You’re absolutely right. The X-rating was a part of the MPAA system, but unlike the other less restrictive rating, the MPAA never excecised any control over who could or could not use the X-rating.

More on that in an upcoming post!

The cover is beautiful.

Even without having seen “This Film is Not Yet Rated” I had believed the original X rating was an MPAA thing. I could have sworn I saw some vintage list that contained the X-rating as though it were part of the official structure.

I think IFC’s version of the history of the MPAA rating system, and it’s explination of the problems producers face if their films are rated NC-17 is too symplistic.

For example, the original X-rating was a self-applied rating over which the MPAA exercised no control. After all, if you didn’t want your film rated as being suitable for children, why would the MPAA care what you had in your film. Strictly speaking, the Oscar-winning films your refer to were never rated X by the MPAA, they were rated X by their respective producers.

RE: Showgirls. In a conversation with a long-time MPAA staffer, he told me what high hopes he and others at the MPAA and through-out Hollywood had for Showgirls. Prior to that, NC-17 releases had been strictly low-budget art-house or grind-house. Showgirls was the first time a big budget film was to be release with an NC-17 rating, with a lot of pressure brought to bear by the UA for venues that were reluctant about the NC-17 to show the picture.

Unfortunately, Showgirls just wasn’t a very good flick, wasn’t a money maker, and it didn’t end up “making the case” for NC-17 that many people within the Hollywood establishment hoped it would.

It doesn’t seem all that necessary to me, but I think it’s cool that you went out of your way to test the waters. Perhaps the rating can be made into something worthwhile. Maybe it you might get a different response if you released a new movie instead.

Kudos, anyway!