The controversy over Facing the Giants — the Christian football movie that received a PG rating (gasp!) for its “thematic elements” (double gasp!) — is now officially out of control.
On June 21, the Los Angeles Times reported that the MPAA had received over 15,000 e-mails protesting the film’s PG rating during the previous week alone — a figure that may be ten times bigger than any previous reaction to a ratings decision.
And now the federal government’s throwing its weight around. Republican House Majority Whip Roy Blunt wrote a letter to MPAA chairman and CEO Dan Glickman, in which he stated, “This incident raises the disquieting possibility that MPAA considers exposure to Christian themes more dangerous for children than exposure to gratuitous sex and mindless violence.”
Of course, that’s a pretty ignorant remark; as I noted here two weeks ago, PG-rated films are actually pretty rare, and gratuitous sex and mindless violence almost always get at least a PG-13.
Yesterday, the Associated Press reported that Blunt and others had a meeting with the MPAA, and came away unsatisfied:
After meeting with MPAA officials, Blunt and a handful of other House members said they remain concerned about the subjective native of the ratings process.
“I’m not satisfied,” said Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., who attended the meeting with Blunt. “We probably will want to revisit this ratings process to have some commonality in the standards that exist for movies, videos and video games.”
Blackburn said she wants the House Energy and Commerce Committee to hold hearings on the issue later this year.
Blunt also brought up a recent study by the Harvard School of Public Health that found that the MPAA standards on sex and violence in movies have been getting weaker.
“Mr. Blunt does continue to have questions about the process by which `Facing the Giants’ was rated and what that says about ratings creep in general,” spokeswoman Burson Taylor said Friday.
Well, sure, there might very well be a lot of stuff in PG-13 movies these days that might have once earned an R. (Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho, first released in 1960, was rated the equivalent of PG in 1968, then re-rated R in 1984 — right around the time the PG-13 was invented.) On the other hand, it seems to me that the MPAA has been getting stricter with at least some forms of violence.
In the early days of the ratings system, virtually every movie that showed a crucifixion was rated G, even if it had other forms of violence, too; the list includes Ben-Hur (a 1959 film re-issued in 1969), The Greatest Story Ever Told (a 1965 film re-issued in 1972), Godspell (1973), The Gospel Road (1973), even the controversial and slightly drug-addled Jesus Christ Superstar (1973). Apparently the religious content made it all okay.
So, religion and evangelization no longer get a free pass. And I can’t say I have a problem with that — especially since there is no practical difference between the G, PG and PG-13 ratings anyway. Kids can still buy tickets to any of those films without adult accompaniment, and without doing anything sneaky.
What makes this whole kerfuffle even stupider is that all the key players agree that the movie should be rated PG for other reasons anyway. The Hill reports that Kris Fuhr, vice president of marketing for Provident, the firm that made Facing the Giants, “expected a PG rating because of other parts of the story but was surprised when the MPAA ratings board brought up the religious themes.” And the MPAA has, indeed, been pointing to those other story elements — infertility, etc. — in defense of its decision.
But Facing the Giants director/star Alex Kendrick seems to think Christianity should still get special treatment. ABC News says:
Some say the MPAA should warn parents whether a film has overtly religious overtones. One of the filmmakers said he’d want to be warned if his children were going to see a film with a pro-Islamic message.
“But our country wasn’t founded on Islamic values,” Kendrick said. “It was founded on Judeo-Christian values.”
Personally, I can sympathize with Kendrick’s desire to see PG ratings on films that are designed to persuade my children to adopt religious beliefs other than the beliefs that I am raising them with at home. But, gee, is it really so hard to see that this principle ought to be applied evenly, and fairly, across the board?
Oh, and I love the irony pointed out by James Evans in his column on the hubbub for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
Don Wildmon, founder of the American Family Association, attacked the rating as a direct assault on the faith. Wildmon’s group distributed an e-message under the headline, “MPAA places Christianity in same category as sex, violence, profanity.” In the message Wildmon accuses the MPAA of telling parents that the film is “objectionable.”
Unfortunately, that’s not the truth. The PG rating is designed to alert parents that certain themes or ideas may not be appropriate for children. It says nothing about teenagers over the age of 13 (presumably a target audience for a film about high school football). All the PG rating does is say to parents, “You might want to look at this before allowing your child to view it.”
Isn’t that what Christian groups are always telling parents to do? In fact, isn’t that precisely what the American Family Association does every week with its bulletins about what’s objectionable on television? The PG rating is not an indictment on Christianity. It is merely a flag for parents of children to be sure they know what’s going on.
Yeah, exactly. Methinks it’s high time everyone just chilled out.