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."

Comments

Gee.. what a shock.

[RedOregon]

The MPAA doesn't want many people to see the BS they do. I'm shocked, totally shocked.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[Flounder]

The filmmakers made a mistake of having such content in, forcing the MPAA to give such a rating. If they had limited such content, and the MPAA still gave such a rating, then there would be a stronger case for calling it a conspiracy.

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.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[plalonde2]

Of course, getting an NC-17 is going to give this film much more press than it would have otherwise garnered.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[Flounder]

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.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[DeadMeat (TM)]

Most theatres have a policy of not showing NC-17 movies.

This is untrue. Back when there was talk of Lion's Gate screening High Tension uncut, there was a survey of theaters that showed that the vast majority had no policy against showing NC-17 rated movies. There's a perception among studios that NC-17 is the kiss-of-death, but it mainly comes from the commerical failure of Showgirls (which was due to a number of factors besides its rating).

Blockbuster won't carry NC-17 or "unrated" versions of movies.

This is also untrue. I haven't seen any NC-17 rated movies at Blockbuster, but that's probably because there haven't been any NC-17 rated movies released by a major studio in a decade. I've seen plenty of unrated versions of movies, though.

Blockbuster is a franchise chain, so individual stores may have different policies on what they'll carry. But AFAIK it's not official Blockbuster policy to carry NC-17 or unrated movies -- and if it is, then plenty of stores violate that policy anyway.

It'll gain some interest in movie geeks, but interest will be lost to the casual movie fan

The casual movie fan's interest was already lost when the directors decided to make a documentary about the MPAA rating system. The film's target audience was already small before the MPAA slapped a rating on it, and that audience probably won't be deterred by an NC-17 rating. If anything, like the grandparent pointed out, the extra press will only help.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[yorkpaddy]

I think the scene your refering to went something like this. Jay was talking to a hooker. Hooker:I can be as nasty as you want me to be Jay: Ok well i'm ramming you in the ass while you go down on a midget. My friend bob is jerking off into a cup and you... Hooker: That's to nasty for me I quit.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[Golias]

Actually, while Blockbuster refused to carry the original NC-17 version of "Requiem for a Dream", it provoked the creation of an R-rated edit specifically for large video chains.

But then, a few months later, an unrated directors cut was released, which included and I rented it from a Blockbuster. Jennifer Connolly sharing a double-sided dildo with another girl right there on a Blockbuster-blessed DVD. Go figure.

Swerving back to the main topic...

This jackass could have simply released the film unrated, and the title would have fit just fine. He submitted a film for approval when it features clips which provoked NC-17 ratings in other movies, so you can't tell me he's surprised it got slapped with an NC-17 of its own. He obviously was hoping for the NC-17 so hyperbolic screams about the eeeeeevil MPAA would generate a little more buzz about his great big whine-fest.

News flash, movie directors: If you make a film with a lot of kinky sex and freakish violence in it, some people will not want to see it, or want their kids to see it, or even want it promoted in their neighborhoods. Their desire not to be grossed out supersedes your right to perform a song about fucking your mother.

Go ahead an make a movie where somebody shits on somebody else's face then ass-fucks them with a gardening trowel while nibbling their jugular vein open, if that's what your "artistic vision" calls for, but don't act all shocked and hurt when a ratings board gives it a grade that suggests suburban mall theaters might not want to show it. Nobody feels bad for you.

Re:Gee.. what a shock.

[ivan256]

But it'll limit it's potential audiences.

It's a documentary. Do you really think the potential audience was that large in the first place? The people who want to see it will find a place to see it. When it doesn't sell that well, it won't be because it wasn't showing in every theater. It'll be because most people don't want to shell out $10 to see something that doesn't blow up or get them laid afterwards.

May I be the first to say..

[Flounder]

Porn on a non-pay-per-view channel! WooHoo!!

LOL, Cinemas not showing a film?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:LOL, Cinemas not showing a film?

[Wesley Felter]

You may laugh, but I've read that teenagers are the movie market now. R movies make much less money than PG-13 movies, to the extent that studios are not willing to make a lot of R movies. (The rating for a studio movie is decided before it gets made.) NC-17 movies would presumably make even less money because teens wouldn't be able to get in at all.

Re:LOL, Cinemas not showing a film?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you haven't realized that a majority market for the major film producers is indeed the teenage crowd. Not to mention adults going with their children. You may also fail to realize that "family organizations" would probably organize a boycott against theatres showing porn. Personal responsibility or not, the organized are more powerful than the disorganized. When it comes down to it, the theatres are centers of business not political ideology. They will respond to those that could harm their profit margin.

Biased?

[IvanTheViking]

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...

Re:Biased?

[Seumas]

Gee, anyone think the film's producers might have included very adult content knowing the MPAA would have to rate it NC-17 according to their policies and then capitalize on the publicity of "oh noes! censorshipzors!"?

Seriously. Come on Slashdotters. I know common sense isn't that common around here but put your fucking tin foil hats down for a second.

Re:Biased?

[boarder8925]

[P]ut your f**king tin foil hats down for a second.

The above post rated R for intense language. Anyone under the age of 93 reading this must shut down his monitor and report to the government immediately.

;)

Re:Biased?

[giorgiofr]

WTF. Burning the book/disc/whatever is censorship. Saying "People, there's sex and, like, stuff in there" is NOT. Get your facts straight.

Optioned yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

So when do we get the film about the film about ratings getting an NC-17 rating?

Why No -NC-17?

[SlashdotOgre]

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)?

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Icehouseman]

Easy. When the new NC-17 rating came out in 1990; the religious nutters like Jerry Falwell put pressure on all the major chains to refuse to show NC-17. So of course they got their way and now it's virtually impossible to show NC-17 movies. It wouldn't be hard to keep children out of NC-17 movies, any movie theater could do it, so it's mostly the right wing attacking that which they can't understand and don't like.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[brianosaurus]

Choosing a better performing product over a lesser one is good business.

But a blanket policy against NC-17 movies is different. They do that "for the children". You don't hate children, do you? ;)

Its a lame CYA policy. If they don't show the movies, they won't get complaints and boycotts and other crap. If they proactivelty say they won't show NC-17 movies, that keeps all the radical religious freaks out of their hair.

You know... Kind of like how all those IMAX theaters decided not to show that movie about the ocean since it had the word "evolution" in it.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Wesley Felter]

The whole point of ratings (for anything, not just movies) is to free people from having to make case-by-case decisions.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

If they won't show NC-17 movies because of worries, then the terrorists have already won.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[east coast]

What motivates theatres to have a "No NC-17" blanket policy?

Because it's like the old XXX rating. Automatically the NC-17 rating is associated with hardcore porn. Hardcore porn is a big turn off to parents paying for their 15 year old going to the theater. This is a bad business move regardless if the movie is rated NC-17 or unrated due to gore, violence, etc etc...

I recall when NC-17 was being put in place that there was a move to have better definitions of "offensive" content to help the horror industry make films that were a bit more graphic without having them associated with pornography. As we all know, this never happened.

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 religiously charged, mid-west family like the Waltons (Walmart)?

Not to be a troll or a flame but you are the naive one here; This has NOTHING to do with religion. It has to do with the profitability of the theater in the face of a fairly common social morality. Sure I can imagine a few bible beaters showing up to protest this at my local theater in a community that has tens of thousands of members but if anything this would help the theater get people interested in this film.

Instead this has to do with "parental concern" not much unlike the advisory warnings on CDs and Tapes (a movement led by a "liberal", I will remind you).

Do you really think a theater owner should show this film knowing that the community isn't going to support this type of film? That's probably your most naive sentiment; theaters and the movies they show are not about art, they're about profit. If you want art for the sake of art on the big screen you're not going to find it at the 18 screen megaplex. Not because it might upset a very small number of religious people, but because it's bad business.

And what if you found out the theater owner was an atheist? how would that effect your unfortunate stereotype of the "religiously charged, mid-west family"? What would you look to next as a crutch for a really lame assumption? There is morality outside of religion. Most of the more "leftist" types I see on slashdot always thinks that moral standards in the community on any level is automatically associated with a religious group. This is absolutely false. Even without religion society will find a common morality and there will still be "oppression" in the name of the public good or in the greatest cry of politicians and prudes everywhere; "What about the children?". Social morality, while it may have been at one point based on religion (as all the major world religions have a few points in common concerning morality) today this morality is based on a sense of purpose and right not based on a religious doctrine but rather an "natural" sense of right and wrong.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Most of the more "leftist" types I see on slashdot always thinks that moral standards in the community on any level is automatically associated with a religious group.

Funny, it's usually the right-wingers who insist you can't have morality without religion.

I think the leftist assumption is not that community moral standards arise from religion, but that stupid, allegedly "moral" standards which have nothing to do with actual right or wrong tend to arise from religion -- and in the US, at least, that assumption is usually correct. Believers and unbelievers alike agree that, e.g., murder, rape, and robbery are wrong, because those cause obvious and direct harm to other people. But it's almost universally believers who try to prevent other people from doing things that don't affect the believers' lives in the slightest.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

> Funny, it's usually the right-wingers who insist you can't have morality without religion.

I've never seen proof of this.

[shrug] I don't know if it's ever been "proved," in the sense of a large-scale study of the correlation between right-wing political beliefs and the belief in religion as the source of morality; I do know that I've seen many, many right-wingers argue this position, and rarely (though not never) seen left-wingers do the same. Actually, that's a study I'd like to see.

> stupid, allegedly "moral" standards which have nothing to do with actual right or wrong tend to arise from religion

Such as?

Such as the idea that there's some inherent danger in mainstream movie theaters showing NC-17 movies.

Also such as: gay people getting married is a threat to straight people's marriages, students should learn creationism in science class, it's an appropriate use of the FBI's time to invesitgate "obscene" material on the internet, et bloody cetera.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[scotch]

Plus, the X is kind of a bad symbol to have as a marketing tool.

Yeah, the Xbox, generation-X, X-men, X-games, are all marketing disasters.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[Golias]

Also such as: gay people getting married is a threat to straight people's marriages

No, that's an issue of fuck-buddies taking advantage of loopholes in laws which were written to motivate parents to stay married for the sake of the kids.

It's based on several axioms:

1. All else being equal, a kid is better off being raised by both biological parents.
2. Society wants kids to be well off.
3. Using tax laws and so forth, we can encourage families to stay together.
4. A gay couple, collectively, can never produce offspring of their own.
5. If you allow gays to be legally married, they enjoy the benefits which were put in place for the sake of keeping families together, which is fundamentally unfair to single people and common-law marriages, who also do not enjoy said benefits.

Of course, where gays can claim they are being discriminated against is that we allow sterile people to marry. If a woman with no uterus is permitted to marry a man, how can you use the same lack of a uterus to prohibit a man from marrying him?

The only way to make it completely fair to everybody is to strip away all government recognition of marriage, and handle all weddings with simple civil contract law... which is fine by me, but that's exactly what the anti-gay-marriage crowd is desperately fighting against. They like their unfair marriage-law goodies, and don't want gay couples horning in on them and exposing how nonsensical they really are.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[BushCheney08]

Buddy, the "terrorists" won a long time ago...

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[mjh]

But it's almost universally believers who try to prevent other people from doing things that don't affect the believers' lives in the slightest.

For example:

• No smoking in restaurants
• Mandatory seat belt laws
• Mandatory motorcycle helmet laws

Yep. It's those darn religious conservatives who were responsible for those sort of nanny-state decisions.
</sarcasm>
About the only political party that has any claim on leaving people to make their own decisions are the libertarians. Neither the repubs nor the dems can claim any innocence in that area.

Re:Why No -NC-17?

[mjh]

You make a perfect example of why the health care system should *NOT* be socialized. Because personal decisions that enable freedom suddenly impact others. The more you socialize anything, the more individual decisions impact others through increased costs. In other words socialism is the opposite of freedom. The more socialized things are the less individual freedom can exist.

So fucking what?

[Seumas]

The NC-17 rating was given due to "some graphic sexual content"

That's what NC-17 is for.

NEWSFLASH! Producers of anti-MPAA film include racy content with intention to pull an NC-17 rating that causes typical Slashdot readers who never read articles and jump to conclusions to conclude that the MPAA is rating such film inappropriately because of the target of said film and not the adult content. More at 11!

Re:So fucking what?

[AK Marc]

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...

Re:So fucking what?

[liangzai]

I am sorry, but I really don't understand why sexually explicit stuff should have such a rating. On the other hand, I am just a dumb European, and where I am from there are no such ratings (15 for extremely violent movies or pure pornography, although it is more of a recommendation). Late teens (almost adults) can drive a car but can't see boobies!?

Could you point me to a (repeatable, verifiable) scientific study showing that kids are harmed in any way by seeing sexual content on the screen?

What, the land of the free? Oh yeah, you hail aggressive stuff such as alcohol and guns, and ban the laid back stuff like sex and marijuana.

Re:So fucking what?

[danielk1982]

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?"

You don't even know what the 'graphic' content is in the movie. Maybe they played a 30 second clip of some random porn film? But who cares. Its just a rating by a private group. Yes, it does mean that most movie theaters will not play it (which is a self-enacted policy as opposed to the law). However I don't think its a big deal since documentaries like this usually play at indie-theaters anyway.

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...

That was a good thing...right? Because having a court-ordered Oscar nomination would have been bad..right? RIGHT????

Re:So fucking what?

[peragrin]

You forgot the best part. They can't drink until they are 21 but can die for their country when they are 18.

Re:So fucking what?

[Jonny_eh]

So what if Fararanheit (sp?) 9/11 was so popular?

King Kong (1933) was SUPER popular and didn't get any Oscar nomination either.

Re:So fucking what?

[ShyGuy91284]

The US is fucked up in many ways (I live in the US, and am not a typical "anti-American American"). One of the biggest problems is we have managed to turn things like pr0n and drinking into a sort of a enormous taboo for younger people (Is a typical 18 year old casual drinker really any more mature about drinking then a 21 year old casual drinker?), and have just encouraged them and attached a stigma to the "bad" that are a known part of life. I remember reading once that Japanese baths used to be co-ed many years ago before the white man (Might have been America, might have been Europe, I don't know) attached a stigma to such things. A not-so-bad thing that then had a stigma attached to it. I do agree with you. Many of the things "to protect minors" are just making them another way to rebel against "the system". You can smoke at 16 (which is probably one of the most addictive activities around), but can't watch porn? Yeah, I see a situation where the market is controlling the people (see my sig).

Re:So fucking what?

[saskboy]

In a country where a movie [The Rock], can have someone's mouth stuffed full of nerve toxin so their face melts off, and it only gets an R, it's clear that sex is thought to be more taboo than graphic violence.

And heaven forbid there be a naked penis in a scene! Why, the viewers' sensibilities would run out of the room screaming should that ever happen. Penises are more dangerous and vile than guns you know.

Re:So fucking what?

[SamSim]

The best part is, in most states they can have sex at 16, but they can't watch it in a cinema for another year!

Re:So fucking what?

[east coast]

What, the land of the free? Oh yeah, you hail aggressive stuff such as alcohol and guns, and ban the laid back stuff like sex and marijuana.

First off, it's not banned, it's limited and it's not by the governement, it's by a third party entity and wise businessmen.

Secondly, let's look at some other titles that would doubtlessly be NC-17 in the US and see how they faired in the more enlighted countries:

Faces of Death from 1978

Certification: New Zealand:(Banned) / Australia:(Banned) / Finland:(Banned) / South Korea:18 (heavily cut) / UK:18 (cut) / USA:Not Rated / West Germany:18 / UK:(Banned) (1984-2003) / Norway:(Banned)

Deep Throat 1972

Certification: UK:18R / Australia:X / Canada:18+ (Quebec) / Canada:R / Canada:XXX (Nova Scotia) / Chile:18 (2001) / Denmark:15 (video rating) / Finland:(Banned) (1993) / Ireland:(Banned) / Italy:X / Sweden:15 / USA:X

Hmmm... odd, films that actually got play in the US are banned in some "enlighted" euro countries. How ironic when /.ers piss and moan about bans and censorship in the US that often we're a bit more liberal than most other countries in all reality and the fact is that normally most of what people consider "bans and censorship" is neither a ban nor censorship...

Re:So fucking what?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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.

Re:So fucking what?

[Gamelore]

Wrong.

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 :)

Re:So fucking what?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The general principle is that, on bases in the US, civilian laws (local, state, and federal) apply as long as they don't conflict with military law or regulation. So on Minot AFB in North Dakota, where I spent much of my tour, AF personnel could be prosecuted by civilian authorities for violating ND law, on or off base, as long as there wasn't a military law or regulation saying their actions were okay -- such as, e.g., the regulation allowing the base commander to allow people under 21 to drink; for a more extreme example, the base cops and some flightline personnel could shoot to kill anyone who even looked like they were threatening the security of the nuclear weapons stores, which is behavior that is generally illegal on routine civilian guard duty.

In reality, it was very rare for active-duty personnel to be prosecuted by civilian authorities for anything they did on base, since almost everything that's a crime under civilian law is also a crime under military law with much harsher penalties, but theoretically it could happen; off base, it was actually pretty common, particularly when it came to drinking and fighting ... And civilians who committed crimes on base had to be turned over to civilian authorities; the base cops could arrest them, but they weren't subject to military law, and the base didn't have any civilian courts.

Overseas it's even more complicated. In friendly countries, such as the UK, where I also spent a fair amount of time, there's an agreement between the US and the host country called a SOFA, or Status Of Forces Agreement, which spells out the degree to which service personnel are or are not subject to local laws. And I do recall a case in which a guy who smuggled an Iraqi AK-47 back from Desert Storm was prosecuted by the British authorities for violation of their firearms laws, which are much stronger than those either in civilian US law or under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). However, it's worth noting that he was arrested by a British cop while trying to sell the weapon off-base; and again, while theoretically the AF could have turned him over to the British authorities for prosecution even if he'd never taken it off-base, they probably wouldn't have.

In unfriendly countries, of course, only military laws apply; no one is going to argue that Cuban law applies at Guantanamo Bay! (Or any other kind of law, apparently, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.)

The usual IANA(M)L disclaimers apply: I had to know something about military law in my roles both as a medic and as an NCO, but all this is off the top of my head, and it was a while ago. But as I remember it all, that's pretty much the way it worked.

Re:So fucking what?

[AK Marc]

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.

OH NO

[matr0x_x]

Now that the film is rated 17+ all America's 13 year-olds are going to download it and watch it behind their parents back...

Stuck in paradox!

[whois_drek]

"This Film is Not Yet Rated" and has been assigned an NC-17 rating by the MPAA.

Brain...stuck...in...paradox. Must...make joke about Soviet Russian movies rating YOU...to abort...

a pr for a movie that is airing in fall 2006?

[Comsn]

thanks for the almost 1 year heads up!

Ratings

[Da3vid]

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-

Don't show NC-17s?

[taskforce]

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.

Re:Don't show NC-17s?

[LFS.Morpheus]

Maybe the laws in the UK are engraved in stone. Hard to repeal that way, though.

nc-17

[slashdotnickname]

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.

Some theaters won't show NC-17s because ...

[thomasoa]

I recall reading that some theaters won't show NC-17s because local papers won't carry advertisements for NC-17 movies.

Re:This is sooo last week on digg.

[isd_glory]

It might have been on digg, but was there actually any discussion of the matter?
I'd rather be a little behind the times in news, if I can get some meaningful comments beyond: "LOLL, the MPAA is so gay!!"

Re:When?

[Flounder]

According to AICN (yeah, I know a really "reliable" source of news)...

premiere at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival and air on IFC in Fall 2006

Article on AICN at http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=21980

Re:This is sooo last week on digg.

[Anonymous Coward]

Digg is for headlines early and often, slashdot is for conversation. It's not an either/or scenario. Digg has the most awkward and useless comment system imaginable populated almost entirely by 12 year olds. Slashdot has at least as many 12 year olds, but it has a much better method of dealing with them so that actual adults aren't afraid to comment. I'll often see something on digg and look forward to seeing if it makes Slashdot simply because I know the comments will be worth reading. If digg implemented a decent comment system like slashcodes then it would probably start attracting a better class of comment. Until then, it's just another RSS headline feed for me and not a "community".

Mmm... press...

[scaryjohn]

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.

It's an independently released documentary. For fuck's sake, that pretty much limits its distribution to places that would show it irrespective of its rating already. Hell, the new rating may open its distribution circle to the kinds of theatres Pee-Wee Herman frequents.

Graphic violence

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Won't Show?

[displaced80]

I had to look up what an NC-17 was, since I'm from the UK.

Broadly speaking, it seems similar to our 18 cert. In other words, a level of maturity reasonable for an 18 year old is required to see the film.

So why do cinemas in the US have a problem showing material appropriate for everyone from 18-[dead] year olds? Does this not annoy anyone? The ratings system there seems to have been appropriated to decide what should be seen by adults, not what I'd imagine a ratings system's purpose to be: to highlught material which is perhaps not appropriate for minors

Just seems a little horse-before-cart to me. And more than a little Victorian. What I don't understand is why there isn't outrage over this sort of behaviour? Well, perhaps outrage is too strong a word. A broad assumption seems to be that here in Ye Olde Europe, we all live in nanny-states. But perhaps the nanny'ing pressure groups in the US need to be treated to a little more questioning, and perhaps brought down a peg or two.

Re:Won't Show?

[oclawgeek]

What do you expect of a nation that can't even properly spell theatre or colour? Our society has been hijacked by the mob -- an illiterate puritan mob.

Re:Won't Show?

[Rob the Bold]

So why do cinemas in the US have a problem showing material appropriate for everyone from 18-[dead] year olds?

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.

Re:Won't Show?

[Edmund Blackadder]

Well first of all teenagers are the most desirable demographic for the us theatres. Second of all most theatres are architectually designed to allow everyone inside and let them roam (so that they buy a lot of popcorn, drinks, etc). If they have to screen an NC-17 movie they will have to separate off a specific theatre, and check ids there, which will screw up their whole business model, and cost them more money and prevent them from getting the popcorn revenues (which is where their profits come from).

If they architecturally design their theatre to have an "over 18" area, then the place will be automatically labeled a porn theatre and nobody will want to bring a date, or their kids there.

Also, america is full of conservative groups that believe every other movie to be directed by satan in order to corrupt our youth. These groups have a lot of power in local politics in most medioum to small cities, so they can easily screw over any theatre that they deem to be pornographic. And for them NC-17 means porn ... for them even many R movies are porn. And they are not very smart so they are completely imune to any artistic effect a movie may have.

So the effect is that there onle a few theatres in the biggest cities of america which show nc-17 movies ... which are mostly foreign art films.

Re:Won't Show?

[Brandybuck]

Also, america is full of conservative groups that believe every other movie to be directed by satan in order to corrupt our youth.

Warning! Your objectivity is showing!

Re:Won't Show?

[displaced80]

Cool, thanks for the info.

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 :D

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).

Bourne

[EternityInterface]

I've listened to 1 director's comments. It was for the bourne identity. At one part he said he wanted more swears, but the pg13 rating only allowed 3 swears, and eventually he only ended up using 1. They still had more, but that was in german.

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})

Shortly after, in 1883, Burton's Kama Shastra society, a kind of sexual anthropological club, published the Kama Sutra for private circulation. The book caused such a furor in sexually repressive Victorian England (imagine, depicting women enjoying sex - the very idea!), that the book was banned and not published for public consumption again until 1963.

But even today, the legacy of Victorian censorship lives on. Many editions of the Kama Sutra still lack the full listing and explanation of the various sexual positions that the ancients knew -- rendering the dull pedantic translations that much more dull and lifeless. Furthermore, many of the inaccuracies of the "Burton" translation (for example, the pervasive bias against women asserting their own will and desires) still color modern editions of the text, prolonging our own cultural stereotype of the demure consenting woman and the lusty assertive man.

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).

NC-17 and AO: the scarlet letters of entertainment

[Somatic]

Really? Just because it is a 'NC-17'?

It's a ceremonial black mark, just like the AO video game rating. Normal people understand that watching it/playing it won't cause their souls to turn black as sin, but it's enough to scare theaters away from showing it/Walmart from selling it.

I remember how the South Park movie originally got an NC-17. Didn't they make fun of the MPAA too? How odd.

Sortof

[goldcd]

We actually have a few more rating you skipped over there.

Uc - Universal (children) - Films specifically aimed at pre-school children.

U - Universal - Suitable for all.

PG - Parental Guidance - Might have some themes that might upset some children - but generally fine for all.

12A (cinema)/ 12 (video) - Must be over 12 to watch it.(I think 12 used to be a guide, and then 12A was the legally enforcable one)

15 - Must be over 15

18 - Must be over 18

R18 - Restricted 18 - Can only be purchased from certain outlets - it's porn.

The British system still has the weird bias towards violence over smut - but it's got a lot better over the last few years (BBFC replaced their chair with a slightly more enlightened chap).

A few years back R18 didn't exist - hardcore was either not available, or heavily cut. Nowadays pretty much everything can be released with a few notable exceptions (violence, non-consensual stuff etc).

www.bbfc.co.uk has a nice little breakdown of the above rules. Nice little note on the R18 page "These guidelines make no distinction between heterosexual and homosexual activity."

Good.

Re:Sortof

[m50d]

12A (cinema)/ 12 (video) - Must be over 12 to watch it.(I think 12 used to be a guide, and then 12A was the legally enforcable one)

No, 12 was not allowed to be seen by under 12s at all, 12A is over 12s or under 12s with a parent. I presume they're now phasing out PG as it's actually a harsher rating than the "higher" 12A (legally, you can't let a 17 year old in to a PG film without a parent), and 12A certainly exists for videos.

And what will I get out of watching this movie?

[Matt Ownby]

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.

Conspiracy?

[billyradcliffe]

While it seems shocking and obsurd and screams "conspiracy" and the MPAA doesn't want this to reach a mass audience...step back a little. How many people do you know that would pay to see a documentary about the MPAA rating system at a theatre? While in recent past, the works of Michael Moore have gained much attention and reached a mass audience, documentaries still are generally not widely accepted by the masses. Sure, there are theatres which will not show this film now, but having had an R rating, would they een show it in the first place? Thus, the conspiracy theory becomes a moot point. This will be shown in indie theatres, where people who are actually into this kind of work (such as my self) actually go.

There was no XXX rating

[DECS]

Originally the MPAA labeled movies G, GP (later changed to PG), R and X. There was a Catholic organization that rated films as well, labeling them with various levels of "reservation," and giving some an O for "offensive," that meant catholics weren't supposed to watch them. At one time, being labeled O meant a lot of people were not going to see your movie.

Indiana Jones III in 1984 got a new PG-13 rating to create something that sounded edgier than PG but not quite R, something that older teens could be expected to watch. It featured the scene where the voodoo guy rips out a beating heart from a living person and bites it.

Later, filmmakers asked for a renamed rating for "mature" subjects that were considered "more than R" to disassociate mature with the porn stigma attached to "X Rated"

So to accommodate mature, non porn films, the MPAA re-branded the X rating as NC-17, and some non-porn feature films actually got released as NC-17. Very few "X rated" mainstream films that had ever been released before. The X rating didn't necessarily mean sex and nudity, but in reality it generally did; when people heard X they associated it with hardcore porn. Before NC-17, films getting an X rating that weren't porn simply edited things down to get an R rating.

Porn theaters had long done the opposite: they marketed their content (much of which was not really feature length movies, but just sex, and so not even officially ever "rated") as "Triple XXX!!!" There is no such thing as an XXX rating. There is no such thing as an XXX rating. There is no such thing as an XXX rating. That sink in yet?

Any theater choosing to show NC-17 movies would be risking the taint of being labeled a porn-house, likely incur the wrath and bad publicity of morality/family interest/religious groups, and for all that trouble only show limited run movies with a narrow appeal. How would that be a good business decision?

Theaters already are unlikely to show independent movies without guaranteed draws that deliver profits efficiently. If you are puzzled as to why a theater, and particularly a huge chain designed to make money fastest, would not (or rarely ever) show NC-17 rated films, then you must also be wondering why WalMart doesn't sell latex suits, dildoes and, buttfucking slings.

Last Tango, Midnight Cowboy

[coyote-san]

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.

Put your tinfoil hats down?

[commodoresloat]

You're the one articulating a conspiracy theory that presumes the film producers engineered all this controversy in the first place. Personally, I think you're probably right about this, but it's a little rude to tell other people to put their tin foil away when your answer is a conspiracy theory that's even more convoluted.

Re:I call a minor BS

[jZnat]

My guess is that anyone who's opinion would matter doesn't know what hentai is and the difference between that and normal anime.

Off-topic: Normativness as 'morality'

[Simon Brooke]

Oh, come now. This isn't morality; it's prejudice and spite masquerading as morality.

1. All else being equal, a kid is better off being raised by both biological parents.

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.

2. Society wants kids to be well off.

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.

3. Using tax laws and so forth, we can encourage families to stay together.

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.

4. A gay couple, collectively, can never produce offspring of their own.

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?

5. If you allow gays to be legally married, they enjoy the benefits which were put in place for the sake of keeping families together, which is fundamentally unfair to single people and common-law marriages, who also do not enjoy said benefits.

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.

Similar experience in Mexico

[Spy der Mann]

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.

Re:What about american TV?

[aduzik]

It's the fascist organization that decided to develop a voluntary system of television ratings before the government established its own censor office to do that for them. While it's certainly not a good thing, it would have been a lot worse if the government took it over.