Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: FRIDAY, February 25, 1994                   TAG: 9402250349
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A10   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

RATINGS

The Dove Foundation, a nonprofit organization that grew out of a Michigan anti-pornography group, publishes a list of movies that its network of reviewers considers wholesome family fare. Its seal on a videocassette does not mean the movie is entertaining, imaginative or worthwhile; it simply means the kids won't see or hear anything in it that the Dove reviewers consider inappropriate for little children - things like nudity and cussing.

The Motion Picture Association of America is leery of such a list, sniffing a faint odor of censorship about any organization that appoints itself to decide what is OK for everybody's children. But, while its passion for preserving artistic freedom is commendable, its criticism of this effort is misplaced.

Movies do often portray moral standards different from many Americans'. Hollywood's answer to those who disapprove has been, "If you don't like it, don't go to see it." What is thought-provoking or entertaining to some may be shocking or offensive to others, and adults have the maturity to decide where to draw the line of acceptability for themselves. And if, after they buy their tickets or rent their video, they find they were mistaken, the movie might offend, but it is not likely to distort a well-established set of values.

Young children are another matter. Parents must try to determine the line of acceptability at the same time their children are being exposed to many outside influences that will shape their sense of right and wrong. It is parents' responsibility to control these influences as best they can. And many parents say they are embarrassed or outraged by some of the content of movies that are marketed to young audiences. If they find their views often diverge with the motion picture association's judgment of what is appropriate for family viewing, is it not sensible to seek guidance from a group more in tune with their own values?

"If you don't like it, don't go to see it" doesn't work when parents are discovering, as they watch a film with a 6-year-old, that it contains things they don't want the child to see or hear.

To follow the advice of a conservative religious group in such matters is not censoring the filmmaker. A film that doesn't make Dove's list doesn't mean it is a rotten film. It means this group with these values doesn't think it's appropriate for a child. Not many adults will make their own movie selections strictly on that criterion.

And many won't follow the criteria for their children, either. They won't be worried by all of the same things as the Dove Foundation. They might be more concerned about a movie that portrays females as passive subordinates than one that has a little girl cussing. They may be far more offended by shoot-outs than by frontal nudity. Or they may object to all of these things when it comes to their children viewing them.

A Dove organization doesn't remove parents' responsibility to figure out what limits they want to set for their children. But it can help like-minded adults make informed decisions about what their kids will see without prescreening every kiddie movie made. This doesn't censor moviemakers. If enough parents disagreed with a filmmaker's standards that their families' absence from the theater seriously affected a movie's profitability, this would have an impact on the boundaries of what is acceptable in children's films. But this is precisely the answer Hollywood gives critics who complain about desensitizing sex and violence: Let the market set the limits. When people don't like it, they won't buy tickets.

That's show biz.