I’m not much of a moviegoer, but our four children are. This past weekend, before looking at the movie listings in the Herald-Zeitung, one of our daughters and a friend asked whether they could go to the movie theater.

Her room was clean and the chores done, so the answer was yes. But with the parental ban on R-rated movies, Lauren and her girlfriend said not much was left to watch so they opted to rent a video instead.

That caused me to speculate to myself about the number of R-rated movies. Are there more now than ever before?

Then a few days later, the answer was in the "Wall Street Journal."

The answer is yes.

According to the Motion Picture Association of America, the number of R-rated movies is up more than 25 percent since 1993.

In 1999,468 films had an R-rating, which meant that nearly 7 of 10 films last year were R-rated.

So, one would believe then that the number of R-rated films would be a result of a market-driven, profit-seeking movie industry Apparently not.

A study conducted by an economist at the University of California-Irvine indicates that a PG-rated film is twice as likely to gross $25 million than an Rrated movie. Researcher Arthur De Vany claims that the average gross revenue for a PG movie is three times more than an R-rated movie.

Yet since 1993, the number of PG-rated films has dropped by more than a third.

Here’s another statistic that leaves a parent scratching his or her head. Reportedly, only one of the top 20 highest-grossing films ever produced by Hollywood was R-rated. Half of the biggest revenue-generating movies were either G or PG-rated.

So if Hollywood can make more money by producing wholesome, family-oriented movies, then why is it turning out the violence/sex-oriented movies at an ever-increasing rate?

One might argue that the rating system is unfair or not a good measurement of the quality of a movie.

I admit to a bias. I enjoy a good Western. And usually, this genre of movie has some violence. I would argue that the depiction of violence in the pursuit of justice or in the protection of family, country and home is acceptable. And, because of that, I might argue that depicting someone standing up against evil, even if it meant giving someone a serious thumping, might be just fine in a family-oriented film.

But violence for violence’s sake is stupid, whether it be in real life or in a

movie.

If a movie’s plot revolves around a dead body count, or the number of bare breasts a viewer can see, then what is the point, especially when it usually makes less money?

Maybe it’s because many of the people in the movie industry cannot relate to heroes and heroines whose stories can inspire us. Some critics say that today’s screenwriters and producers just lack talent and must rely on cheap enhancements such as violence and sex. Others, who are probably the same ones who believe the black helicopters are following them, believe that it is an insidious conspiracy to undermine the morals of our country.

I think the explanation is less sinister. Themes and plots that revolve around family, devotion, patriotism and courage of convictions are just too foreign of concepts for most screenwriters and movie producers to understand and depict.

Maybe it’s not a lack of talent but a lack of personal dignity and industry standards that results in such an embarrassing number of tasteless movies. Either way, it’s a shame that Hollywood seems to feel no responsibility to clean up its act. -

(Doug Toney is editor and publisher of the Herald-Zeitung)