal norms began to shift, leading to more relaxed attitudes towards film content. Notably, in 1984, Steven Spielberg played a pivotal role in the creation of the PG-13 rating:

Chuck Bryant [06:28]: "PG13 is now the strike zone... it caters to young teenage boys who apparently are the most successful at getting girls to go to movies with them."

Spielberg's films, "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" and "Gremlins", received backlash for content deemed unsuitable for a PG rating. Urging the MPAA to create an intermediate rating, the result was the introduction of PG-13, which has since become the most commercially successful rating.

Establishment of Current Ratings:

By 2014, the rating system included:

• G (General Audience): Suitable for all ages.
• PG (Parental Guidance): Some material may not be suitable for children.
• PG-13: Parents strongly cautioned; some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.
• R (Restricted): Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian.
• NC-17: No one 17 and under admitted.

Chuck and Josh discuss how these ratings serve as guidelines rather than enforceable laws, emphasizing that theaters often require MPAA ratings for screening purposes.

The MPAA Rating Process

Role of the Classification and Rating Administration (CARA):

The MPAA’s rating decisions are made by CARA, a committee responsible for evaluating films based on their content. Chuck outlines the process:

Chuck Bryant [20:02]: "CARA doesn't say whether your movie stinks or not. CARA is 8 to 13 people, and they are called raiders, and they are overseen by a senior raider."

These raiders, purportedly representing the average American parent, watch films in private sessions, making notes on potentially offensive content. The decisions are notoriously secretive, with no disclosure of individual raider identities or detailed reasons for specific ratings.

Lack of Transparency and Accountability:

A major criticism highlighted is the clandestine nature of the rating process. Doug mentions how the documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" by Kirby Dick uncovered discrepancies between MPAA claims and actual raider qualifications:

Chuck Bryant [22:16]: "Kirby Dick tailed these people… found these anonymous people did not fall into the requirements the MPAA said they did."

This revelation suggested that raiders often did not align with the stipulated demographics, casting doubt on the integrity and representativeness of the rating system.

Criticisms of the MPAA

Subjectivity and Inconsistency:

Josh and Chuck argue that the MPAA’s rating system is highly subjective, leading to inconsistent ratings:

Chuck Bryant [43:27]: "A movie like 'Philomena' was rated R while 'Hostel 2' received the same rating, despite vastly different content."

They emphasize that movies with minimal or no violence can receive restrictive ratings due to language or sexual content, while PG-13 films often contain substantial violence.

Bias and Conflict of Interest:

The MPAA’s representation of six major Hollywood studios raises concerns about bias, especially towards mainstream and major studio films over independent or foreign productions. This monopolistic influence potentially hampers diverse storytelling and equitable rating practices.

Manipulation by Filmmakers:

Filmmakers sometimes exploit the lack of standardized criteria by inserting gratuitous content to distract raiders, intending to excise such segments in the final cut without affecting the overall rating. This tactic undermines the rating system’s credibility.

Chuck Bryant [39:53]: "Filmmakers intentionally putting in things they never intend to keep… to distract from other elements."

Marketing and Ethical Concerns:

The introduction of "Check the Box" labels, brief descriptors accompanying ratings, is criticized as disingenuous marketing aimed at appealing to younger audiences without substantial regulatory oversight.

Josh Clark [37:51]: "It's like brief nudity. Come see it. PG13. Check it out, kid."

This approach is seen as contradictory to the MPAA’s purported role in protecting children, as it simultaneously markets to them.

Impact of Digital Distribution and Online Piracy

Erosion of MPAA’s Influence:

With the rise of digital platforms and online piracy, the MPAA’s traditional control over film distribution is diminishing. Josh and Chuck discuss how the MPAA’s attempts to combat piracy are becoming increasingly ineffective:

Josh Clark [32:26]: "The MPAA is needed more than ever because they have to lobby Congress to fight online piracy… it's a losing battle."

Legislative Efforts:

The MPAA has successfully lobbied for laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which criminalizes unauthorized sharing of copyrighted material. However, the advent of streaming and peer-to-peer networks continues to challenge these efforts.

Shifts in Distribution Models:

As theatrical releases face competition from streaming services, the MPAA’s rating system’s relevance is questioned. Films bypassing theaters for digital releases challenge the de facto necessity of MPAA ratings, potentially reducing their impact on film distribution.

The Appeals Process

Opaque and Unsuccessful:

The traditional appeals process for contested ratings is shrouded in secrecy and has historically been ineffective. Even after documentary revelations, the process remains closed:

Chuck Bryant [25:13]: "When you were appealing, you couldn't reference any other film. It was totally done in a vacuum."

This lack of transparency prevents filmmakers from understanding or addressing the specific reasons behind rating decisions, fostering frustration and mistrust.

Case Studies and Examples

Inconsistent Ratings:

Josh and Chuck cite several examples illustrating the MPAA’s inconsistent rating assignments:

• Rushmore (1998): Rated R for minor content elements that did not align with its minimal actual explicit content.
• Affliction (1997): Rated R due to brief profanity despite its dramatic narrative.
• Blue is the Warmest Color (2013): Received NC-17 for a teenage lesbian love story with minimal explicit content.
• "Philomena" vs. "Hostel 2": A heartfelt drama versus torture horror film both rated R, highlighting inconsiderate inconsistency.

Impact on Film Success:

The restrictive NC-17 rating, as seen with Henry & June (not to be confused with Benny & Joon), can severely hinder a film’s commercial performance due to limited theater screenings and audience accessibility.

Future of the MPAA

Declining Relevance:

With the shift towards digital viewing and the weakening of traditional distribution channels, the MPAA's leverage is diminishing. The hosts speculate on the organization’s future amidst increasing public scrutiny and the evolving media landscape.

Calls for Reform:

There is a growing demand for greater transparency and accountability within the MPAA. Filmmakers and critics alike advocate for an open rating process, clearer guidelines, and reduced bias to restore faith in the classification system.

Conclusion

Josh Clark and Chuck Bryant provide an in-depth exploration of the MPAA, uncovering its historical roots, operational mechanics, and the multifaceted criticisms it faces today. The episode underscores the need for reform within the MPAA to address its subjective and opaque rating processes, especially in the face of digital transformation and shifting consumer behaviors. For listeners seeking a deeper understanding of how movie ratings impact both the industry and audience perceptions, this episode serves as a valuable resource.

Notable Quotes

• Chuck Bryant [06:28]: "PG13 is now the strike zone... it caters to young teenage boys who apparently are the most successful at getting girls to go to movies with them."
• Chuck Bryant [22:16]: "Kirby Dick tailed these people… found these anonymous people did not fall into the requirements the MPAA said they did."
• Josh Clark [37:51]: "It's like brief nudity. Come see it. PG13. Check it out, kid."

Further Resources

• Documentary: "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" by Kirby Dick
• Blogs:
  • Brain Stuff by Chris (referenced for discussions on X ratings)
  • Stuff of Genius by Josh Clark

Listeners are encouraged to explore these resources for a more comprehensive understanding of the MPAA’s rating system and its broader implications on the film industry.