Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

30 Years Of 'Gremlins': How Steven Spielberg Ushered In The Era Of PG-13 Blockbuster Entertainment

Features
by Ben Brock
June 5, 2014 2:27 PM
9 Comments
  • |

Canby conceded that Cates' Santa speech was hilarious, but the damage was done. Steven Spielberg, hero of the middle-American multiplex, was suddenly Steven Spielberg, monster under your kids' beds. That the kids probably loved the movies in question wasn't the point.

Instead of going on the offensive, or going to ground, Spielberg made a cunning move, the kind of cunning move that explains just how he got to be so powerful in the first place: he came out for tougher ratings. Not just in a well-timed interview or a carefully phrased press release: he phoned his good friend Jack Valenti, the head of the MPAA, and suggested a new, tougher rating that would sit between PG and R. As Spielberg said in one interview, "I created the problem and I also supplied the solution ... I invented the rating.” Two months later, “Red Dawn” became the first movie to be released as a PG-13 (nonsensically, “Gremlins” didn't even get re-rated: you could still see it playing as a PG in August of that year, next to the new PG-13s).

PG-13 was a rating that allowed more latitude than the PG—which now essentially denoted a kid's movie—but didn't put the film off-limits to large audiences the way an R did. And it had been created not by outraged moral guardians, but by the filmmaker of the moment, the one who caused the trouble in the first place.

The rest is history. The PG-13 rating was a cash-cow, box-office “hot sauce” (Spielberg's words again): at the time of writing, 9 of the 10 highest-grossing films of all time are PG-13s (it was all 10 until “Frozen” happened). It was the perfect blockbuster rating: you could push the violence and destruction, swear once or twice, suggest some sexy stuff and still pack as many people as possible into the theatre. Win-win.

It was also the end of an era. Suddenly, making weird, kid-friendly, kid-frightening, adult-intriguing films wasn't really possible; the arrival of the new rating had a chilling effect, and a kind of film that had been blossoming in the ‘80s suddenly died, becoming ghettoized as “for kids.” In 1982, Don Bluth's uncanny, unexpected “The Secret of NIMH” had been a box-office success and a critical darling; Bluth ended up working with Spielberg on the much tamer and less interesting “An American Tail” a few years later. The same year as “NIMH,” Jim Henson's “The Dark Crystal” was a weird, eerie all-ages hit; by the time the follow-up “Labyrinth” came around in 1986 no-one was interested, even with David Bowie's crotch doing its best, and the film was a financial failure. “The Never-Ending Story” appeared in theaters a couple of months after “Gremlins” and was met with confusion. Disney panicked and demanded extensive cuts to their “Black Cauldron” project, which would have been their darkest ever film; when it came out in 1985, the censored version was a box-office flop that left behind an intriguing suggestion of a much better, forever-lost piece of work.

Other horror, freed from the burden of worrying about the kids, could be much nastier (although there's also an argument that since PG-13 debuted, more mature films have been watered down to earn the certification). Followers of “Gremlins” like “Critters” are more brutal but lack the keen edge of the bizarre. Great comedy-horror continued to be made throughout the ‘80s—the decade that brought you “An American Werewolf in London” and “Evil Dead 2”—but it was very much for adults.

Those who had worked on “Gremlins” went one way or the other: Chris Columbus had a 1985 kid's hit with the sanitized “The Goonies,” while that same year Spielberg made “The Color Purple,” the first film in his later style of Oscar-friendly, grown-up worthiness.

Dante, meanwhile, has had an odd career, with its share of hits and flops and a consistent off-beat tone that sometimes works, sometimes doesn't. He made the 1990 sequel “Gremlins 2: The New Batch,” which is nastier and significantly less interesting, and 1998's “Small Soldiers”; a film mostly forgotten now unless you happened to be at the precise right age to see it on release. It was marketed weirdly and set off its own argument about violence in children's films, becoming the only Dreamworks release so far to be a PG-13. It's actually a clever little film about violence in kid's films (and with several cheeky “Gremlins” references), but it cost Dante the chance to work in cinema for over a decade. He came back with “The Hole,” which we really wanted to like and basically didn't.

Dante, Spielberg and “Gremlins” created—and if you haven't seen this line coming, you haven't been paying attention—a monster, in the form of the PG-13 rating. “Gremlins” feels almost unique now, the kind of film you wish there was more of—but it's also the reason there aren't any others, a victim of its own grotesque success. But perhaps that's just as it should be: we go back to look for the mysterious Chinese place we rented the VHS from, and it isn't there any more.

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

9 Comments

  • andrew m | June 23, 2014 7:01 PMReply

    This article starts out with an interesting premise, but the entire second page is totally half-baked with a bunch of unfinished thoughts.

  • Curtis | June 22, 2014 9:14 PMReply

    And of course, how can you forget the wonderful "Matinee"?

  • James | June 8, 2014 9:45 AMReply

    How can you, in one article, throw under the rug Labyrinth, The Goonies and Joe Dante?

    And, by the way, the wonderful Looney Tunes: Back in Action was directed by Dante...in 2003!

  • Frank | June 7, 2014 3:42 PMReply

    Gremlins 2 sucks shit. Wacky nonsense that manchild-geeks love for how CRAZY it is. And it is balls out crazy, but that doesn't mean it's actually good. Typical response from geeks.

  • Ferd | June 7, 2014 8:09 PM

    You're an idiot.

  • Dan | June 5, 2014 3:37 PMReply

    "He made the 1990 sequel Gremlins 2: The New Batch, which is nastier and significantly less interesting".

    This is wrong on so many levels.

  • Jon | June 7, 2014 12:47 PM

    As much as I enjoyed this article a ton, I'll have to join in the chorus here. Gremlins 2 is many, many things (probably too many things, actually). "Uninteresting" is certainly not one of them.

  • EW | June 7, 2014 1:38 AM

    So glad to see this is the first comment. Gremlins 2 is awesome, and even if you don't like it calling it uninteresting is pretty bizarre. Almost as bizarre as Gremlins 2.

  • Charles | June 6, 2014 12:35 AM

    Couldn't agree with you more, Dan.

Email Updates