The woman who decides what movies you get to see

Graves also implicitly acknowledges the longstanding complaint that the board is friendlier to studio films than to indie films by suggesting that the studios are better at gaming the system because they have full-time liaisons in place to deal with the board. She does say, however, that the board is now more likely to talk directly to the filmmakers than to go through a studio intermediary, so that's a positive step.

Another interesting tidbit: Graves notes that people in different parts of the country find different types of content objectionable. Left unasked and unanswered: how, then, are its content recommendations useful to the whole country? And how does a group do justice to the geographic diversity of the nation when all its members presumably come from southern California?

The ratings board, as Graves describes it, is all about the judgment of the parents who are its members, and that judgment is sometimes fallible, she implies, citing herself as an example. Her now-grown daughter told her her life had been "ruined" because Graves let her watch Poltergeist (pictured) as a child. Not sure how this anecdote helps her case: it suggests that either the judgment of the board is questionable, or else that its recommendations to parents are useless if parents disregard them.

Tell us, PopWatchers, how do you think the current ratings system could be improved? Do you know of anyone who was scarred for life by seeing an inappropriate movie as a child?

*Funny side note: Graves is so notoriously press-shy that Los Angeles Times movie columnist Patrick Goldstein was astonished to learn that the Stanford mag reporter who scooped him with the Graves "get" was... his own wife.

DISCLAIMER: This posting was submitted by a user of the site not from The Insider editorial staff. All users have acknowledged and agreed that the submission of their story and its contents is in compliance with our Terms of Use.