Arts & Entertainment
Sixty-eight years ago in the South of France, the 517th Parachute Regimental Combat Team of the Allied Forces in WWII jumped out of an airplane and landed in the history books.
Movie ratings are meant to help people make easy decisions about what they see. But that decision has become anything but easy—all too often, families are left wondering if the rating actually reflects what's in the movie. Does the MPAA need to revisit its standards? I remember going to see my first PG movie by myself. I was staying with my grandma, and my cousin and I went to see D2: The Mighty Ducks. At some point my grandma found out we were going to see it, and she asked us why we weren’t going with an adult. “It’s PG,” I said, matter-of-factly, trusting my almost 10-year-old status as clearly old enough to attend alone.
“That doesn’t mean anything,” she said.
In the years since, I’ve realized how right she was. Rarely a movie will be rated too harshly; for the most part, it skews the other way, with movies being increasingly loose with their ratings. I still remember when the number of f-words that a PG-13 movie could have changed from one to three (in As Good As It Gets). Jamie Lawson, our managing editor, told me once how she took her boys to see Marley and Me and was shocked at the sexual content of that PG movie. And my husband frequently refers to Liam Neeson’s Taken as the rawest PG-13 movie he’s ever seen. Simply put: you really can’t trust a movie rating, and with sliding standards, you can’t really trust the MPAA.
So should the MPAA revisit its standards?
It’s almost a rhetorical question. Yes, of course it should. The fact remains that non-R-rated movies make more money than other movies, and by taking a stand and rating movies more harshly, the folks at the MPAA could hit Hollywood where it hurts and encourage them to cut out some of the garbage.
Mormon race car driver Ab Jenkins set tons of land racing records on his beloved Utah Salt Flats with famous Mormon Meteor race car. Watch this exclusive video clip from the new documentary, Boys of Bonneville.
It seems we can't function in life without our various technological devices, but they carry a lot of dangers and responsibility as well. When and how much can kids handle?
Growing up, the most advanced technology I had was a Super Nintendo that my mother begrudgingly allowed us to have, only after realizing we were using our friends for their video games and constantly asking to go to Toys 'R' Us solely so we could play on the demo video game consoles.
Today, the world is a bit different, and my younger siblings who still live at home have iPod touches that connect to the Internet, handheld video game consoles that do the same, and a cell phone for the elder one. Again, my parents delayed as long as possible before finally relenting this past Christmas.
The traditional rules I grew up with--no computers in the bedroom, no TV on Sundays--become blurry when an mp3 player can be used as both. And the statistics of how much time kids spend on these devices are staggering. Where do the boundaries lie? What age do you think is appropriate for kids to have such devices, and what restrictions (if any) do you put on them?