HSPH Finds Movies More Violent

Violence, sex and profanity in movies increased significantly from 1992 to 2003, according to a new study by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH).

The study, published in the July 13 issue of the journal “Medscape General Medicine,” found that a decade of “ratings creep” has made it more difficult for parents to know if a film contains graphic content they wouldn’t want their children to see.

The study also suggested that the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), which assigns the G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17 ratings, has relaxed its standards.

“The MPAA appears to tolerate increasingly more extreme content in any given age-based rating category over time,” the study said. “Movies with the same rating can differ significantly in the amount and type of potentially objectionable content. Age-based ratings alone do not provide good information about the depiction of violence, sex, profanity and other content.”

Kimberly Thompson, associate professor of risk analysis and decision science at HSPH and co-author of the study, said that while the MPAA rating “does provide some insight into the film content,” parents “need to be calibrated with what’s in films today.”

“If they’re basing their expectations for what’s in a PG-13 film on their experience from a decade or so ago then they’re in for some surprises and they may not realize how much their kids are seeing,” Thompson said.

In a telephone interview with The Crimson yesterday, MPAA President and CEO Jack Valenti called the study “deeply flawed” and assailed the study’s proposal that a standardized, universal rating system be used for movies, television, video games and music.

“The question I would ask of the Harvard study group is, ‘Has the society changed in the last 15 years? Are we the same kind of society with the same acceptability bar that existed 15 years ago?’” said Valenti, who developed the rating system in November 1968.

“I think the Harvard study is deeply flawed because it assumes that the ’20s, the ’30s, the ’40s, the ’50s, the ’60s, the ’70s, the ’80s, the ’90s and the 21st century are all the same, and they’re not,” he said.

Thompson and former HSPH researcher Fumie Yokota compared MPAA ratings and rating reasons for 1,906 films released between Jan. 1, 1992 and Dec. 31, 2003 with information about movie content from two independent resources, Kids-in-Mind and Screen It!

The research team discovered that over the 11-year period violence and sex increased in PG movies; violence, sex and profanity increased in PG-13 movies; sex and profanity increased in R-rated movies; and more violence appeared in animated G-rated movies than in non-animated G-rated movies.

The study indicated that the 1994 movie The Santa Clause, which earned a PG rating, had less violence and sex than the 2002 G-rated The Santa Clause 2. The 1994 film Forrest Gump showed less violence and sex than 2002’s Minority Report, though both received a high-end PG-13 rating. The study concluded that today’s PG-13 movies might have been given R ratings in 1992.

Cambridge resident Todd Townshend, who went to see Fahrenheit 9/11 at the Loews Harvard Square theater on Wednesday, said he thought movie ratings had “gotten softer over the years.”

“I think a lot of that has to do with the introduction of the PG-13 rating [in 1984] and now a lot of movies that used to get an R rating get PG-13,” he said. “Ratings are incredibly skewed toward sexual content and a lot less stringent toward violent content, which I don’t agree with.”

Aside from violent and sexually explicit content, the study found that smoking, which is not a criterion for MPAA rating, appeared in 79 percent of films while 93 percent of films had instances of alcohol, tobacco or drug use, including 51 percent of G-rated movies.

“Parents must recognize their responsibility in choosing appropriate films with and for their children, and in discussing the messages in films with children to mediate any potential adverse effects and reinforce any potential beneficial effects,” the study said.

Valenti pointed to the success of the 1969 X-rated film Midnight Cowboy, which won the Academy Award for best picture, as evidence that perceptions about how much violence and sex should be shown on screen are always changing.

“What was considered to be grossly offensive in 1969 is less offensive today because of what’s going on in the media,” he said. “For example, what you see on television today is quite a bit different from what you saw 15 years ago.”

Valenti said it would be impossible for one rating body to review all forms of media.

“If the Harvard group had really studied this with the depth that I and others have, they couldn’t have recommended that,” he said. “There’s about 2,200 hours of television time [per day]. In one year, we will rate 600 pictures, 2 hours apiece—that’s 1,200 hours.”

The MPAA can review that many hours of film, Valenti said, but it is “logistically impossible” to rate the hundreds of thousands of hours of television programming each year.

Thompson said such a system was possible and that “clearly there could be a board set up with representatives from all of the existing boards that would create standards and ensure their consistent implementation.”

Dan Glickman, director of Harvard’s Institute of Politics, will succeed the 82-year-old Valenti when he steps down from his MPAA post on Sept. 1. Reached by telephone in Washington, Glickman said he has not yet read the study.

When asked if he has considered expanding or completely overhauling the MPAA ratings system, Glickman said, “I am in a steep learning curve right now so I’m not thinking of reevaluating anything in this job [or doing anything] except learning about it right now.”

Thompson, creator and director of the Kids Risk Project at HSPH, said she hopes the results of the study bring the attention of parents and physicians to the role that media play in the lives of children.

“Kids today spend more time consuming media and learning from them than they spend in school,” she said. “Given the media as teachers, I think it’s very important to understand the messages in media and to encourage parents to talk with their kids.”

—Brittany Darwell and Joshua Fleer contributed to the reporting of this story.

—Staff writer Andrew C. Esensten can be reached at esenst@fas.harvard.edu.