So last Thursday I had a really interesting chat with Joan Graves, Chairwoman of CARA, the board that actually rates films at the MPAA. The reason I was talking with Joan is because my feeling is that the problem with the MPAA’s rating system isn’t that the line between NC-17 and R isn’t clear, it’s that the NC-17 rating is not a viable commercial space, and that the MPAA hasn’t done enough to promote this rating.
“Have you talked to the theater owners?” Joan asked.
“Joan, it’s just me and my wife here. We’re probably the smallest distribution company you’ve ever talked to. I can’t talk to all the theater owners. But the MPAA can.”
That’s not what Joan meant.
What she meant was had I talked to the National Organization of Theater Owners, and then she gave me President John Fithian’s phone number and encouraged me to mention her name when I called.
So the next morning I called John, got one of his assistants, talked his ear off until the assistant told me he had some real work he needed to get done. So I left my number and figured that was that. Imagine my surprise when two hours later I answered my phone and heard, “Hello, it’s John Fithian from the National Organization of Theater Owners.”
It turns out this whole NC-17 thing is very much on John’s mind these days. It’s John’s belief that the failure of the NC-17 rating thrive either commercially and artistically undermines the ratings system as a whole. As he said in a speech at Showest last March:
“Serious filmmakers need to take NC-17 seriously. Everyone in the industry should resist any temptation to treat NC-17 as a negative judgment, rather than an integral part of the rating system that contemplates entertainment for both children and adults.”
What concerns John is that the failure of the NC-17 rating exerts upward pressure on the other ratings. Without a place for “movies for grown-ups,” films dealing with topics, language or imagery really not suitable for children are forced into a how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin game around what will and won’t be allowed in an R-rated film.
This conundrum is played out again when Joan and her crew CARA screen these films. Where is the line between R and NC-17? Well in the end, that’s a judgement about the film as a whole; that’s going to be a subjective judgement; and when you’ve got films that are trying to get right up to the edge without going over, reasonable people will sometimes disagree.
So then why to filmmakers feel like they have to ride this razor’s edge? What is it about the NC-17 that makes it “the kiss of death” for a film? Well that bring us to John’s three myths:
1) Theaters Won’t Play NC-17 Movies
In 2001 John informally polled his membership. Of the top 25 theater chains, only 2 had “No NC-17″ policies. While it’s true that one of these two is a biggie, that’s still only 2 of top 25 that have a policy against the rating.
All of them have policies against showing films that no one comes to see. Talking about this yesterday with a friend who owns and runs an independent theater, my friend said “The only thing any theater owner has against NC-17 is no one makes NC-17 movies anyone wants to see.”
Reserving the right to change my opinion in light of further information, I’ll rate this myth MNT, for “mostly not true”.
2) No Media Outlets Will Accept Advertising for NC-17 Movies
Prior to Ang Lee’s LUST, CAUTION, the last time a big-name director tackled the NC-17 rating was in 2003 with Bernado Bertolucci’s THE DREAMERS.
Not very many people went to see THE DREAMERS, but you can’t blame that on not being able to advertising the movie. According to John, the film’s producers are on record as stating that they were able to make advertising buys everywhere they wanted to, with the exception of two newspapers, one of which was in Utah. ‘Nuff said.
You can blame poor receipts on the fact that THE DREAMERS just isn’t a very good movie. Very pretty to look at, but not much fun to watch, and terrible to listen to. (Note to the producers: If you can’t get rights to real Jimmy Hendrix tracks, don’t use crappy sound-alike substitutes.)
Unless and until someone can show me a real rejection letters or a policy statement from a major outlet, I’m rating this myth UT for “untrue”.
3) Video Retailers and Rentals Won’t Carry NC-17 Movies
Okay, now we’re on to a “myth” that is actually somewhat true.
Blockbuster wont’ carry NC-17 movies, and Walmart won’t carry NC-17 movies. But what they will carry “Unrated Director’s Cuts” of R-rated movies, versions that would have received an NC-17 rating (”See what they wouldn’t let you see in the theater!”)
This makes John quite angry, angry enough that NATO is researching a possible lawsuit.
Since Blockbuster and Walmart are important outlets for DVD sales, I’m going to give this myth an HT rating for “half-true,” and I’ll give Blockbuster an FU rating for “fuck you”.
–
So now Ang Lee has taken up the banner, trying to find fame and fortune where Bertolucci and Verhoeven found only shame and ignominy, and a lot of people (including me) are pulling for him. (Said John, “I told the producers, if you have any trouble with distribution, you let me know right away.”)
I suppose that’s the sort of “special treatment” that makes people like Kirby Dick mad, and cry “double standard”, and I don’t know that John Fithian would be as eager to go to bat for our NC-17 rated film, MARIE AND JACK: A HARDCORE LOVE STORY. But I think it’s fair to guess that has more to do with Lee’s long string of commercial and critical successes, than the fact that I’m an indie filmmaker, working “outside the system.”
What I do know is that everyone I’ve talked to on the MPAA/NATO side of this question has been unfailingly nice, courteous, and (perhaps most importantly,) lucid. I don’t agree with everything I’ve heard (Tony Hey spend a good long while talking about SAVING PRIVATE RYAN) but nothing anyone’s said has struck me us being outrageous, unfair, or unreasonable. Where I’ve disagreed with the MPAA (such as “orgasm” not being a suitable word for children) I’ve been able to understand their point of view, and the MPAA has been eager to help us find a way to communicate what we needed to communicate without dreadful compromise. It was the MPAA ad rep that suggested “climax”. It might be silly to have to substitute “climax” for “orgasm” on a boxcover, but you can hardly call it an attempt to ruin us.
There has also been much discussion of how “secretive” the MPAA is. In my experience this simply isn’t so. Their instructions on our boxcover issues were clear and direct, and if anything were intended to help us find that “razor’s edge”. Similarly, my friend Bret Woods received clear instructions on exactly what would need to be removed from his Psychopatia Sexualis to bring down from an NC-17 to an R-rating (a quasi-consensual piss drinking scene.)
Was Bret’s artistic vision ruined by that alteration? You’ll have to ask him. But if John Fithian has his way, Bret won’t feel compelled to make alterations like this to his future efforts. An NC-17 rating will mean only as much or as little to a film’s financial prospects as any of the MPAA’s other ratings, and those of us who make “films for grown-ups” will have to find a new excuse that we’re not making any money! 
