EntertainmentLAW & FINANCE Volume 26 Number 11 • February 2011 The Art of Appealing MPAA Film Ratings By Alan R. Friedman “arthouse” film intended for people over submit their films for rating in order to the age of 18 may suffer if it receives an R avoid difficulties that arise in the market- variety of ingredients go into the rating, even though the target audience is ing and distribution of unrated films. success or failure of a motion not foreclosed by its rating. This problem The specific ratings that the MPAA may A picture. Without a screenplay that is magnified if a movie receives an NC- assign are G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17. Al- works, it is hard for a motion picture to 17 rating. Not only does the NC-17 rat- though disagreements over the rating as- do well. Similarly, the budget, the director, ing signify the presence of more intense, signed to a movie can arise with any rat- the actors and the subject matter are all potentially offensive content in the film, ing more restrictive than G, most disputes factors that can contribute significantly to but also NC-17 rated movies are more that result in formal rating challenges in- a movie’s performance at the box office. difficult to market and exhibit than less volve movies that receive an R or NC-17 So, too, do the size and effectiveness of a restrictively rated movies. For example, rating. Accordingly, this article focuses on film’s marketing and publicity campaign. television ads generally cannot be shown those ratings and the PG-13 rating that a One other factor of great importance before 10:00 p.m., print advertising is distributor may believe should have been is the rating that the Classification and harder to place and some exhibitors are issued to an R rated movie. Ratings Administration (CARA) of the reluctant to show NC-17 rated movies. Under the MPAA’s Rating Rules: Motion Picture Association of America In recent months, there have been sev- • An NC-17 rated movie is one that the (MPAA) assigns to a film. eral rating-appeal decisions. This article raters believe “most parents would It is no surprise that the more restric- addresses the steps available to filmmak- consider patently too adult for their tive the rating, the narrower the audience ers and distributors when a film they plan children 17 and under.” Such a rat- eligible to see the film. A film rated “NC- to release receives a rating they believe is ing “can be based on violence, sex, 17,” meaning that no one under the age overly restrictive. While an unwanted rat- aberrational behavior, drug abuse or of 17 can attend it, or “R,” so that anyone ing cannot always be avoided, there are any other element that most parents under the age of 17 must be accompa- steps that can be taken to try to change would consider too strong and there- nied by a parent or guardian, will be lim- the rating. fore off limits for viewing by their ited to a smaller pool of potential movie- HOW T H E RATINGS WO R K children.” goers than less restrictively rated movies. The rating assigned to a motion picture • R rated movies are movies that “con- Even some adults who may be interested is not meant to be a critique of its qual- tain some adult material” including in a film’s subject matter, actors or direc- ity, but rather is supposed to reflect what “adult themes, adult activity, hard tor nonetheless will not see a film if it is the MPAA’s film raters believe a majority language, intense or persistent vio- rated “R” because they anticipate that it of American parents would think is ap- lence, sexually oriented nudity, drug will contain scenes or language that they propriate for the film. See, Classification abuse or other elements ….” would find offensive or more intense than and Rating Rules, effective as revised Jan. • A PG-13 rated movie “may go beyond they are comfortable seeing. Thus, an 1, 2010, p. 16. Virtually all feature-length the PG rating in theme, violence, nu- films that are intended to be theatrically dity, sensuality, language, adult activ- Alan R. Friedman is a member of the released in the United States are rated by ities or other elements, but does not law firm of Katten Muchin Rosenman the MPAA. All movies distributed by the reach the restricted R category.” For ex- LLP, in its Entertainment and Media and member companies of the MPAA — i.e., ample, showing any drug use or more Litigation practice groups. He has an ex- the major film distributors Disney, Para- than brief nudity requires at least a tensive entertainment law practice and mount, Sony Pictures, Twentieth Century PG-13 rating; movies that include “de- is a member of the Bar of the States of Fox, Universal and Warner Bros. (and their pictions of violence … but generally New York and California. He argued subsidiaries) — must be rated under the not both realistic and extreme or per- the appeal of Blue Valentine along with MPAA rules. Further, while non-member sistent violence” may be rated PG-13; The Weinstein Company Co-Chairman, companies are not required to have their and with very limited exceptions, more Harvey Weinstein. He can be reached films rated, “independent” film companies than a single use of “one of the harsh- at [email protected], or — e.g., The Weinstein Company, Lionsgate er sexually-derived words” requires an 212-940-8516. and Summit Entertainment — regularly R rating. LJN’s Entertainment Law And Finance February 2011 When a film is completed, the producer members of NATO companies and three In my experience, the most convincing or distributor may submit it to CARA to be must be members of MPAA companies), way to present these elements is to have rated. After viewing the completed film, CARA tries to impanel a 15-person Ap- an actor, director or other creative person one of CARA’s “senior raters” will advise peals Board for each appeal. involved in the production or distribu- the producer/distributor of the rating as- In my experience, however, it is rare tion of the movie explain the creative im- signed to the film and specific explanations to have a full 15-person Appeals Board, portance of the scenes at issue, and then for the rating. If the producer/distributor and far more common to have between have an attorney apply the standards es- would prefer a less-restrictive rating, they 12 and 14 panelists. This is significant. Be- tablished in the Rules to the “facts.” may edit the film to address the rating rea- cause the filmmaker/distributor must win Because the Appeal Boards panelists sons provided by CARA and resubmit the at least two-thirds of the votes to prevail are all involved in some manner in the film with the hope that the rating will be on an appeal, for panels that have 12, 13 movie business, they are seasoned mov- lowered based on the changes. This pro- or 14 members, the appellant can only iegoers who will want to know why the cess, together with an ongoing dialogue lose four votes in order to succeed on the filmmaker believes that the scenes at issue with CARA’s raters, can be repeated over appeal. As a result, there is only a down- are important to the film. Having this part and over in an attempt to obtain a less re- side to having a 13th or 14th panelist, as of the argument come from a filmmaker, strictive rating. they represent additional votes that must actor or an experienced producer adds to Sometimes, however, the initial rating be won, since losing 5 votes of an appeal the force and credibility of the explana- cannot easily be addressed by editing, panel of 12, 13 or 14 panelists will, in each tion offered. The filmmaker can explain or the edits required would cut elements case, result in an unsuccessful appeal. how the scene was shot in a manner that of the film that the filmmaker/distribu- In addition to needing at least two- makes awarding a less-restrictive rating tor view as essential. Other times, the thirds of the vote, the standard to win a appear more reasonable. For example, filmmaker/distributor may decide, after vote is high. The Rules provide that the if the rating arose from a sex scene, the having made edits but not succeeding in Appeals Board members are to consider filmmaker can explain that he intention- lowering the rating, that additional edits whether “the majority of American par- ally restricted the amount of nudity, made would require changing features of the ents would believe that a less restrictive the scene shorter than it otherwise would film that they are unwilling to sacrifice. rating should have been assigned to the have been, cut between the two actors to In those instances, there is one further motion picture” and “may vote to over- take away from the “reality” of the scene, avenue open to attempt to change the rat- turn the rating of the motion picture only etc. Similarly, if the rating had to do with ing: Accept the undesirable rating, file an if they believe that the rating assigned by the degree of violence, the filmmaker can appeal, and demonstrate that a rating er- the Ratings Board was clearly erroneous explain, e.g., how he or she limited the ror was committed. ….” See, Classification and Rating Rules, number of stabbings, cut away so that the TH E APPEAL PR OCESS p.