The Exhibitionist: Adult Moviegoers Just Wish They Were Kids
Filed under: Foreign Language, Exhibition, Focus Features, Politics, Columns, Cinematical Indie
To quote an official MPAA movie ratings poster: "THE SYSTEM CAN'T WORK UNLESS YOU UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM."
How many NC-17-rated films did you see in the theater in the past year? Maybe one? That is if Ang Lee's Lust, Caution even played in your 'hood. And considering the most screens it ever played on in any single week was 143, I highly doubt it (understandably, it could have played in more than 143 locations over the course of its 20 weeks in theaters, but I doubt many more).
But if there had been more NC-17-rated films, and they actually played near you, would you have gone to see them? And if so, why? Because you expect something more titillating than the other releases to choose from? And if not, why? Are you afraid of others thinking you are going to see something dirty? Are you embarrassed about both attending and watching graphic sex on screen? Do you correlate the experience to going to a porno theater?
After all, who thinks about films rated NC-17 as being simply films for adults, rather than "adult films"? Yeah, hardly anybody. Despite the fact that almost one year ago, John Fithian, president and CEO of the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO), spoke at the cinema exhibition convention ShoWest about removing the stigma attached to the rating. And now, with this year's ShoWest beginning next Monday (March 10), that stigma seems to be as strong as it ever was.
It just goes to show how little Hollywood listens to the exhibition industry. Last year, Fithian also called upon the studios to do away with releasing specially advertised unrated-DVD versions of its movies, because the audiences for raunchy comedies and violent horror films are less likely to see those releases in theaters when they know what to expect down the line on home video. But that practice is still going on strong, too.
However, at least two months prior to ShoWest 2007, MPAA president Dan Glickman had also declared that he'd like the world to love and embrace the NC-17 rating. Well, if either the MPAA or even NATO had campaigned for the end of the stigmatism, I must have missed it. As far as I can tell, moviegoers still think NC-17 is a naughty stamp, and therefore the studios and most other filmmakers are still staying away from it.
At least next Tuesday, though, Fithian will present Ang Lee and James Schamus, director and writer/producer/distributor, respectively, of Lust, Caution with the first ShoWest/Nato Freedom of Expression Award. This is to honor the filmmakers for their decision to release that film with its NC-17 rating and not give in to a censored cut, as most other filmmakers would do or would be forced to do.
In my opinion Lee and Schamus should decline the award. They should throw it back in NATO's face with the statement that, yes, they had the uncompromising integrity to stand by their film, but NATO failed to clearly support the film by passively allowing the stigmatism to continue unreformed. They should ask why NATO hasn't yet begun an educational campaign, with posters and pre-show ads, which explains to audiences how the NC-17 rating is not the same as an XXX. They should challenge the members of the organization to admit why they didn't book the film in their cinemas.
Of course, it's not all NATO's fault. Glickman and the MPAA, with help from the studios, needs to do the same sort of campaigning. And certainly the media needs to get with the program, too. Sure, Lust, Caution may have had some sex in it, but as far as I could tell from reading about the film last year, that was all it had in it. I can see why audiences may not have been interested.
Yet these may be the same moviegoers who complain about the kids in the audience. Who want more adult-geared screenings or cinemas, such as those that have alcohol and so don't admit young people. Wouldn't these people be happy to see a movie that is for them? Which kids aren't allowed to see?
I guess not. I guess people actually want to see the mainstream movies that are primarily made for kids (the main target age for most movies is young boys, isn't it?). They just don't want to see it with the kids. Just like how they want to read Harry Potter, but alone and not necessarily with children reading over their shoulder, they want to go see Harry Potter movies alone and not necessarily with children kicking the backs of their seats.
So that means to eliminate the stigma, we need the cooperation of NATO, the MPAA, the studios, the media and the people. Well, which one is best to get this started? I'm looking forward to hearing what happens next week (one of these years I hope to attend the thing). Will Fithian keep discussing the problem and not actually offer any solutions? A year is too long to go without any sign of change. If I was Fithian, I'd be more embarrassed right now than a prudent person going to see an NC-17-rated movie
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
3-02-2008 @ 4:35PM
hegster90 said...
well played.
Reply
3-02-2008 @ 1:40PM
jason said...
No matter how much the theaters, ahem, accept the rating, if the studio won't allow NC-17 movies to be made, it's essentially useless. The ratings system is flawed (beyond repair), and trying to work within its scope isn't the solution. Instead, change the damn system altogether.
Reply
3-05-2008 @ 12:02PM
Tom said...
Yup, indeed, the ratings system is flawed. It doesn't work, especially when you have kids under 17 sneaking in, lying about thier age, etc. Also, you have many stupid parents out there who don't exercise any discretion & take their kids to films that may be inappropriate for them. I went to see The Aristocrats & about 15 mins in a FAMILY got up & disgustedly walked out. Did they think they were seeing a revival of the Disney film with a similar title? Plus, the theatre we were in is an arthouse theatre. How could they possibly not have heard about the film's reputation?
3-02-2008 @ 4:54PM
Ed said...
"Yet these may be the same moviegoers who complain about the kids in the audience. Who want more adult-geared screenings or cinemas, such as those that have alcohol and so don't admit young people. Wouldn't these people be happy to see a movie that is for them? "-
Here's a funny idea, how about quit whining and insist upon a NC-17 movie being made that was actually good. Every NC-17 movie I've ever seen was simply a bad story with slightly dirtier love sceanes than an R rated movie... gee guess what, they already have those, they're called porno's. So please quit harping on the fact that adults aren't lining up to see the moral mans version of a porn, when the sheer lack of quality, and the idea that if it's a little dirtier than an R rated movie we'll eat it out of their hand. When producers lose these Neanderthal ideas and actually start putting some REAL QUALITY into the NC-17 rating, people will watch.
Reply
3-02-2008 @ 5:07PM
Nick said...
I've seen a couple NC-17 movies in a theater and I don't feel dirty at all. I saw "Lust, Caution" because I like Ang Lee, and Tony Leung. I'd have seen it whether it was G, R, or NC-17. The same goes for "Bad Education," I wanted to see the new Almadovar film, regardless of rating. The major problem is that most theaters don't book NC-17 movies, and you can't advertise them nearly as much as you can R and below, so no one sees them. I saw "The Dreamers" on dvd, because at the time I wasn't old enough to see it in a theater, and when I finally did see it, I didn't really see what the big deal was (as far as the rating).
I think "Showgirls" really sank the NC-17 rating. That was the one big chance to have it be embraced by the American public, and it turned out to be a giant piece of shit.
I don't feel embarrased going to see "Shortbus" or "Lust, Caution" or "Bad Education," and I don't see any reason why someone would.
Reply
3-03-2008 @ 4:48PM
Ed said...
"Shortbus", Thanks man you made my point of NC-17 movies being nothing more than a dirtier than R rated movie with a crappy story. Thank you, it's nice to know Softcore has so many big supporters.
3-02-2008 @ 7:21PM
Kelsey said...
Most NC-17 rated films released in America are either independant films or foreign ones. Typically, the MPAA gives non-mainstream films higher ratings than ones produced by majour production companies. The MPAA has no inclination or interest in getting rid of the bad rep. NC-17 has.
The ironic part of this is the NC-17 rating was created to get rid of the porn connatation XXX had and instead, gave it a new name.
Reply
3-02-2008 @ 9:29PM
uforeader said...
i'll see any good movie no matter what the rating is.
the thing is that nc-17 movies aren't made because the rating is mostly useless. you can get away with just about anything in an r-rated movie.
Reply
3-02-2008 @ 10:51PM
Stan Heck said...
To most people NC-17 is Porn. There should be another rating. "R-16" would /could take over the "NC-17" rating. AN "R-16" rating is nobody under 16 is admitted. The MPAA should dump NC-17. It doesn't work!
Reply
3-02-2008 @ 11:08PM
François Lafrenière said...
In Quebec, we have a fairly interesting classification system in that we don't really have an equivalent to the R rating, but we have an in-between of sorts to R and NC-17.
Our categories are G, 13+, 16+ and 18+. The trick is that children under 13 may attend a 13+ movie with an adult guardian, but only persons over the age of 16 may attend a 16+ movie. The rating is sparingly attributed, but a film like Lust, Caution is a prime candidate for 16+, which leaves the kids out, but doesn't place it alongside more sexually explicit content that gets the 18+ rating. Same goes for horror; Saw got a stricter 16+ rating here. It can even benefit serious dramas; Tout est parfait, a new Quebecois film that deals with suicide, got a 16+ rating even though it doesn't feature particularly objectionable violent or sexual content.
Either such a rating should exist in the MPAA's categories, or they should start using NC-17 more in that way. Anyways, you can learn more about the Quebec classification system at http://www.rcq.qc.ca/mult/process.asp?lng=en.
Reply
3-03-2008 @ 2:09AM
Scott Weinberg said...
Francois makes a good point. Perhaps if we created ONE MORE rating, call it something like NC-25, then maybe the NC-17 would start getting used more often. Heh.
3-03-2008 @ 2:00AM
Scott Weinberg said...
The irony is that the NC-17 was created to eliminate the "x-rated" stigma, but it immediately stuck to the new rating too. Apparently nobody in America thinks there should be movies made exclusively for adults.
Reply
3-03-2008 @ 8:46AM
Francois said...
I've done more research, and I realized that in fact, it's not Quebec's 16+ that has no equivalent in the MPAA system, it's actually the 18+ rating. In the US, pornography or extreme gore are simply left unrated, whereas in Quebec, they get the 18+ rating.
Which makes NC-17 the "worst" rating a movie can get, and does nothing to remove any stigma. Perhaps the better solution would be for the MPAA to bring back the X rating or some such tag on pornography so there could be something "above" NC-17. Would it help people differentiate the two?
3-05-2008 @ 7:05AM
C++ said...
You forgot one major group that needs to work on this: the filmmakers. Most NC-17 films are basically softcore porn, so is it really any surprise the stigma sticks around? If filmakers and studios put out enough NC-17 material that isn't garbage, and maybe used the higher rating to explore more mature subjects (as opposed to just a PG-13 or R plot with an extra helping of sex or violence) people might start taking them seriously.
Reply
3-05-2008 @ 12:11PM
Tom said...
People fear and choose to misunderstand what they don't understand. Often the objection to showing an NC17 film in a local theatre is brought by local interest & religious groups who think that moral righteousness means choosing what everyone ELSE may see or not see. That's what infuriates me the most; they think its their mission to turn us all into moral reflections of themselves & that art forms like film, that may reflect the ills of society, are to be ignored.
This also seems to be the thinking of Blockbuster, who, because they claim they are a family-oriented company, refuse to carry NC17 films. Yet, they have NO problem renting the most violent video games to their customers, do they?
Reply
3-05-2008 @ 1:03PM
AMStar said...
The whole ratings system is screwed. What needs to happen is that the National Association of Theater Owners needs to get together and create their own ratings system, independent of the studios.
This needs to be an open system, where fimmakers can petition the board and object to the rating in a public forum. THis is similar to how many goverments do it, but without the stigma of goverment censorship.
This would be a board set up by the theaters and would be responsible to them, not the studios. Then, the theater owners could be directly responsible to what the ratings mean, and can book movies based not on studio control, but what is truly available.
If you haven't seen it, check out Kirby Dick's "This Film is Not yet Rated." It is a great documentary and really makes me mad at th mpaa. In fact, when I see the mpaa logo, I boo.
Reply
3-10-2008 @ 11:21AM
dumbtrain said...
The reason for a rating system is to inform the public about the content of the film. Why do we need films that have graphic sex and/or violence in them to be considered "good" films. Almost every film for best picture oscar this year was rated R because of sex or violence! Why do we as a culture need an "art form like film" to show us the worst parts of our society on GIGANTIC screens?
We need a rating system, but we need quality films and not so much quantity of crap.
Reply
3-05-2008 @ 2:34PM
soulst0p said...
A couple people on here have commented that NC-17 movies are all softcore porn.
Which already shows how much stigma the NC-17 rating carries, considering these are people who chose to come here to read an article about creating a dialogue about it.
A quick search of the list of NC-17 movies shows that about a third of the list is horror/action films, a third of it is films featuring sexually "explicit" content, and the final third, yes, the eqivalent of softcore pornography. The interesting thing is that the bulk of this list is actually films that have been re-edited to receive an R rating. There have only been a small handful of films that have surrendered or accepted the NC-17.
Simply looking at the list would probably open your eyes, as I can imagine that there are very minimal differences between the NC-17 and edited rated R cuts of films. Films that include some critically acclaimed selections, and even Oscar winners.
Reply
3-05-2008 @ 9:47PM
JM said...
I am a huge advocate for the NC-17 rating. And let me tell you how I'm going about supporting it. I pick out the good NC-17 movies: so far I've managed Cronenberg's "Crash" and Greenaway's "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover", both spectacular films. Sadly, I had to download them off the internet (I'm only 17), but I'll make sure to buy them when I hit 18. Then--and here's the most important part to removing the stigma--I do the WORD OF MOUTH thing!
When you see a good NC-17 film, tell EVERYONE you know! Say, "This was an amazing film, you have to watch it!" Don't tell them it's NC-17; some of them might never check, and they'll buy and watch the movie without ever knowing. THEN tell them it was NC-17. Tell them how "Clerks" originally got an NC-17, because there's loads of people, as young as teens, who loved that film. In fact, tell them ALL the films that originally got NC-17's: "Eyes Wide Shut", "High Tension", "The Hills Have Eyes" remake, "Natural Born Killers", "Requiem for a Dream", all four Saw films (only the 2nd managed to get an R on appeal), "South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut", "Team America: World Police", and "Y Tu Mama Tambien"--to name only a few. Gather up some friends and watch some of these films (make sure you get the right demographic). Then afterwards, when you're small-talking the film, insert comments about how it was originally rated NC-17.
Please, people, we can do this! The studios and organizations have the power to reach 1000s of people with one ad, but if everyone who reads this articles converts a mere ten people to the NC-17 movement, we'll get a thousand of our own.
Reply
3-05-2008 @ 5:47PM
Zach said...
What a lot of people seem to be missing, and I think soulst0p is the only person to have mentioned this, is that a LOT of films that are released with R ratings are actually edited versions of movies that were originally rated NC-17. There aren't that many NC-17 rated films to use as examples because in almost every case, they're edited and re-rated R to get wider releases and remove the stigma.
Several well known films that were originally rated NC-17 but re-rated R either on appeal or after being re-edited:
American Pie, American Psycho, Black and White, The Boondock Saints, Boxing Helena, Boys Don't Cry, Dracula (Coppola version), Casino, Clerks, The Cooler, The Devils Rejects, Eastern Promises, Eyes Wide Shut, Grindhouse, Hostel, High Tension, The Hills Have Eyes, Natural Born Killers, Predator 2, The Rules of Attraction, ALL four Saw films, Scream, South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut, Summer of Sam, Team America, Y tu mama tambien, and Your Friends and Neighbors.
The problem isn't that all NC-17 movies are just bad pieces of softcore porn. The issue is that studios for the most part will not release a movie that's rated NC-17, because they know that most people won't see it, most theatres won't carry it, and Blockbuster DEFINITELY won't stock it.
Reply