The studios jointly fund the MPAA, the indie critics point out, and the ratings panel knows better than to bite the hands that feed it.
When reviewers and parents complained in the summer of 1984 that the Steven Spielberg productions, "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" and "Gremlins" were too violent to merit their PG ratings, the MPAA responded by creating a new rating — the hard-to-read PG-13.
The MPAA knew better than to give R ratings to the Spielberg and George Lucas money-spinners, so they came up with a weak compromise that has confused and angered parents ever since.
The line between PG-13 and R fare is utterly baffling when it comes to major studio releases.
Last weekend's biggest financial hit — the atrocious Will Smith vehicle "Hancock" — has so much profanity in it that I don't know how the movie could have earned a PG-13.
No, the dreaded F-word is not used in "Hancock," but other raunchy terms are used incessantly in this tale of a broken down Los Angeles super-hero who lives on the street.
According to a story in The Philadelphia Inquirer last week, "Hancock" received an R rating when it was first screened for the MPAA several weeks ago.
Of course, as the newspaper story notes, "Sony expected (a PG-13) for its big summer release."
Director Peter
A seven-letter expletive that begins with A is used throughout the picture by the title character.
What really grates on my nerves, however, is the frequency with which kid characters use the same word in response to Hancock's slobby behavior.
Moviemakers and TV producers have long thought it "cute" to feature wised-up kiddies cursing like sailors, but this doesn't make it any easier for parents to win the battle against foul language in their own homes.
"They say that in PG-13 movies!," the little dears can now argue in their own defense.
Font Resize
![Quantcast](http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-18RwvsI7rqyEk.gif?labels=ConnecticutPost"){kind=small}