If you've been playing along with the home edition (or read the earlier entry in this blog) you may recall that I commented on the ongoing radio controversy surrounding the FCC's "indecency" policies, in which they actively refuse to define the standards by which content may be reviewed, graded, censored, or subject to penalties.

Also over in the "vague and arbitrary" column is the MPAA's ratings board, which holds vast authority over films and their composition as shown to the theater-going public (*). A new study out of Harvard's School of Public Health chronicles the problem of "ratings creep." This is a slow change in the level of sex and violence that is permitted in a film of a given rating. This is expected, as society and cultural expectations change; the problem is that it's all opaque and undocumented.

As with other ratings systems that lack defined criteria, there are huge inconsistencies in the system - for example, in the treatment of the depictions of cigarettes, alcohol or drugs. As a content creator, it is difficult to know how to shape your work to reach the audience you want to reach when it has to pass through a murky water of undefined obstacles.

Apparently the MPAA attempts to differentiate such things as "sensuality" from "sexuality" - a farcical effort on the face of it. On the other hand, if someone would like to fund me to conduct some empirical studies...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/14/movies/14MOVI.html

(*) I no longer say "viewing public" because of the prevalence these days of director's cuts, often unrated, that are available for DVD viewing or downloading off your favorite high-speed P2P network.