Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Gives Film About Ratings an NC-17 Rating
jtcm writes "An original documentary by Kirby Dick, called "This Film is Not Yet Rated" has been assigned an NC-17 rating by the MPAA. The film explores the MPAA's own film rating system and "its profound effect on American culture." The NC-17 rating was given due to "some graphic sexual content" and will likely limit the movie's distribution, as many theater chains will not show NC-17 movies. Among the filmmakers speaking openly in the movie are two of my personal favorites, Kevin Smith and Matt Stone. For those who are eager to view this exposé, fear not. The Independent Film Channel (IFC) will present the film uncensored and uninterrupted."
Really? Just because it is a 'NC-17'?
What about the adult market? Or is it like pop music now - only good for children? Adults should be working and brainless, good consumers but never exposed to anything that'll make them think...
What do these theaters show after 10pm? Bambi?
Gee, anyone else think they might be a bit biased rating about a movie about themselves?
The higher the rating, the less people will be able to see, especially the younger crowd, that is those who have yet to form a complete opinion on Hollywood yet...
What motivates theatres to have a "No NC-17" blanket policy? I can understand having a a policy of not having certain NC-17 movies based on management's decision after viewing a particular movie, but it seems naive to just ban all NC-17 movies blindly. I've never looked up who owns the big chains of theatres, but is it a religously charged, mid-west family like the Waltons (Walmart)?
Sadly, PS/2 was yet another victim of USB, which doesn't care what you plug into it, the electrical slut.
We'll just have to wait and see what this "explicit sexual content" is and if it's worth such a rating.
Granted, Kevin Smith's "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" had to cut a scene with some pretty nasty descriptions of sex out before it could get an R. I don't even think "The Aristocrats" tried to get a rating, and you can't get much more nasty without actually showing the acts.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
Ratings haven't been around for very long. The process isn't perfect and its not very consistent. Steven Spielberg has had a lot of influence on the system, even going so far as being credited with creating the PG13 (with the Temple of Doom) but with rating creep, PG13 films are getting more and more "graphic violence" and it takes some pretty hot material to make a film go from R to NC-17. Now, we don't know what the film has, but apparently it has "some graphic sexual content." That doesn't sound very serious. Now, there are plenty of movies with pretty graphic content that received the R rating (Scary Movie, Saving Private Ryan, etc). It definitely does sound suspicious, doesn't it? The next question is, why would the MPAA try to censor the film? The thing is that the MPAA ratings system is completely voluntary. The film doesn't have to be submitted to be rated, it can be released without it; however, the problem is that the lack of a rating hurts revenues, so while it isn't a law to rate the film, its nearly a necessity.
-Da3vid-
Here in the UK we have a much harsher rating system which is actually enforced by statue law; our ratings go 12, 15, 18. (years old) From working at a theatre once and seeing how the ticket sales go, a theatre not showing an 18 movie would be complete suicide here.
My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
The NC-17 rating was given due to "some graphic sexual content"
That's what NC-17 is for.
Really? But I've seen some PG-13 movies where people complained that it contained "some graphic sexual content."
There is no definition of what is "sexual" - Is a woman breastfeeding "sexual"? What about just the breast? If she's giving herself a mamogram? If she's showering? If she's playing with it? Where do they draw the line? They don't tell anyone.
There is no definition of "graphic." Does that mean a breast through a frosted glass door of a shower? If that same door was not frosted, but was steamy? How about not steamy and clear? Does the level of zoom matter? What if there was no door? Or does the breast need to be engaged in some activity for it to be "graphic?"
I've seen plenty of "graphic sexual content" in R-rated movies. Full frontal of women, glimpses of genetal details of women, backsides of both, lots of breasts, and all that will still be found in R-rated movies. I'm sure that they'll claim the "I know it when I see it" standard.
If there are any legal protests, they will surely fail. Like the Oscars being sued when the most popular documentary in history wasn't nominated for a single thing, the courts said all that movie stuff is a private industry, and they can do whatever they want and you can't do anything about it. The courts are real good about protecting Goliath from David, as if Goliath needed any more help...
Learn to love Alaska
I'm a big movie buff, and watch at least 3 a week... so I've seen a lot that were originally labeled NC-17 at the box office. My general impression of these movies is not favorable though, as most seem interested in just exploiting the shock value of sexual or violent actions. Can anyone think of any NC-17 (or greater!) movies that are on par with some of the classics (story-wise) out there? I know movie tastes are very subjective, but I'd like some suggestions as I travel the lesser-known roads of the movie landscape.
But it'll limit it's potential audiences. Most theatres have a policy of not showing NC-17 movies. Blockbuster won't carry NC-17 or "unrated" versions of movies. It'll gain some interest in movie geeks, but interest will be lost to the casual movie fan, especially if he can't pick it up along with his dry cleaning and a bucket of KFC.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
I recall reading that some theaters won't show NC-17s because local papers won't carry advertisements for NC-17 movies.
Yet you see ads for the decidedly NC-17 act of joining the army/marines/navy everywhere.
Sex, bad... learning to become a killing machine, not so bad.
God bless America.
It's been said before, but as a european I am regularly shocked by the graphic violence in american films and astonished at their insane prudery about sex. There are countless films where people get their fucking heads blown off, yet they don't even feature a normal slow kiss.
I've never actually _been_ to america, so like a lot of europeans, most of what I "know" about america comes from Hollywood: so, americans, what the HELL is really up with you? I can't imagine it's remotely healthy to fill your kids heads with such violence, yet hide from them a normal and necessary emotional (and biological) act?
Oh, I was just listening to "An operator's manual" and there they censored bitch in sonofabitch, which seemed weird, as that is the (collection of words) I've noticed swears have been replaced with in movies, again and again.
I'll blame this all on the victorians, because they started it with fucking up the kama sutra. (The christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad {mr N})
Note: the discovery channel allows porn and gore whenever since it's for "educational" purpose, which is the same reason (at least in sweden) reality-shows can show people in showers / bedrooms around the clock (the swedish word is "doku-såpor" - documentary soap-operas).
the sun is god
NC-17 is an "official" MPAA rating that replaced the "X" rating that was synonymous with "porn" in the US. Supposedly, it would allow erotic "Art Films" so be shown in places (Boston, Kansas, AMC Theaters) that wouldn't go for porn. As I recall, that was the way it was promoted when NC-17 rating was created. In practice, towns, theaters, etc., just viewed NC-17 as another name for "X" and nothing changed. Except of course there are far fewer XXX cinemas in the US than there were when I was younger, probably due to videotapes (and now discs and the net).
I guess it made a little difference, you can go to an art house to see an NC-17 film in most places. You don't need to visit the seamy side of town. But most chains ban NC-17 as a euphemism for "X". I also recall something about the "X" rating not being trademarked by the MPAA, and so it was used specifically for porn marketing.
I am not a crackpot.
I remember how the South Park movie originally got an NC-17. Didn't they make fun of the MPAA too? How odd.
My script don't crash! She crashes, you crashed her!
I already know the MPAA is corrupt and that rating systems are not a perfect solution. So what is the point of me going to the extra effort to try to view this documentary? Frankly, I think this news story is blown out of proportion because it implies that there is great value in viewing this documentary, a claim that I question.
In the Air Force, at least, when I was in (1989-1997) it was at the base commander's discretion whether to allow 18-20-year-old airmen to drink (on base only; if you went off base and drank, and violated local laws in the process, you were liable for both civilian and military penalties.) However, over the years I was in, the tendency was to get steadily more restrictive -- when I was under 21, I could drink on almost any base I went to, but by the time I got out (at the age of 27) there were very few bases where under-21 personnel could legally get a drink.
So, of course, they drove off base, got shitfaced, got into accidents, and the whole thing ended up creating enormous amounts of problems that just didn't exist when they could go do their drinking at the NCO club and then stumble home. (And as a medic, working in the base ER, I got to see the results of this up close and personal.) Ditto the situation on college campuses. Treating people like adults with respect to sex, money, and work but like children with respect to alcohol is one of the dumbest ideas society has ever come up with.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Last Tango in Paris was originally 'X', certainly due to the depiction of anal sex.
Midnight Cowboy, as mentioned above, was also originally 'X'. Certainly due to the depiction of homosexual acts.
Today I think both have been re-released as 'R'. Possibly without any changes.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
I saw a CSPAN discussion (or something) on how they designed the law - they have a freaky algorithm that basically tries to measure drunk driving among kids, and localities within the states can lower the drinking age based on local variables of consumption and death and injury on interstates ("class 1") and local roads ("class 2").
GIven the algorithm, few places will ever be able to lower it from the maximum of 21. Alaska doesn't have interstates, so the algorithm doesn't really work for them, pinning the resulting metric at 21 years old even though they have zero injury or death on the interstates. That's why the three Alaskans in congress voted against the bill - with no impact on the other hundreds of law makers.
Stupidly, it put rural areas at a huge disadvantage - just a handful of local-road fatalities can mess up a whole state's drinking age - and in practice, that's exactly what happens year after year in most states.
Another stupid government law by stupid congress trying to be a nanny state.
My guess is that anyone who's opinion would matter doesn't know what hentai is and the difference between that and normal anime.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
Oh, come now. This isn't morality; it's prejudice and spite masquerading as morality.
No, definitely not. Not as a generalisation. A kid is better off being raised by happy, low stressed people in a stable relationship. Biological relationship simply does not come in here. It's always been 'a wise child who knows who his father is' - infidelity is a fact of life in all communities and at all periods of history. Kids grow up just fine raised by cuckolds, grandparents, siblings, aunts and uncles, adoptive and foster parents. Biological relationship really isn't critical. Stability is critical. It may even be possible that it's important for children to have access to adult role models of both genders, which, if true, would be an argument against gay people adopting kids. But biological parents? No.
Little evidence of that. One fifth of US children are below the poverty line (1998 data); and, before you accuse me of being down on the US, the situation here in Scotland is also bad.
That's pretty naive. If a relationship isn't working, it's not very likely that people are going to stay together for a few hundred dollars worth of tax allowance. And it's not in the interests of the children that they should. Few things are worse for children than growing up with their parents locked into an abusive or disfunctional relationship.
My wife, after she left me, lived in a homosexual relationship for eight years. Why should her son (who wasn't mine - see one above) suffer financial penalties because of his mothers choices? Wouldn't it have been better for him if that relationship had stayed together?
If the benefits are for raising children, give those benefits to all people raising children (and not to, e.g., married couples who are childless). If childless married couples get the benefits, don't pretend they've got anything to do with children.
When you grow up, you'll find that live is much more complex (and much more painful) than you possibly imagined it could be. And with luck you'll learn to be a bit more tolerant of people who aren't like you.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
3 years ago, my brother (19 at the time), an Army Ranger, got caught drinking when he was home on leave in California. He went before a judge and was fined and had his license revoked for a year. Usually stationed in Germany, he was used to drinking legally.
There is no such law that you suggest. Under 21 is under 21.
He quickly went back to Germany and continued to drive with his German license, never once missing his US one :)
Here we had a movie called "La Ley de Herodes" (Herodes' Law), it was about politicians and how the party in power was so corrupted, etc. etc.
(Informational Note: "La ley de herodes" is a century-old mexican adult saying. It goes like this: 'O te chingas o te jodes'. A literal translation would be: Either you get f***ed, or you get f***ed. In other words, you're f***ed anyway. But it also could mean "either you bribe, or get f***ed", since the spanish word 'chingar' (which is a bad word, btw) has around 50 different meanings, depending on the context).
Anyway, this "La Ley de Herodes " movie was censored by... guess who? The government. This only caused a political scandal, and the movie became so famous it ended up being shown in theaters anyway.
Something tells me the ratings film's intention was exactly this one - to get censored by the MPAA.
Cool, thanks for the info.
:D
The link between NC-17 and X, historical or not, is a bit daft, surely?
To my unAmerican ears, it sounds like: "Any other rating, you're safe. NC-17? Well, that just might be PORNOGRAPHY!"
We've got the 18 cert to say "Make Up Your Own Damn Minds. If you're at least this old, you should be big enough and ugly enough to figure out if the film contains material you'd object to." Or, in their own words, "at '18' the BBFC's guideline concerns will not normally override the wish that adults should be free to chose their own entertainment, within the law."
Our porn (videos from sex shops... your average smut) gets an R18 (R for Restricted). But no film with plot, narrative, etc ends up with an R18. That cert's really only for crappy porn directed by the likes of Phil McCavity and Hugh G. Coque. So no big loss to the cinema-going public
Incidentally, does the MPAA have a site like that of the British Board of Film Classification? ((link)). The site gives a nice overview of what each cert denotes, and some nice stats going back to 1912 showing what certs were awarded to what films, and how many cuts were made to films (a reassuringly low number - 97% of films recent films have passed with no cuts at all).
What's the frequency, Kenneth?
So what if Fararanheit (sp?) 9/11 was so popular?
What do I care about that one. I was thinking of a movie that was actually a documentary. "Hoop Dreams." Everyone involved in the process claims they rated it the highest of all films rated, yet it did not get a single nomination. It confused people enough to warrant a lawsuit. There isn't any mystery why Fahrenheit 9/11 got a poor result. It was very contraversial and debatable of whether it is a "pure" documentary.
Learn to love Alaska