Funny how some things never change.
Check out this lead of a newspaper story I stumbled across the other day: "The wire-thin line that separates movies rated PG and R has been crossed over so many times in both directions that industry observers are questioning whether the rating system carries any validity at all."
Yeah, so what's new, you may be thinking. Well, that's the point.
I was going through some old files when I found this article, which I wrote for the Deseret News 30 years ago, in 1981. And I've been at war with the rating system ever since.
Of course, now the PG would be PG-13 and the movie titles would be different. But otherwise, it could have been written yesterday.
Back then, the question was how "Ordinary People," with a few F-words in a key scene, could carry the same R rating as the extremely profane remake of "The Postman Always Rings Twice," which also has graphic sex and violence, often at the same time.
That 1981 story also questioned the R ratings attached to "Hopscotch" and "The Blues Brothers" because of some F-words, while PGs were given to the extremely violent "Sphinx," "Road Games" and "Lion of the Desert," as well as the comedy "Tribute," which has female nudity; "The Competition," with an explicit sex scene; and "The Idolmaker," which doesn't use the F-word but has wall-to-wall foul language, including every sex-related profanity imaginable.
So here we are in 2011 and the issues are the same, only the names have changed.
Today it's "The King's Speech" and "Win Win" vs. … well, you name it. Those films are rated R for a few F-words, but should they really have the same rating as the "Scream" and "Saw" franchises or "Bridesmaids" and "The Hangover"?
On the other hand, should the very violent vampire yarn "Priest" be rated PG-13? Or "Fast Five," with its enormous body count of both bad guys and cops, along with a surprising amount of sexual dialogue, mostly anatomical wisecracks by the chauvinistic male characters?
Hey, we all love a good action flick, but should kids be seeing the bodies pile up as the hero demonstrates not the least bit of remorse? And in fact, may even make a joke?
We can blame James Bond for starting the cliche of the hero who drops a quip whenever he offs a villain. That was in the 1960s. Fast-forward to the late 1980s, and John McClane of the "Die Hard" flicks is doing the same thing with harsher profanity and more graphic violence, earning an R rating. So it was a real curiosity when the fourth "Die Hard" in 2007 was rated PG-13.
And contemporary killing agents such those in the PG-13 "Salt" and "Bourne" movies also pile up the bodies right and left, and seem equally delighted at their accomplishments.
All of that seems like adult material to me.
Of course, one could argue that it's not a lot different than the shows our parents and grandparents (and great-grandparents) watched in the olden days, as the guys in the white hats shot and killed the guys in the black hats in a steady stream of western, gangster and exotic adventure movies — all of them blood-free (and often black and white) until the 1960s.
Good guys vs. bad guys. It's as old as entertainment itself. Even before movies existed, there was that nasty guy on the stage in the long mustache, threatening to abduct the heroine if she couldn't pay the rent, eventually rescued by the tall, strapping, strong-jawed hero. And the audience hissed and cheered accordingly.
Not all that different today, really. Except that the level of Grand Guignol violence has escalated — especially in R-rated movies.
But it can be pretty gruesome in PG-13s, too. Take "Hanna," for example. I can honestly say I've never seen a PG-13 movie more deserving of an R.
"Hanna" is a young teenage girl who is trained as an assassin, and the bodies not only pile up, but innocent, even compassionate characters bite the dust without anyone giving — even suggesting — a hint of regret.
I don't care how much editing was done to "Hanna" to get the movie-rating committee to see it as a PG-13; it should have received an R. In fact, the filmmakers should have been told, sorry guys, this is an R-rated movie and nothing will make it acceptable for children's viewing.
Setting aside the graphic violence, what about the film's attitude? The first victim of our young heroine is someone sent to her as a decoy, a seemingly innocent woman who shows compassion and concern for Hanna, just before the girl slits her throat.
Later in the film, after Hanna discovers her mistake, it doesn't even seem to register.
And at the end of the film, a kind family that has taken her in — a mother, father and two children — is tortured (off-camera, thankfully), and it is implied that all four are killed.
But it's just a matter-of-fact element of the plot. No sorrow. No grief. No discussion. On to the inevitable one-on-one showdown between hero and chief villain.
Why did the filmmakers even want a PG-13? Clearly this level of remorseless mayhem is adult material.
But then, an awful lot of PG-13 movies contain too much adult material.
Let's face it, the PG-13 rating — which was inserted between the PG and R back in 1984 — has never really been what the label implies. The PG means "parental guidance," and the 13 means if your kid is 13 or older, this movie's just hunky-dory.
Perhaps they simply went in the wrong direction. Instead of a variation on PG, maybe it should have been a variation on R.
R-lite, perhaps?
EMAIL: hicks@desnews.com