Take that, Jack Valenti: A study released by UCLA this morning reveals that one in five PG-rated films have more quantitative violence than the average film rated PG-13 - and one in 10 PG films have more violence than the average film rated R. Theresa Webb, a co-author of the study, said that their findings suggest that the current ratings system is "the weakest of all indicators" that a parent could possibly use for determining the age-appropriateness of any given film. The study, which will appear in the May issue of medical journal Pediatrics, concluded that  that the system should be reformed to "determine the frequency and seriousness of the violent acts, the frequency and types of problematic language use, the frequency and graphicness of sexual representations."

Here at Cinematical, we're all for anything that aims to take Valenti down a notch, but there's one aspect of the study that we find a little curious: all of the 100 films studied by Webb and friends were released in 1994. Is it really the best idea to use eleven-year-old evidence to argue that a system is broken today?
categories Cinematical