Michael LownNC-17: What are we going to about it?
October 14th 2010 20:27
The MPAA is flawed. Always has been and probably always will. It's flaws are pretty commonly known by most film buff, stemming from their harsh treatment when it comes to sexuality (slapping sex-comedy Zack & Miri Make a Porno with an NC-17 before appeal) while letting extremely violent films walk away with a pass (the most notorious film recently to do this was Hostel Part II which included a shot of a man's dick being sliced off).
Sometimes there is an uproar from the film community against this flawed (and maybe even corrupt) organization, but it only comes up every three or four years, such as seen with the release of documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated. Now, backlash is starting up again with the new indie release, My Blue Valentine, starring Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams, getting a NC-17 rating, which is now being appeal by the distributor, The Weinstein Company (a company who clearly knows that this is a great marketing gimmick for their little film).
It wasn't so much that the film was given the rating, as sometimes films truly deserve it (Ang Lee's Lust, Caution), but the reason why it was giving. According to reports, the rating came from a an emotionally-disturbing sex scene between Gosling and Williams. Not the actually sex itself, but the dark tone secured this rating. We all knew the MPAA was filled with conservative prudes, but this is just ridiculous.
This all leads to my main question: so what? So what if a film gets a NC-17? It doesn't destroy the integrity of the finished work. It's not like the film some sick porno that would be better if starred Ron Jeremy or Harry Reems. Just because it should be seen by more emotionally mature audience doesn't make it any less deserving of their praise or attention. Unfortunately, that's exactly what general audiences think of an NC-17 whenever (or if it ever) a film with that rating.
In short: the rating is just as poisonous to the box office as Katherine Hepburn was to box office in the thirties. The rating, invented by the MPAA in the early nineties to coincide with Philip Kaufman's sexually charged Henry & June. They hoped the new rating, which replaced the always-dreaded and controversial X rating, would finally be accepted by the regular theatergoing audience and not a few art-house patrons. It wasn't.
The rating was just a venomous as the last one. This could be attributed to the MPAA not throughly educating people on the rating, which resulted in establishments like Wal-Mart to refuse carrying an film with the rating. Granted, the distributors themselves weren't of great help to the rating. Most refused to release a film with the rating, and that's why most with an NC-17 are indie or foreign films which didn't have much hope for the box office anyway. Studios usually re-edit their films to avoid it (which would lead to the money-grubbing tactic of releasing 'scandalous' unrated editions a few months after the theatrical release), or simply released it without any rating (Requiem for a Dream).
Big-time studios, however, did try at least once to make NC-17 accessible to the public. This resulted in the '95 flick Showgirls by Paul Verhoeven, whose previous film, Basic Instinct, was a huge hit despite almost receiving an NC-17 rating. They hoped for lightning to strike twice, but the film was a big 'old flop. Most chalked up the film's failure to the rating, but the actually flaw was a bit obvious: the movie was easily one of the worst of the decade, with a laughable storyline, and tasteless sex scenes which help enforce the stereotype that NC-17 were only meant for sex-crazed perverts, with no real artistic merit. The film was considered the Caligula (Penthouse's attempt at mixing a Ben-Hur-like epic with porn) of Generation X.
Several have suggested how to fix this problem. Roger Ebert, a vocal opponent against the NC-17 rating, has said that the rating should simply be gotten rid and replaced with the X rating. That might work, as, despite it's controversial nature, that old rating still produced bigger successes and hits, including A Clockwork Orange and Midnight Cowboy, which on the Oscar for Best Picture the year it was released. While Ebert's logic seems good, I still think there's a chance to salvage the NC-17 rating.
While many consider it beyond salvation, the NC-17 rating could be saved by a single high profile release. Several years have passed Showgirl's (now a cult classic) initial release, it might be a good idea to have a new wide release of a NC-17 films, and probably something that wouldn't illicit a bunch of Razzie awards. Probably, an above average sex-thriller could do the trick. We need something like Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut, which has debated as to whether Kubrick would've kept it's original NC-17 rating and release it anyway (the studios cowardly chopped it down to a R-rating after his death).
Hell, maybe an emotionally mature film without a sex scene or nudity every five minutes could help break the controversy, like the upcoming Blue Valentine. Screw the appeal, Mr. Weinstein. Wouldn't it be a better publicity push to keep the rating and now market it as the "controversial film the why is was intended to be seen." Sure, that will be all bullshit, but they don't have to know that. It may be difficult task, but remember, Mr. Weinstein, you are the same person who manipulated people into letting Shakespeare in Love to win over Saving Private Ryan over a decade ago. Fooling people to see this would be a walk in the park.
By the way, the film in question, 'Blue Valentine', will get a release near the end of the year, which will probably not be released anywhere near you anytime soon. Unless if you live New York or Los Angles, of course.
| 73 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
As if the Hays Code had been bad enough!
I just don't understand the criteria the MPAA operate with ... It frequently makes no sense.
Horrorphiles had been demanding for an equivalent to the X-rating for so long, so that graphically violent horror movies could be released uncut. The NC-17 failed miserably.
The whole "unrated" version works reasonably well for the domestic market, why can't it work in cinemas? Because theatres and distribution companies panic at the presentation of an unrated movie, for fear it will contain hardcore sex, or worse. Fair enough I suppose, so why not watch the damn thing and then make the decision instead of simply holding an across the board attitude regardless.
I want to see that doco This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated, but it's no longer available on Amazon to purchase. Strange. Is it considered that subversive??
In Australia we have G (general exhibition), M (general exhibition but recommended for mature audiences), MA (anyone under the age of 15 must be accompanied by parent or guardian), R (restricted to 18 and over), and X (adult movies, but these are not screened at cinemas, and are not available for hire - except in the state of Canberra).
Australian censors have a criteria for rating movies almost as fickle and confusing as the MPAA ...
Personally I abhor censorship. Warnings are important about content (and there are some exploitation movies that are certainly reprehensible) but I can't stand the idea that a small bunch of people are making decisions about what movies I can and cannot see.