The "G-$pot"

It has been more than a decade, by my recollection, since noted film critic and nationally-syndicated radio talk show host Michael Medved pointed out in his book Hollywood vs. America the novel fact that G-rated movies are far more profitable to Hollywood studios than PG, PG-13, and R-rated cinemetic fare, and yet supposedly greedy filmmakers continue to churn out anti-family drek in gross disproportion.

Well, as the old saying goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same:

A study commissioned by a group that encourages the production of family-friendly movies found that G-rated movies are more profitable than R-rated films, yet far more of the racier films get made.

The study, released Tuesday by The Dove Foundation, showed that the average G-rated flick was 11 times more profitable than its R-rated counterpart, but the film industry made more than 12 times as many R-rated as G-rated movies from 1989-2003.

Wow, I had forgotten just how disproportionate this pecuniary dissonance really is. And it doesn't smell any better by approaching the numbers from a different angle, either:

Slightly more than half, or 51.4%, of the releases received an R rating from the Motion Picture Association of America. The next-most-popular ratings category was PG-13 at 28.4%, followed by PG at 16.1% and G at 4.1%.

While the average G-rated movie earned a $79 million profit, the average R-rated film was $6.9 million in the black, the study said.

An average film with a PG rating was more profitable ($28.3 million) than a PG-13-rated one ($23.5 million).

I can just see the lefty objections gestating - G-rated films are cheaper to make (that's debatable) and they don't typically boast big-name stars and the big-name paydays that come with them. But that really begs the question. If star power enhances a film's revenue potential, wouldn't that same principle apply just as readily to family-friendly material? Hollywood did exist before pop culture's descent into schlock and titillation, after all. Big-name stars of the '30s, '40s, '50s, and '60s didn't have to get naked or drop F-bombs or dismember people or romanticize moral reprehensibility in order to make names for themselves - or make a comfortable living. They simply made good films that general audiences could enjoy.

What that truism underscores is that contemporary Hollywoodies don't produce violence and salaciousness and cinematic extended middle fingers at "Middle America" because they have to, but because they choose to. Studios forego more G-rated cash cows in order to make "cultural statements." Indeed, what family-appropriate fare they do make can be said to serve the purpose of subsidizing the remainder that is so calculatedly hostile to it.

Here's a case where "following the money" will only get you lost.

"Basically, what we're pointing out is, what is considered to be conventional wisdom in Hollywood does not hold up when you look at the actual profitability and compare it with what the people want," said Dick Rolfe, founder and chairman of the Grand Rapids-based organization.

That's because the actual conventional wisdom is pure, undiluted arrogant disdain. Hollywood knows what the people want, and they're going to keep shoving it down our throats for as long as it takes for us to realize and acknowledge it - even if they go broke in the process.

Guess that's the price of safeguarding "artistic freedom."

Do you want to say, "Th-Th-Th-Th-Th-Th-Th-Th-That's all, folks!" or shall I?