Want an Oscar? An 'R' revs up your chances
By Michael MedvedIf you had to make a choice, which dream of Hollywood glory would you indulge?
For most of the important people who work in the movie industry, the selection is easy, a no-brainer. To them, Oscar gold looks even more appealing than the Fort Knox variety.
Commercial success may mean money, but big stars and top producers already have more than enough money to satisfy their wants and needs. On the other hand, victory at the Academy Awards - the annual Oscar ceremony is this Sunday signifies the respect of peers and recognition of their seriousness as cinematic artists. It also helps to provide more creative freedom and independence for future projects while, as a lucky bonus, giving them the chance to charge higher fees.
For the great majority of creative people, the delicious combination of esteem and enrichment beats pure cash every time.
This fundamental truth about the motion picture industry helps to explain the startling results of a major study released at the beginning of this year that explores the relationship between a film's rating by the Motion Picture Association of America and its profitability.
The Dove Foundation of Grand Rapids, Mich., asked Kagan; Media Appraisals, a top Hollywood consulting firm, to analyze the return on in-vestment of every film released nationwide between 1988 and 1997. The resulting study of 2,380 films revealed a consistent and unmistakable public preference for family fare. In fact, the average G-rated film generated eight times greater profit than the average R-rated film, though R-rated films remained 17 times more common than their G-rated counterparts.
Since the Motion Picture Association of America introduced the movie ratings system in 1968, nearly 60% of all films released by Hollywood received the R rating even though in the last 10 years PG-13 drew a 35% better return on investment than R, PG performed 40% better, and the few G-rated titles earned a staggering 78% better return on investment than R-rated titles.
No one Who pays any attention to the business side of "show business" should be in any way surprised by these results. In my controversial, much-debated 1992 best seller, Hollywood vs. America, I presented abundant evidence that family films, on average, perform better at the domestic box office than so-called "mature" entertainment.
This new study shows that the same pattern applies to revenue earned in international markets, video distribution and TV rights, when measured against initial production costs. The universal preference' for G and. PG offerings is easy to understand. As movie pioneer Samuel Goldwyn perceptively declared, "'It is better to sell four tickets than two."
Why then, do the big studios continue to concentrate on adults-only material?
A quick glance at this year's Academy Awards nominations easily answers the question: Of the five films nominated for best picture, four (Saving Private Ryan, The Thin Red Line, Elizabeth and Shakespeare in Love) proudly carry the R rating. The fifth film, Life is Beautiful, is a PG-13 title set in a Nazi death camp. Other key nominees (best actor candidates Nick Nolte in Affliction, Ian McKellen in Gods and Monsters and Edward Norton in American History X) appeared in little-seen, stubbornly uncommercial and unequivocally R-rated "cutting edge" material. Films for adult audiences may not rake in the big bucks, but they disproportionately draw industry acclaim and critical endorsement.
Like all notoriously insecure creative artists, movie people crave - and need that sort of substantive validation from their colleagues. Who can forget Sally Field's gushing declaration of 1984, on winning her second Oscar (for Places in the Heart): 'You like me! You really like me!" she burbled in amazement, treating the bald, gold statuette she had just won as far more persuasive evidence of affection, than the generous acting fee she had, received.
When aspiring young talent emerges from film school, these Tinsel Town wannabes never fantasize about someday creating wholesome, wildly successful family fare like The Lion King or Mr. Holland's, Opus. Instead, they hope to emulate "artistic" filmmakers like Martin (GoodFellas) Scorsese" or Woody Allen -- despite the fact that such admired artists seldom (or never) turn out big-time moneymakers.
Contrary to the cliche', it's not pure greed that drives Hollywood's emphasis on gore, vulgarity and gratuitous sex. Statistics, new and old, show that the public welcomes less-disturbing (and sometimes less-challenging) alternatives. This means that petition campaigns and even boycotts will achieve very limited success, since the big studios already work against their own financial sell-interest by defying heartland sensibilities with their emphasis on R-rated entertainment.
The only way to change the industry is to alter its fundamental idea of what constitutes worthy and admirable work. Changing Hollywood's creative culture, celebrated so gaudily each year at Oscar time, will make more long-term difference than minor adjustments in corporate balance sheets.
Film critic Michael Medved hosts a daily radio show syndicated across America and is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.