Does the G in PG stand for God?

June 21, 2006 By

ftgmovieposterfinaltweakTwo weeks ago, I wrote a little column for Scripps Howard about a little movie called Facing the Giants that seems to have started a little controversy. I have given up trying to predict when people are going to react to a column. You know?

Anyway, I’ve been on a radio show or two and done interviews with Variety and the Los Angeles Times (more on that in a moment). I don’t want to replay the whole mini-drama, but the news hook is that the Motion Picture Association of America has given this ultra-low-budget film — which comes from a Southern Baptist congregation in Albany, Ga. — a PG rating because it contains “thematic elements” that might trouble some parents.

Ah, but what are the troubling thematic elements? Here is what I wrote:

“What the MPAA said is that the movie contained strong ‘thematic elements’ that might disturb some parents,” said Kris Fuhr, vice president for marketing at Provident Films, which is owned by Sony BMG. Provident plans to open the film next fall in 380 theaters nationwide with the help of Samuel Goldwyn Films, which has worked with indie movies like “The Squid and the Whale.”

Which “thematic elements” earned this squeaky-clean movie its PG?

“Facing the Giants” is too evangelistic.

The MPAA, noted Fuhr, tends to offer cryptic explanations for its ratings. In this case, she was told that it “decided that the movie was heavily laden with messages from one religion and that this might offend people from other religions. It’s important that they used the word ‘proselytizing’ when they talked about giving this movie a PG. … It is kind of interesting that faith has joined that list of deadly sins that the MPAA board wants to warn parents to worry about.”

Now, according to a story by Jim Puzzanghera of the Times, the MPAA has been swamped in emails — 15,000 or so — protesting this rating. That’s 10 times the previous record and, sure enough, this mini-revolt has even spread to Capitol Hill, where there are people who know a good fundraising letter headline when they see one.

… (The) third-ranking House Republican has written to MPAA Chief Executive Dan Glickman demanding answers.

“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,” said Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.).

The MPAA rarely discusses its decisions about ratings, electing to work in a cloud of mystery. This is, I think, a strange way of doing business in the age of the Internet and all of its helpful niche reference materials. However, Puzzanghera did get a response.

Joan Graves, chairwoman of the MPAA’s rating board, said Tuesday that the decision had nothing to do with Christianity but was based on football violence as well as the inclusion of mature topics such as depression and infertility. In a rare interview granted in an attempt to defuse what she calls a controversy born of miscommunication, Graves said that although infertility and depression are involved in the coach’s “crisis of faith,” the religious story line itself did not raise a red flag.

“If we see somebody on the screen practicing their faith and indicating they have a faith, that’s not something we PG,” Graves said. …

“We think our rating is correct,” she said of “Facing the Giants.” “I think it gives parents an alert that there may be something in the film they’d want to know about.”

cast granttaylorFrankly, I think the PG rating is fine, if the MPAA is going to be consistent. If the goal is to warn parents about movies that contain scenes that may offend a sizable number of modern Americans, then Facing the Giants should get a PG rating. There are tons of secular and liberal people out there who, if they wandered into a theater without a warning, would be very offended by this movie’s in-your-face evangelistic content.

So when Puzzanghera and others have asked me what I think of this application of the PG rating, I have tried to give them a three-part answer. (1) I think the rating is appropriate. (2) I agree that there are legions of parents, some of them with lawyers, who would be offended by the pro-Jesus material in the film. However, I also think that (3) the MPAA now faces the challenge — if it wants to be consistent — of applying this standard to other films.

But that is a big “if.” Will other world religions be considered equally offensive? Vague environmental pantheism, perhaps? How about political viewpoints that would offend many parents? If the MPAA is worried about offending blue-zip-code parents, will it also strive to protect the children of red-zip-code parents?

I think that’s an interesting story and, you know, I may just have to write that one myself. So far, other journalists have not been very interested in that angle. Maybe my three-part answer is too nuanced for a headline or a sound bite. You think? It doesn’t work on religious talk radio and it also flopped with the Los Angeles Times. I’ll let you know what Variety ends up running.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Evangelicals, Film, Journalism, Pop Culture
About TMatt

Terry Mattingly directs the Washington Journalism Center at the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. He writes a weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service.

  • Stephen A.

    Environmental pantheism? Yes, and also Buddhism and Wicca should all get the “PG” stamped on them for “evangelizing.”

    By the way, what did Al Gore’s gorefest of a film get awarded by this organization? PG, for “mild thematic elements.” Frankly, scaring the, um, bejesus, out of little children (let alone adults) especially when it’s hysterical nonsense, should get a PG-13, at least, for its obvious evangelistic Crusading.

  • paddyo’

    I think a key question here is still left unanswered:
    Fuhr of Provident Films told you “she was told” that proselytizing was quite specifically the reason for the PG rating.
    Graves of MPAA tells the LAT that religion and evangelizing had exactly NOTHING to do with it.

    So let’s close the loop here. Get Fuhr to elaborate or respond. I’m still left wondering what MPAA’s reason really was — and whom to believe . . .

  • http://filmchatblog.blogspot.com Peter T Chattaway

    FWIW, I mentioned at my blog last week that I wasn’t really sure why this was a news story in the first place. It would seem that nearly every Billy Graham film that has ever been submitted for a rating has received a PG — the only exceptions being Caught (1986), which was rated PG-13 reportedly for drug content, and Joni (1979) and Two a Penny (1969), which were rated G (and I find that rating very odd in the latter film’s case, since it contains some fairly mature material — but the ratings system was very new at the time, and these sorts of things were very much in flux).

    And ever since the MPAA began spelling out the reasons for its ratings in the mid-1990s, “thematic material” and “thematic elements” have been listed among the reasons for the Billy Graham movies’ PG ratings; and in at least one film’s case, it was the only reason offered. So it would seem the MPAA is already being consistent.

    FWIW, Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth was rated PG “for mild thematic elements,” too. Does that address the question of consistency across blue and red zip codes?

    Speaking of the ratings system being in flux, it is fascinating to see how Jesus movies were typically rated G in the 1970s — even despite the violence of the flogging and the crucifixion and, in the case of Jesus Christ Superstar (1973), the drug content — while in recent years, movies like The Gospel of John (2003) and King of Kings (1961, re-issued on DVD in 2004) have been rated PG-13 for their violence and crucifixions. The Passion (2004), of course, was a hard-earned R.

    Come to think of it, when elements of Campus Crusade’s G-rated Jesus (1979) were re-edited into The Story of Jesus for Children (2005), that film was rated PG “for some violent and thematic elements.” So the children’s version would seem to require more parental guidance than the grown-up version. And hey, there’s that phrase again!

  • Michael

    Since controversy sells seats, especially to viewers who see themselves as victims, I’ve been suspicious of the studio’s suggestion for quite awhile. It’s the perfect way to raise attention. Say the MPAA says X, when you know that the MPAA won’t comment. It’s a perfect PR ploy that can’t be disproved or proved and writers love these kinds of stories because they write themselves.

    Maybe that’s why your nuanced approach is falling flat, you are ruining an easy story with substance.

  • tmatt

    paddyo:

    There were multiple people involved in those initial talks with the MPAA, but only one could go on the record. They all said they heard the same thing (and were surprised, frankly).

    Bottom line: Why can’t the MPAA issue some kind of small, crisp public explanation of its rating decisions?

  • tmatt

    Michael:

    The LA Times story includes both points of view and it is still very clear that something happened in those talks — some form, as the board now says, of miscommunication. Like I told the Times, I just think the MPAA’s “mystery” approach is the worst of the options. Then again, if they announce their reasons they may be asked to defend them. It is interesting that the MPAA did not accuse the Southern Baptists and the studios — plural — involved in this interesting film coalition of lying.

  • Pingback: Camassia

  • c.tower

    The MPAA is notorious for it’s secretive, and frequently contradictory, ratings.(It’s a provable fact that they’ve been harder on horror movies than equally violent action movies, for instance). But the REAL dirty little secret is it’s apparent bias in favour of bigger budgetted, “studio” movies over low budget, “Independant” films.(Of course, the MPAA is a VOLUNTARY ratings system, and films in the past have avoided it completely and been released WITHOUT ratings… but recieved very limited distribution and promotion because of of the “stigma” attached to “unrated” movies, which are regarded as de facto “porn”).The MPAA is rapidly becoming irrelevant in the age of home video, cable tv, and the Internet; a little incident like this seems like a defensive overeaction…

  • Pingback: A Mighty Rushing Wind - The Revival Blog » Facing the Cultural Giants

  • Tim

    You expect a live action film about football to get a G rating? come on… “Daddy what’s infertility?”

  • jason

    Oh Please. You are not the first people to complain that the MPAA uses a subjective standard, because it is a subjective standard. You just think that Christians should get a special break because there is nothing even inately offensive about your lifestyle or your beliefs.

    The issue isn’t whether it would “offend a sizable number of modern Americans.” That’s a straw man. The issue is whether it is appropriate for a general audience. Are fertility and depression appropriate topics for a six year old? Some parents would say no. Is football violence appropriate for all children? Some parents would say no.

    You would like this to be about religion, but it’s not. I find it remarkable in this day in age how Christians still view themselves a persecuted minority.

    Your bullying tactics and transparent appeals to pluralism and majority rule grew tiresome back during the Last Temptation Of Christ. Now. You’re just annoying brats.

  • tmatt

    JASON:

    Who are you talking to? I agree with the PG rating.

  • Rob

    If you dig into the facts here, you’ll find that the producers of Facing the Giants expected to get the PG rating. That was no surprise to them. They even wanted a PG for the very reason brought out in interviews, many people ignore a G rated film. But the film does deal with some mature themes, infertility, drepression, adults plotting against others, loyalties strained, etc.

    The thing that supposedly surprised the producers was a communication from the MPAA that gave one of the reasons for the rating as strong Christian themes, with the word ‘proselytizing’ attached to that communication. This is the true story here. I’ve been in communication with the producers and they are not unhappy with the rating. It’s what they expected and what they desired. Most “Christian” films receive a PG rating since most deal with mature issues like drug abuse, spousal abuse, extreme depression, etc. So they expected to get the PG. They just didn’t think that a Christian film with Christian themes would be included in the reasons behind it.

    It’s really been the media and others who have blown this way out of proportion and the film makers and Sony/Provident Films will use it as much as they can! I say, go for it!

  • Mark

    Terry,

    You allowed yourself to be used by a publicity flack. You should have known better. Your column got picked up by Scripps and presented as if its a news story. Your sourcing was sloppy to begin with (one flack who made unsubstantiated and unprovable claims), but conveniently the red-meat rightwing noise machine/blogosphere ran with it as if it was all proven fact. Fox laundered the source of the “prothseletizing” claims by attributing them directly to the MPAA rather than the studio flack, FoF predictably chimes in, and then we witness the sad and sorry spectacle of pandering politicians jumping on the “poor persecuted Christians” bandwagon instead of doing the nation’s ACTUAL business.

    Rob, in your 6-28 comment, your glib “go for it!’ comment is deeply disturbing for its suggestion that people of Christian values should cynically perpetuate the lies and distortions that were planted in the media by the publicist and which were uncritically repeated by Terry in his column.