(From our upcoming BEN AND DESIREE)

More than two years ago, in post entitled No Sadness, Anguish, Pain, or Suffering I quoted a bit from Violet Blue’s blog about her upcoming edition of Best Women’s Erotica 2006. Said Violet:

“I don’t know, but I have to say that I’ve noticed a huge difference in the way that previous generations of women have edited erotic anthologies in comparison to my generations’ attitudes about sex. We don’t think that “literary” erotica, especially women’s erotica, needs to be somehow qualified by sadness, anguish, pain or suffering… A message to the publishers and editors (and filmmakers) who imbue the hot fuck with a moral: you’re not relevant anymore… I’m running totally sexually fucking amok with BWE ‘06. I’m tossing OUT all the fucking depressing submissions I’m getting. I want erotica that totally turns my head around, and makes me want to fuck.”

Two years later, The Guardians Josh Spero has identified “the disturbing nature of sex” as a hallmark of the Independent Film Channels “50 Great Sex Scenes in Cinema.” Says Josh:

“Many of the scenes are marked out by the disturbing nature of the sex. Take No 1 - Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland having grief-stricken sex in Nicholas Roeg’s Don’t Look Now. It’s profoundly out of place given the rest of the film, yet it is tender, erotic and tells us about the characters, as meaningful sex scenes should.The disturbances continue through the top 10: Viggo Mortensen and Maria Bello pound away at each other on the stairs in A History of Violence (2), with all the layers of deceit and mistrust involved; Naomi Watts and Laura Elena Harring have surreal sapphic sex in Mulholland Drive (3); while Secretary (8) and Betty Blue (6) are chock-full of odd, unhinged sex. Perhaps most disturbing is The Night Porter (12), where Nazi guard Dirk Bogarde and concentration camp survivor Charlotte Rampling reconnect.”

Let’s see; disturbing, grief-striken, deceit, mistrust, surreal, odd, unhinged, disturbing (again), and just for kicks, Nazi and concentration camp.

Notice anything?

Look, I know, drama require doubt, and as I said in Part 1, if you made a film about how great bicycling is, you’d virtually be *required* to subject one of the characters to a deadly, or at least greviously injurious wreck. That’s how story-telling (usually) works. But like Violet, I am simply sick to death of the idea that sex has to be contextualized by sadness, anguish, pain and/or suffering to be taken seriously.

Oh look! Another art-house film showing us how, even when people have wild, break the bedframe, smash the china, sing into each other’s assholes sex, they still can’t connect; not deep down inside where it counts. Did anyone besides me notice that in SHORTBUS when main characters finally got their restoritive, healing, last reel of the film sex, we didn’t get to see it!? Disturbing, grief-striken, deceitful, mistrustful, surreal, odd, unhinged sex is a reality worth of being closely observed. But sex that is merely connective, pleasurable, loving – well what sort of a pervert wants to see that?

Rant over.

I’m going to the beach!

A nice mention by Steve Erickson on Nerve’s indie film blog, Screengrab,about our recent experience with the MPAA’s advertising department. Writes Erik:

“…He recently decided to get an MPAA rating for his film Marie and Jack: A Hardcore Love Story. As expected, he got an NC-17 (not so dreaded, in his case), but the real twist came when he discovered that the MPAA now had to approve his DVD artwork… While many mainstream filmmakers start foaming at the mouth when the MPAA’s name is mentioned, Comstock describes his experiences with a surprising level of respect.”

I can understand why a producer could feel vexed about their dealings with MPAA.

(more…)

The poster for LAST TANGO IN PARIS, including X-rating symbol
(click to enlarge)

Fad23 is absolutely right. The X-rating was a part of the MPAA four-tier system first introduced in 1968.

But unlike G, PG, and R, X was not a trademarked MPAA property. The X rating was conceived of by the MPAA as a rating meaning ‘not suitable for children’ that could be and was self-applied by producers who did not feel their film needed and/or warranted a less restrictive rating.

But there have always been films deemed “not suitable for children,” and long before X or NC-17 there was an “adults only” classification, given to films like DUAL IN THE SUN, BABY DOLL, SUDDENLY LAST SUMMER, TO EACH HIS OWN and others that, by the standards of the day, were deemed to be inappropriate for children.

But in the 1950’s “foreign films”, made outside the (self imposed) Hayes Code that governed Hollywood production, began to make their way into the US. These films frequently addressed issues of sexuality in a manner that was far more frank than the coded subtexualized language required to address adult themes within the strictures of the code.

Poster for THE LOVERS, the film at the center of Jacobellis v. Ohio.

The 1950s also saw the breakup of the studio system, particularly the vertical integration of production, distribution and exhibition, which considerably loosened control on what theaters could and would screen, and by the 1960s cultural mores had shifted to the point that the old production code was becoming increasingly irrelevant. In response code was revised in 1966, and in 1968 the production code was abandoned in favor G,PG, R and X system (originally G, M, R, X.)

But it’s important to remember that from the start, the X-rating was always intended as a rating that could be self-applied by producers, and unlike G, PG, and R, the MPAA maintained no control over the X rating as a trademarked property. It’s also important to remember that when the system was introduce “X” had no special stigma, any more than the previous rating of Adults Only rating give to DUEL IN THE SUN, et al.

Around the same time, there were court decisions established the legality of both producing films depicting actual sex acts and showing them in theaters. This new legal climate gave rise to the open production and theatrical screening of films featuring depictions of actual sex acts. Because X, which meant “adults only” was a self-applied rating, producers of these films were free to give their films an X-rating with or without the MPAAs approval.

At first this was done to give these sexually explicit films an air of legitimacy, but with no control over who could or could not use the X-rating it quickly became associated with very low-budget products concerned with little more than creating a vehicle for the presentation of explicit sex. It was at during this time that films like MIDNIGHT COWBOY, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, and others moved to have their ratings changed from X to R. Sometimes this was done by petitioning the MPAA to re-evaluate the rating, sometimes by simply editing out the “offending material”.

The stigma of the X-rating was further deepened when some producers began using XXX an gimmick to communicate that their films were especially raw or filled with sex, as opposed to merely X-rated, which could and did refer to films (such as MIDNIGHT COWBOY or A CLOCKWORK ORANGE,) that were unsuitable for children, but contained little, if any, explicit sex or nudity.

42nd Street, circa 1975 (click to enlarge)

This was also a time when many urban areas were in decline, and many theaters were turning to sexually explicit movies to draw audiences to theaters that would otherwise have been empty (think Times Square in the 70s.) In response, theater landlords began to write “no x-rated films” into their leases. Also theater chains enforced “no X” policies on their fanchiseese, and many newspapers had “no X” advertising policies.

Now remember, R means a film may be suitable for suitable for children when accompanied by an adult; X meant a film is not suitable for children at all. The concept of an “adults only film”, a concept that had existed from the beginning of commercial cinema, suddenly collapsed. It became impossible to advertise or exhibit a film that that was not suitable for children. For a film to be able to advertise in most newspapers, or play in most theaters, it had to have an R-rating, and that meant the omission of any element–sex, violence, language, drug use–that was not suitable viewing for children.

This collapse was not some grand conspiracy on the part of the MPAA to put an end to films for grown-ups. It was the result of the collision of changes to the MPAA ratings system, court decisions that allowed the production and public exhibition of films featuring depictions of actual sex acts, demographic and social changes that altered theater going habits, and the odd quirk that the MPAA had allowed their X-rating to be “public property”.

As a result, the X-rating was more or less abandoned by all parties. Hollywood producers weren’t going to invest millions of dollars in a film that couldn’t be advertised or screened in legitimate venues, and restricted their “adult” efforts to R-rated films. And producers of sexually explicit film and videos preferred to label their product as XXX, rather than the seemingly milder X. According to their own website, no films were rated X by the MPAA during the entire decade of the 1980s, (and virtually none in the 1970s.)

What that means is that for 20 years, all films produced by the Hollywood establishment that were produced within the confines of what could conceivably be shown to children. Moviemaking for grown-ups died.

Poster for HENRY AND JUNE, 1990, NC-17

In 1990 the MPAA attempted to reestablish a “legitimate” adults-only movie-making space with introduction of the NC-17 rating. Not wanting to repeat their mistake with the X-rating, the NC-17 is a trademarked property that can only be used if you submit your film and advertising to the MPAA process. But it was too little too late.

Not understanding the history of the X rating, and convinced that the MPAA was simply trying to put a new name on porn, most exhibition and advertising venues simply re-wrote their rules to prohibit the exhibition and advertising of NC-17 films. To this day some of America’s largest theater chains will not exhibit NC-17 movies, and many of America’s largest media outlets will not accept adverting for NC-17 movies. A few NC-17 art-house films were made, mostly in the nineties, and in 1995 MGM/UA gambled (and lost) on the NC-17 rating with the laughably bad big budget feature SHOWGIRLS. But in this decade (2000s), only a small handful of films have been rated NC-17, (including our own MARIE AND JACK: A HARDCORE LOVE STORY.)

Now lest I be seen as an apologist for the MPAA, I think they were slow to understand what was happening to the X-rating, slow to take action, (nearly 20 years!) and when they did finally introduce the NC-17 rating, they did “drop the ball”. More over, as far as I can tell, they’ve done precious little since then to correct their mistake.

These days there’s very little movie-making that is truly for grown-ups. Even “serious films” that have no interest in attracting a teen audience have to be made “suitable for children” to avoid the dreaded NC-17, so even “realistic adult dramas” have an odd lack of candor in the way that sex is depicted visually.

The situations are adult, the language may be frank, but the sex and nudity is strangely demure. Sex is always under the covers, or with the lights low, or the camera-angles are cheated just enough to the left or the right to preserve the all important R-rating.

As a result we have a cinematic landscape where every other aspect of the human experience is rendered in vivid detail (with often a special fetishization of violence,) but the simple truth of what people look like naked, or what people look like when they give themselves over to sexual desire remains largely unexplored by filmmakers, and remains largely unseen by audiences.

Production still from MARIE AND JACK: A HARDCORE LOVE STORY, 2002, NC-17

“I know it when I see it.” has been called one of the most famous phrases in the entire history of the Supreme Court. It was written by Justice Potter Stewart in his concurrence with the court’s 1964 decision in Jacobellis v. Ohio, a case which determined that the film LES AMANTS was not obscene. Wrote Justice Stewart:

“It is possible to read the Court’s opinion in Roth v. United States and Alberts v. California, 354 U.S. 476, in a variety of ways. In saying this, I imply no criticism of the Court, which in those cases was faced with the task of trying to define what may be indefinable. I have reached the conclusion, which I think is confirmed at least by negative implication in the Court’s decisions since Roth and Alberts,1 that under the First and Fourteenth Amendments criminal laws in this area are constitutionally limited to hard-core pornography. I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”

When Justice Stewart wrote this famous phrase, the standard for determining obscenity had been laid forth in the 1957 case Roth v. United States. Reading from Jacobellis v. Ohio:

The test for obscenity is “whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest.” Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476. Pp. 191-195.A work cannot be proscribed unless it is “utterly without redeeming social importance,” and hence material that deals with sex in a manner that advocates ideas, or that has literary or scientific or artistic value or any other form of social importance, may not be held obscene and denied constitutional protection. P. 191.

In 1973 the standard laid forth in Roth was replaced by a standard laid forth in Miller vs. California, commonly refereed to as The Miller Standard:

(a) whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards” would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

I don’t see that Miller provides anymore guidance than Roth, but then I’m not a lawyer, I’m a filmmaker. But I did well in my civics class, and the very fact that obscenity can only be determined after a trial gives the entire concept of punishing the expression of ideas that cannot be known to be obscene at the time of their creation the reek of ex post facto, which is explicitly prohibited by our constitution.

But never-mind concerns about the slippery definition of obscenity, or pesky prohibitions on ex post facto laws, from where does the state derive its authority to regulate this (so-called) obscenity? It’s true enough that the First Amendment does not protect every utterance, but by what logic does the state gather into its grasp how we the people choose to talk about sex?

Back in February we submitted our first film, MARIE AND JACK: A HARDCORE LOVE STORY to the Motion Picture Association of America (The MPAA). Since MARIE AND JACK is a film about grown-up ideas, with grown-up imagery, intended for a grown-up audience, we had every expectation that the film would receive (the dreaded) NC-17 rating. From MPAA.org:

“An NC-17 rated motion picture is one that, in the view of the Rating Board, most parents would consider patently too adult for their children 17 and under. No children will be admitted. NC-17 does not mean “obscene” or “pornographic” in the common or legal meaning of those words, and should not be construed as a negative judgment in any sense. The rating simply signals that the content is appropriate only for an adult audience. An NC-17 rating can be based on violence, sex, aberrational behavior, drug abuse or any other element that most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children.”

(You can read rest the MPAA’s explanation of their rating system on the MPAA website.)

We submitted the film back in February because we knew that sometime this Summer we’d need to make another run (the fifth!) of MARIE AND JACK DVDs, and we also knew that we wanted to update the cover so that it was more inline with the look of our more recent titles (The M&J design was mine, the more recent covers were designed by Peggy. You can guess at which ones I like better.)

The idea was since we were going to be redesigning/reprinting the cover anyway, why not submit the film and see if having an MPAA rating (even the dreaded NC-17 rating) changed the marketablity of our film.

Would the NC-17 rating and MPAA dingbat make our work seem more legitimate? Or would the MPAA rating make people think they were getting a watered-down, censored version of Marie and JACK. (Point of fact, the MPAA didn’t ask us to change a frame, and even said MARIE AND JACK was just the sort of film the NC-17 rating was made for.)

What the MPAA did ask us to change was the cover, both text and images, so that the packaging would be “suitable for all viewers,” and while you and I may disagree with the MPAA about what is or is not suitable for all viewers, it not your or my opinion that counts; it’s theirs. That’s the bargain you make if you want to be in their club. (Actually, I think the MPAA is best thought of as being like a Chamber of Commerce, or local Better Business Bureau. No one forces a merchant to join the Better Business Bureau, but if you do join, they rules they expect you to follow.)

The original re-design of the MARIE AND JACK cover looked like this:

(You can click on it for a larger version.)

The front cover has been redesigned to be in keeping with the look that Peggy developed for the series. The back cover is unchanged from the previous version.

The MPAA had two objections. To begin with, unambiguous nudity is not considered “suitable for all viewers” so the three photos on the upper left side were unacceptable. One solution suggested was that the photos could be cropped, or shadows could be airbrushed on to them sufficient that a reasonable person could say it was not clear whether or not the people were naked.

The MPAA also objected to the word “orgasms” in the quote from Penthouse magazine, but suggested that climaxes could be used in its place. I’ll admit this made my head spin a little, but the MPAA representative’s explanation was that while most people would probably consider our use of the word tasteful and appropriate, if they let us use the word “orgasm” on our cover, then someone else would want to splash it all over the cover in giant pink letters, and that the MPAA wanted, as much as is possible, to avoid making subjective judgments about what was and was not permissible. No doubt this was a reference to the 1997 film ORGAZMO.

The same explanation was given for their request that the back cover photos be altered: yes, most people would find our use of the nudity completely appropriate, but if they allowed unambiguous nudity on the cover of MARIE AND JACK then some other producer would want the same for their DVD packaging, claiming that their use was also “appropriate,” even if most people would find it objectionable.

The MPAA did not object to the close-up of Jack fingering Marie’s clit while they fucked in the spoon position, complete with his cock half inside her pussy that we used to illustrate the “picture in a picture” version of the un-edited, two camera love-scene offered on the DVD. Whether this is because they thought the image was it was sufficiently ambiguous, or because they simply didn’t know what they were looking at, I don’t know.

So here’s the cover the MPAA approved:

(Again, click for a larger version.)

“Orgasms” has been changed to “climaxes”, and the three back photos have been cropped or simply replace with photos that have sufficient degree of ambiguity as to where or not Marie and Jack are clothed. The close-up was removed altogether – maybe they missed it, maybe they didn’t know what they were looking at, maybe they knew, but thought a close-up of clit stroking is “suitable for all viewers” – I don’t know. Whatever the case, I don’t think it’s all-ages appropriate, that’s the standard, so we took it out. This is what the letter you get from the MPAA looks like:

The people at the MPAA have all been very friendly, and I have to admit, seeing that very distinctive MPAA dingbat on our movie is pretty nifty. But the question remains: will going through this process help us make more money? I don’t know. I think the new cover design will sell better, but I don’t know if the NC-17 is going to make much of a difference one way or the other.

As it stands now, most places that won’t show unrated films won’t show NC-17 films either. Most places that won’t sell unrated DVDs won’t sell NC-17 rated films either. In a surprisingly candid conversation with an MPAA rep last Winter, he told me “we dropped the ball when we introduced the NC-17 rating. We didn’t explain or promote it the way we should have.”

As a result, the NC-17 is sort of a no-man’s land. The only thing you get for accepting an NC-17 rating from the MPAA (aside from the chance to write the MPAA a hefty check,) is the obligation to submit your advertising and packaging for their approval.

No doubt that’s why films like 9 SONGS and SHORTBUS decide to go out unrated; not (necessarily) because the MPAA advertisement approval process is so odious, but if the NC-17 rating isn’t going to help the movie make money, who needs the hassle? In fact, the advertising and packaging on unrated movies with sexual theme tend to emphasize that they the unrated, uncensored, uncut version, even when no other version exists. In the art-house world “Unrated” has come to connote uncensored and uncompromised filmmaking.

So then why did we do it?

Well if nothing else, it’s given us a chance to experience the MPAA process, not as observers, not as critics or pundits, but as participants. Having been run through the mandatory ratings processes in other countries, I have to say I much prefer dealing with the MPAA, especially the fact that it’s voluntary. We have four other films, each unrated, each completely legal to sell or screen, and they’re doing just fine.

I’m not thrilled about the changes to the MARIE AND JACK cover, but neither am I broken-hearted. I understand why the MPAA insists on maintaining some sort of control for where and how their trademarks appear, we do the same thing here at Comstock Films. There are venues available to people who have different ideas about is appropriate or what is in good taste, or even whether or not that’s a relevant question.

In the bigger picture it’s about continuing to take risks, continuing to poke around in the places other people overlook to see if we can find opportunities. Most producers consider the NC-17 rating a stigma, a scarlet letter, but who knows, maybe (maybe) we can make it a badge of honor. We’ll play by the MPAA’s rules with MARIE AND JACK and see if it helps us. If it does, we’ll consider submitting our other films. If it doesn’t, we can always surrender the rating and go back to what we’re already doing.

Or hey wait! Maybe we’ll even redesign our packaging and make sure the words “unrated,” “uncut,” and “uncensored” appear in the biggest, pinkest letters possible!

It’s official! ASHLEY AND KISHA: FINDING THE RIGHT FIT will play at this year’s Long Beach Q Film Festival, taking place October 12-14 at the historic art deco style Art Theater.

Yay!

“Tired of watching “erotic” movies where cheesy gay for pay chicks bore each other? Well, Ashley & Kisha: Finding The Right Fit is the movie for you.”

That’s the opening line from a
very nice review of ASHLEY AND KISHA on the black lesbian erotica site Kuma. The review closes with this:

“Ashley and Kisha seem to be a little nervous at first, after all there are other people in the room. Once they get into the zone, it’s like the outside world doesn’t exist. They aren’t performing/putting on a show, they are focused on loving each other. It’s a very beautiful film.”

It’s a point of pride with me that our set run in a way that it is a place were people can lose themselves in one another, even while we slide around them, cameras purring, even with the magazine changes, and the other things that usually aren’t there when people make love. So it’s nice when the people we film tell us they were able to let go and enjoy themselves, and it’s nice when people who watch our films can see that the couple is actually there for each other’s pleasure, the camera a privileged witness, rather than the sole reason they are having sex.