PG? NC-17? She made such calls for 30 years

SHERMAN OAKS, Calif. — Joan Graves, 77, has seen enough sex on screen for five lifetimes. New and inventive ways to kill people? Don’t get her started. She has spent decades accessing off-color humor, deciding what constitutes glamorized smoking and counting instances of the F-word.

Only once, she said, has a horror movie been so violent that one of her employees lost consciousness. Paramedics arrived and hauled the staffer away on a stretcher.

Graves is Hollywood’s ratings czarina. For 30 years, she has watched movies — at least 12,500, she figures — and assigned grades of G to NC-17 so parents can make decisions about what is appropriate viewing for children. For 18 of those years Graves has served as the ratings system’s chairwoman, sparring with boundary-pushing filmmakers who call her too prudish, and, at the same time, defending her process to activists and parents who deem her grades too permissive.

But her reign is ending. The Motion Picture Association of America said on Nov. 15 that Graves would retire by the end of the year, to be succeeded by Kelly McMahon, 45, an MPAA lawyer with a 7-year-old son. “I decided it was time, if only because it doesn’t look good to have a granny in charge,” Graves said in her no-nonsense way. “I can tell you honestly, though, I still love movies. That has never gone away.”

Graves, who studied political science at Stanford University and started out as a stockbroker, was recruited by the Motion Picture Association in 1988, when her youngest daughter was 9. The organization was looking for someone “sensible,” she said.

Charles H. Rivkin, the Motion Picture Association’s chairman and chief executive, called her an “institution” whose contributions to film ratings are “immeasurable.” For directors and studios, her decisions have carried enormous business implications: The difference between ratings — PG-13 versus R, or even G versus PG — can mean millions of dollars in ticket sales.

But not everyone in Hollywood is a fan, including the Oscar-nominated documentarian Kirby Dick, who made an entire movie in 2006, “This Film Is Not Yet Rated,” about the ratings system. In an email Thursday, Dick blamed Graves for, among other things, allowing “films with excessive violence to be rated PG-13, resulting in tens of millions of children being exposed to traumatizing violent imagery.”

Consider this her exit interview. Over scrambled eggs at a cafe near her office in suburban Los Angeles, Graves spoke of her most challenging moments on the job, the rating she now believes she got wrong, and images she can’t unsee. These are edited excerpts from the conversation.

A: During the really horrible movies, I often find myself wondering, “Who gave them money to make this?” There have been times when I have felt worn down — when directors try to outdo each other with sadistic stuff. Did we really need that 15-minute rape scene? But then not long after will come a film that is intriguing and well written and restores your love.

A: I shouldn’t say no, because then they’d try.

A: Harvey Weinstein was a great frustration. The last run-in I had with him was on a movie about a transgender character. He floated out to the news media that we gave it an R because of the transgender story line. That was not at all the case. It was an R for ubiquitous language — the F-word throughout.

Harvey routinely preyed on our policy of treating each film like an attorney would a client: We give the rating and the descriptor and do not publicly discuss our internal deliberations. He would use that to his advantage to create controversy and get attention for his product.

A: “Cars 2.” We rated it G and from all the feedback we realized PG would have been more suitable.

A: Studios want the rating they think will be most commercial. It’s almost as if they throw in a “hell” or a “damn” just to get a PG.

A: One year, not too far back, practically every picture seemed to have someone urinating on the side of the road. Right now, having a conversation while sitting on the toilet is big. One year, everyone was throwing up. I think it’s young filmmakers thinking: “Oh, that’s cool. I’ll do that too.”

A: When I first started, we still had the X rating. There were still a good number of theaters playing double X and triple X films. So we had to watch those — and the rules state that we have to watch the whole movie, so we do. I still have some images in my head from that period that I’d love to get rid of.

A: “Byzantine” was your word. That’s a pet peeve, as long as I’m being candid. Our process is laid out right there on our website.

A: A senior rater announces the tally and leads a discussion. Was the vote a slam dunk or was it wishy-washy? They discuss the content and form the ratings descriptor on the spot.

Submitters are then informed of the rating. Many times they will say: “We agree with your assessment of the ratings, but we don’t want to market it that way. We want to edit it to get another rating.” At that point, the senior rater can tell them — not as an industry professional, but as a parent — what led to the rating. Was it the shot to the head with the blood on the wall? Then they can edit and submit it again if they want.

A: When I first became a rater, I thought, “Well, I’ll do this for three months, and then I’ll have to get a real job.”

A: On my first day I rated three, and one starred Ben Kingsley and was set on a Greek island. That’s all I remember. The last one was yesterday, and, to tell you the truth, I can’t remember its name, either. I can wipe my brain clean afterward, which is actually helpful — one analysis doesn’t bleed into another.