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.

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?

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.

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?

[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.

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?

[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?

[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.

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!

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.

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!!"

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.

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?

[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.

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.

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.

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.