Roger Ebert’s report on this year’s Sundance Film Festival mentions an interesting-sounding documentary on the MPAA, the secretive, some might say censorious, board that dictates to the American public the ratings for films. I’ve always wondered just who these people are, and by what almighty virtue do they get to decide what is too risque for the American public to see. (Since they dictate ratings, and anything with an NC-17 rating is virtually banned from most American theater & video rental chains.)
Granted, there are movies that shouldn’t be viewed by young kids, and there ought to be a fair-warning advisory for parents to alert them to that fact. But I have always objected to the division between R-rated & either NC-17 or even X-rated films. It’s one thing to say a film is not fit for young children to see. It’s another thing to make distinctions between films intended for adult audiences.
And if we must be subjected the accepted sliding scale (an R-rating being a fim that can be shown anywhere, and an NC-17 rating that is then sanctioned and extremely limited in terms of outlets it can be obtained from), just what the hell kind of system can kind a piece of lurid, way-over-the-top violent, gorey trash like “Hannibal” acceptable for general audiences, but then say frank depictions of sex (as in “Eyes Wide Shut”) is unacceptable and must be shunned.
Someone researched this and found that NC-17 movies (there are not a lot of them) do play in the major American theater chains.
The MPAA dropped the Production Code and replaced it with the ratings system in 1968 for the opposite reason of what you are supposing. The Production Code (1930-1968) put restrictions on the content of movies from the major Hollywood studios. The ratings system has no restrictions on content for adult patrons. And it was instituted to stave off government censorship. At one time, numerous states and municipalities had film censorship boards.
Ironically, the Catholic Church’s League of Decency opposed adding NC-17, because they felt it would result in movies with more sexual content. It’s had the opposite effect, though. The ratings board previously had to choose between R and X, which is the kiss of death for the movie. They let a lot more stuff through in the R movies, because they were loath do declare the movie garbage (which is what an X rating basically did, after the early 70s). NC-17 gives them a middle way out, sort of like letting the jury consider manslaughter in addition to murder, if you know what I mean.
The reason there aren’t a lot of NC-17 films is because these days, pretty much all of the major studios have standard contracts with directors that mandate the director turn in a film that won’t be slapped with more than an ‘R’ rating. And since the MPAA doesn’t issue any public guidelines as to how they determine which films get what rating, studios generally dictate that a wide berth of possibly controversial content (mostly concerning sex) be omitted. Thus, there is an indirect censorship fostered by the MPAA ratings system - pretty much the same thing that happened in the days before the MPAA, because of local censorship boards. I understand that the MPAA was intended to give film-makers more freedom over their content, but unfortunately, it’s turned out to be quite the opposite.
And whether NC-17 films get played or not, it is still a patronizing distinction to whch I object. Issuing a warning that a film is not meant for children is one thing. But distinguishing between films intended for adult audiences is something that I as the viewer ought to be able to do for myself. An “R” rating states that a film has adult content. An “NC-17” rating states that a film has objectionable film content. That’s something I feel I should decide myself.
The reason there aren’t a lot of NC-17 films is because these days, pretty much all of the major studios have standard contracts with directors that mandate the director turn in a film that won’t be slapped with more than an ‘R’ rating. And since the MPAA doesn’t issue any public guidelines as to how they determine which films get what rating, studios generally dictate that a wide berth of possibly controversial content (mostly concerning sex) be omitted. Thus, there is an indirect censorship fostered by the MPAA ratings system - pretty much the same thing that happened in the days before the MPAA, because of local censorship boards. I understand that the MPAA was intended to give film-makers more freedom over their content, but unfortunately, it’s turned out to be quite the opposite.
And whether NC-17 films get played or not, it is still a patronizing distinction to whch I object. Issuing a warning that a film is not meant for children is one thing. But distinguishing between films intended for adult audiences is something that I as the viewer ought to be able to do for myself. An “R” rating states that a film has adult content. An “NC-17” rating states that a film has objectionable film content. That’s something I feel I should decide myself. Or at the very least, the MPAA ought to explain why they deem “film A”(the unaltered version of “Eyes Wide Shut” for example) to be "objectionable, while “film B” (“Hannibal”) gets a pass.
The reason is simple and straightforward: that’s the distinction that the vast majority of the American film watching public wants them to make.
You can decry that fact, or debate why that fact is true, but it’s an obvious fact. The MPAA would not last for a moment if it stopped making that distinction. And everybody in the MPAA and in Hollywood knows it, which is why they support the system.
The other question that needs to be raised is why most major American newspapers will not accept advertising for an NC-17 film. I don’t believe any NC-17 film is ever advertised on network television either. No advertising, no audience, which is why contracts demand an R rating. Would newspapers and television stations voluntarily forgo this revenue unless they were sure their audiences want it this way? I don’t think so.
Your rant isn’t against the MPAA: it’s against America. Good luck with that.
I’m not sure I understand entirely the distinction the OP is making between an “R” and an “NC-17” rating. Just to play devil’s advocate for a minute, it seems to me the signal distinction the MPAA is making is between allowing those under 17 admittance when accompanied by an adult ®, or not allowing those under 17 admittance, period (NC-17). There’s nothing in the guidelines that says anything at all about “objectionable” material.
Now, whether or not the MPAA wields too much power, or whether the onus on producing more NC-17 films rests more properly on the studios and distributors is another discussion altogether.
The presence of objectionable material is what the MPAA uses to determine if they will give it a rating of NC-17, meaning no one under 17, or R, meaning, well, pretty much anyone with the knobs to walk up and ask to buy a ticket.
Still playing devil’s advocate, but no it isn’t:
[
](http://www.filmratings.com/about/content5.htm)“Adult,” not “objectionable” - the only value judgement explicit in that guideline is whether or not the material is suitable for minors. Any further stigmatization occurs after the fact. As Exapno Mapcase seemed to be getting at, the problem is with the studios and distributors, not the rating itself.
Are you sure? I thought that Showgirls was advertised on network. I know for a fact that it was advertised on cable, I have an old videotape of something that has the ad on it.
Interesting subject, NC-17 newspaper advertising. It may be a myth as that Variety article states, but it’s one that even people in the industry like director John Waters and indiewire columnist Mark Lipsky and Lions Gate president Tom Ortenberg believe in, although that latter page also reports no problems for ads for The Dreamers.
A 1999 Slate column mentions the problem and smallernewspapers do have an outright ban. Perhaps the ad climate has changed over time for major newspapers, either because of lowered ad revenues generally or more industry awareness of the need to do discrete ads.
If so, I’m happy to be wrong and I think that it’s certainly about time. But if people in the industry think it’s a problem and insider articles find it a surprise that it isn’t, the change probably has come relatively recently.
Now, anybody know for sure about network television bans or accceptances of these ads?
Note that the 1999 Slate article may be just as taken in by the myth. It doesn’t mention any newspaper, or any actual incidence of a refusal to run an ad for an NC-17 movie.
I can remember that The Milwaukee Journal not only ran display ads for X-rated movies like Midnight Cowboy (1969) and Last Tango in Paris (1973), they also ran ads for porn pics like Emanuelle (1975) and Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS (1975).
This is circular unless you have some evidence that NC-17 ads were being run by most major newspapers seven years ago. So far you have not provided anything but an assertion.
Again, so what? Nobody has ever argued that every paper bans the ads. Nor are 30 year old ads evidence for the situation since, in a very different cultural climate.
I admitted I was wrong, with qualifications, by digging out real cites. I’d like the same consideration back. Let’s see your cites that most major newspapers have continually run ads for NC-17 movies.
The original assertion was that “most major newspapers” will not run ads for NC-17 movies. So, the person making that assertion should provide actual evidence of that policy, with specific newspapers named, and not just another website which repeats that allegation without actual evidence. Lack of advertising for a specific NC-17 movie in a specific newspaper would not be conclusive evidence that the newspaper has an across the board policy against advertising for all NC-17 movies.
I backed up what I said with a bevy of quotes and cites.
You made an assertion and have not provided an iota of evidence for it.
Can you show that most major newspaper did in fact accept NC-17 advertising from the time the NC-17 label was invented until the past year or two, when I acknowledge that they did?