Cents and Censorability

“PG-13 Horror”. It’s a US phrase used by a lot of die-hard Horror film fans, mostly in a disparaging manner when describing films such as “The Ring” & “The Grudge” (the US remakes at least), “Drag me to Hell”, and more recent fare such as the “Paranormal Activity” films and “The Woman in Black”. The usual inference here is that any disturbing imagery, shocks, or overt scares are watered-down to enable a larger US audience. In the UK, the nearest equivalent of the PG-13 certificate is the 12A. Famously introduced in 2001, to answer the issues raised by age-straddling films such as “Jurassic Park”, Sam Rami’s “Spiderman”, and actually first used for “The Bourne Identity”, it is the only UK certificate to allow accompanying adults enable the entrance of minors. The question is this: Does the existence of these certificates in the UK and USA have any effect on genre films? Not only on distribution and financial income, but also on the actual production and editing of those films …



Certification

To start with, let’s look at the ratings themselves. The MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) is actually originally a trade association “representing” the six main Hollywood studios. As reviled/accepted as much in USA as the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) is here, many of the independent studios argue that a bias still exists where the main studios are shown leniency where the smaller Indies are not. The ratings are; G (General Audiences), PG (Parental Guidance Suggested/Some material might not be suitable for children), PG-13 (Parents Strongly Cautioned/Some material may be inappropriate for children under the age of 13), R (Restricted/Under 17 not admitted without parent or adult guardian), and NC-17 (No One 17 and Under Admitted).

A number of things are apparent when you compare those to the UK ratings of U, PG, 12, 12A, 15, and 18. We’ll forget about the UK rating of R18, as this is exclusive to pornography … err … or so I’m reliably informed.

Basically, as long as they have understanding parents, it looks like it’s open season for any child to get into any film, unless it is an NC-17. Also, the rating is “voluntary”, so studios are well within their rights to distribute un-rated films. Except … it doesn’t work like that.

Cinema Politics

The formulation of a successful feature film in the USA is a precise art, as far as the major studios are concerned. The target audience has to be identified as soon as production starts. The majority of cinema chains in America will NOT show NC-17 films, and for the best possible profit, will balance their showings with films of certain certificates. It’s already acknowledged by many world-class directors such as Sam Raimi, Rob Zombie, Wes Craven, etc. that an NC-17 rating is the “kiss of death” for a Horror feature. Both “Scream” and “House of 1,000 Corpses” had to be cut and edited to achieve an R rating. The original “Evil Dead” is STILL classed as an NC-17 film in the US.  So a release of an NC-17 movie pretty much guarantees that a modestly budgeted movie will not see a profit in most cases. It needs to be of artistic merit (“Shame”, the movie, not a comment  ...) or just hysterical schlock (“Showgirls”) to garner any attention.



Not only that, there are real divisions in the US cinema audience as far as the 3 main ratings go. If you look at historical top 10s in the US box office, by far the most popular (and financially viable) certificate is the PG-13. R is seen to be the hard-edged horror and thriller niche, and will produce occasional genre hits, but these are few and far between in comparison to PG-13. Even a PG film suffers due to perceptions. The director of Jude Law’s “Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow” received direct feedback that audiences were avoiding the film due to its “childish” PG rating! A recent example is the (somewhat annoying) US box office take of “House at the End of the Street” which is the archetypal version of a PG-13 Horror, with little violence and mostly suggested menace, more concerned with the details of a teenage relationship., which positively slaughtered the takings of the UK R-rated “Dredd”, despite positive reviews of the UK film.

In many cases, although it seems theoretically possible for any age to get into most films, the majority of US film goers will automatically plump their backsides in a PG-13, instead of taking a chance on an R-rated film. I’m sure that there is intrinsically a reason for this. Maybe it’s because a PG-13 is perceived to be more orientated towards a family experience.  Maybe it’s because R-Rated films have a different vibe or are marketed differently in different states. Maybe it’s because I’m a Londoner … that I can’t answer those questions.



We don’t necessarily see that kind of bias (“snobbery” is what I wanted to put) in the UK audience where it’s not that unusual to see 18 and 15 rated films at the top of the Box Office queue, but a form of that sensibility has crept into UK production with the 12A certificate. It is well known that minor cuts were made to the film “Woman in Black” with Daniel Radcliffe to secure a 12A certificate, as oppose to a 15. This apparently consisted of some trimmed scenes and some cut-aways only, but changes were made.



The way that modern studios can diffuse this situation is to appease fans with “unrated” or “uncut” versions of films on the DVD/Blu-Ray release, but this can be viewed as another spin to squeeze more financial rewards out of the product, whether it was planned or not …

It doesn’t really wash though. It does seem to some people that as a filmmaker you have to choose between integrity and stay true to your original vision, or supplicate yourself to the money-providers and try to reach an acceptable middle ground. I’m sure many screenwriters can sympathise with having a devastating violent tour-de-force being turned into a minor spat with teenage heartthrobs.

So what does that mean to Mr & Mrs Horror-Fan, sitting in front of the screen? It’s kind of out of our hands to be honest. With the success of (vaguely) horror connected franchises like “Twilight” and “The Hunger Games” (which let’s be honest is a HUGELY watered-down version of “Battle Royale”, so is an urban horror to an extent), and more teen-based perils like “House at the End of the Street”. The obvious answer is to vote with your tickets, but this doesn’t preclude the perceptions and audience leanings in the USA, and the huge market for a teen audience is always going to be a big factor in the US.

Does that mean that we’re necessarily doomed to a dumbed-down future for the horror genre though? Not really. It only needs another horror hit to come out of the blue. The “Saw” franchise movies for instance were resolutely R-Rated and a hit on both sides of the Atlantic. Despite what I said at the front of this article, all the “Paranormal Activity” movies are rated R, although there is no real gore or violence. Invisible demons will do that to a rating apparently … I was also surprised to find out that “The Last Exorcism” and “The Exorcism of Emily Rose” were rated PG-13. So it’s all a matter of perception really.
To be honest, I think the action-thrillers have a harder time of it than the horror movies. “Taken 2” has just been released in the UK/US markets and the violence has been so toned down and edited, it appears that Neeson uses supernatural or telekinetic powers to kill the bad guys, as oppose to fists and fury! As a movie fan, I find that to be more insulting than teen-orientated horror or minor timing changes in “Woman in Black”.

So yes, marketing issues will always exist and will be impacted by audience figures in America. That’s an unfortunate fact. But history has proven that there is a measurable market for R-rated horror in America, which ensures its survival. It will probably always be outshone at the box office (in the US at least) by “Young Adult” horror, but that’s a matter of numbers and US attitudes more than anything else. In short quality pictures such as “Woman in Black” and franchises like “Paranormal Activity” will ensure that there is room for both areas. Just try to ignore “Twilight” and its ilk, and be vocal in forums, discussions, and reviews when films you care about ARE affected or compromised by rating requirements or studio meddling. At least WE all know that Horror is the most resilient and supported genre amongst our social circles, and we can make ourselves heard.
DS