reiher@onyx.jpl.nasa.gov (Peter Reiher) (11/28/90)
Two pieces of news concerning the new NC-17 rating. First, Kissemmee, a town in Florida best known for being close to Disneyworld, attempted to pass a city ordinance making it illegal for theater owners to allow children to see a film rated NC-17. The ordinance amounted to little more than a statement of position, since none of the movie theaters in the town are willing to show NC-17 films, anyway. None the less, the MPAA fought the ordinance tooth and nail, because they do not want to have the force of law applied to their rating system. It might cause legal problems involving censorship issues, and also it removes control from their hands. The ordinance was defeated. In rather worse news, what everyone claimed would never happen with the NC-17 rating is likely to happen. A hard core film will shortly be submitted to the MPAA rating board. The film in question is currently titled "Blond Emmanuel", though it has appeared under at least one other title before. It's in 3D, and exists in both a hard core and a soft core version, both of which were previously rated X (probably self-rated). The soft core version has already been submitted to the MPAA and received an NC-17 rating. It was shown at a midnight screening at the Nuart theater in LA, to much derision because it was not what it purported to be. Anyone who has seen a hard core film knows that, other than explicit sex, the typical specimen really has nothing to offer viewers, so if you edit out the sex, the result tends to be unbelievably lame. (There are many who would claim that such films are unbelievably lame even if you leave the sex in.) The film's producer intends to pay his fee and get his NC-17, largely because he believes it will allow the film to get more prominent display in video stores. What happens if the film is submitted and does get an NC-17 rating? Well, NC-17 becomes equivalent to X, except that not everyone can afford one. Theater owners cannot guarantee to their communities that the NC-17 film they are showing isn't a cheap bumping genitals film, but is a serious artistic effort with adult material. Church groups, unwilling to actually go to the effort of differentiating between hard core sex films and artistic adult films, will renew their efforts to keep NC-17 films out of the marketplace. Newspapers will similarly go back to their policies of not accepting ads for such films, making their wide release practically impossible. Jack Valenti will smugly say, "I told you so". And Hollywood will continue just as it has been, with the only benefit to the artistic community being that "Henry & June" succeeded in sneaking out of Universal uncut during the brief window when NC-17 was not synonymous with "sex film". Or maybe nothing happens. One hard core film gets the rating, no one is fooled by it and the producer gets no advantage, no other sex film producer ever submits his film again, church groups don't bother to demonstrate, theaters and papers don't change their policy, art flourishes, and people go on slinking into the back area of video stores to get their sex films on videocassettes with lurid red or black triple X's on the covers. You make the call. Peter Reiher reiher@onyx.jpl.nasa.gov . . . cit-vax!elroy!jato!jade!reiher
meuer@geom.umn.edu (Mark V. Meuer) (11/28/90)
In <1990Nov27.205705.5453@eddie.mit.edu> reiher@onyx.jpl.nasa.gov (Peter Reiher) writes: >In rather worse news, what everyone claimed would never happen with the NC-17 >rating is likely to happen. A hard core film will shortly be submitted to the >MPAA rating board. The film in question is currently titled "Blond Emmanuel", >though it has appeared under at least one other title before. It's in 3D, and >exists in both a hard core and a soft core version, both of which were >previously rated X (probably self-rated). The soft core version has already >been submitted to the MPAA and received an NC-17 rating. Is this even slightly surprising to anybody? It seemed very obvious to me from the outset that the industry just wants to make more money, and labeling "X" films "NC-17" is a way to get more people to attend movies they wouldn't before. I'm sorry to be so cynical, but believing that the movie industry is sincerely trying to advance art with this new rating is incredibly naive. Call it "rating inflation." The ratings mean less and less as time goes by. The exact same thing happened with the introduction of PG-13. A lot of parents would never let their kids see an R movie, but feel comfortable if there is a "PG" in the rating. Never mind that the material in a PG-13 is what used to be in R movies. -Mark Meuer (Put standard disclaimer here.) -- Mark Meuer | Geometry Supercomputer Project | meuer@geom.umn.edu "Scientists have determined that the world's fastest animal, with a top speed of 120 ft/sec, is a cow that has been dropped from a helicopter." - Dave Barry
awp92@campus.swarthmore.edu (Andy Perry) (11/29/90)
In article <1990Nov28.003448.17949@eddie.mit.edu>, meuer@geom.umn.edu (Mark V. Meuer) writes... > >Is this even slightly surprising to anybody? It seemed very obvious >to me from the outset that the industry just wants to make more money, >and labeling "X" films "NC-17" is a way to get more people to attend >movies they wouldn't before. I'm sorry to be so cynical, but >believing that the movie industry is sincerely trying to advance art >with this new rating is incredibly naive. I don't think it's as simple as all that. You must remember that the new rating is in fact *harmful* to studios if (and only if) NC-17 films are advertised and shown in mainstream or art venues. Why? Because it takes away the studio's main means of control of big-name directors. When an X rating was a commercial liability, directors could not dispute the clause in their contracts which said "the film you make MUST get an R rating." If the film looked like it would get an X, the studio could force cuts. Or, if you want to be conspiracy-minded, if the film was particularly effective at expressing the things that the industry doesn't seem to like expressed (rage, for example), the industry could force cuts. It is very significant that the push to change the system was begun by independents like Miramax. (Although, it is certainly no less significant that only big studios had the clout to actually get it done.) So, here's my question: why would anyone think that an NC-17 is a good thing for "Blond Emmanuelle" and that genre to get? People in the market for porn want porn, not art. It seems likely to me that XXX is much more of a draw than NC-17 for the rental market. The rating will stay relatively "pure" (vatever dodd minnz), because besmirching it is a bad business move, both for artsy filmmakers and for pornmakers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Perry; Swarthmore College AWP92@campus.swarthmore.edu OR AWP92@swarthmr
pauls@tellabs.com (Paul Silver) (11/29/90)
In response to the posting which listed what would happen to the NC-17 rating if a hard-core porn film were submitted to the MPAA: You said that either it would cause the NC-17 rating to become what the X rating was, or that no one would be fooled and no other hard-core porn producers would ever attempt to submit for a rating again. A third possibility is that the MPAA could refuse to rate the porn film. Just because a film is submitted for a rating does not mean that the MPAA is required to give it a rating. It just returns the producer's fee and tells him they will not rate it. He then is forced to give it an X rating, or try to release it unrated, which now amounts to the same thing. -- Paul Silver pauls@tellabs.com
reiher@onyx.jpl.nasa.gov (Peter Reiher) (11/30/90)
In article <1990Nov29.062845.10281@eddie.mit.edu> pauls@tellabs.com (Paul Silver) writes: > >A third possibility is that the MPAA could refuse to rate the porn >film. Just because a film is submitted for a rating does not mean >that the MPAA is required to give it a rating. It just returns the >producer's fee and tells him they will not rate it. He then is forced >to give it an X rating, or try to release it unrated, which now >amounts to the same thing. Do you have any actual knowledge that the MPAA can or would do this? Everything I have ever heard about them suggests that their supposed charter is to rate any and every film submitted. The fee is supposedly only to cover their costs. Unless I am much mistaken (always possible), refusing to rate a film would signal a major shift in their policy, the sort of shift they typically make over Jack Valenti's heavily pummelled body. In essence, refusing to rate a film would be equivalent to admitting that they were making quality judgements on the merits of a film. Valenti has always been adamant that the MPAA does not care about the quality of a film, but merely examines its contents for possibly offensive material. This position is important for the MPAA, because they wish to avoid endless fights over whether the inclusion of a naked woman's breast is "artistically valid" or "mere titillation". They already do some of this, but they've never liked it and always try to avoid such value judgements. So, yes, this is an option. But it would be an important change in the policy of the MPAA. They would then have to think about what happens if "In the Realm of the Senses" is resubmitted. I suspect that no sex act shown in "Blond Emmanuel" is likely to be missing from "In the Realm of the Senses", with similar levels of explicitness. Given some of what happens in "In the Realm of the Senses", the producer of "Blond Emmanuel" can probably make an argument that his film is *less* offensive. So what does the MPAA do then? They can reject "In the Realm of the Senses", despite it's clearly being a serious artistic film, thereby holding the position that there is still an X rating that is different from the NC-17 rating. Or they can rate "In the Realm of the Senses" NC-17, in which case they have admitted to making judgements on artistic merit. To address another post, why does the producer (or perhaps just the current owner) of "Blond Emmanuel" want an NC-17 rating? His stated reason is that he believes it will give his film better shelf exposure at video stores. He claims video store owners will be more willing to put an NC-17 film out on display than an X rated film. More likely, what he's really after is a little publicity, to set his sex film apart from all the other sex films out there. If he makes a big enough fuss, a sizable number of the people who rent sexually explicit videos will probably check this one out, rather than, say, "Debbie Does Dallas VI". It's really a marketing ploy, I think, at the potential expense of any serious filmmaker who wanted to make a film that doesn't fit into the restraints placed on R-rated movies. It's rather likely that no other sex film of this sort will be submitted to the MPAA, since the publicity value of the second one is much lower than that of the first, but one may be enough to do the damage. Peter Reiher reiher@onyx.jpl.nasa.gov . . . cit-vax!elroy!jato!jade!reiher
bhanafee@ADS.COM (Brian Hanafee) (11/30/90)
In article <1990Nov29.193335.3766@eddie.mit.edu> reiher@onyx.jpl.nasa.gov (Peter Reiher) writes: > >In article <1990Nov29.062845.10281@eddie.mit.edu> pauls@tellabs.com (Paul Silver) writes: >> >>A third possibility is that the MPAA could refuse to rate the porn >>film. Just because a film is submitted for a rating does not mean >>that the MPAA is required to give it a rating. It just returns the >>producer's fee and tells him they will not rate it. He then is forced >>to give it an X rating, or try to release it unrated, which now >>amounts to the same thing. > >Do you have any actual knowledge that the MPAA can or would do this? >Everything I have ever heard about them suggests that their supposed charter >is to rate any and every film submitted. The fee is supposedly only to >cover their costs. Unless I am much mistaken (always possible), refusing to >rate a film would signal a major shift in their policy, the sort of shift >they typically make over Jack Valenti's heavily pummelled body. This discussion is ignoring a simple solution the MPAA can use to solve the problem. If pornographic films are submitted for rating, the MPAA can simply give them an X rating. This would leave NC-17 in the region between R and X. As I understand it, the X is still a valid rating that the MPAA can assign; the reason that pornographic films are able to use it is that it is the only rating that the MPAA never copyrighted.* Brian ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ * The source for the copyright information is an article in the SJ Mercury news that I read a few months ago, but I don't remember the date offhand. It think it was a Sunday paper, if anyone wants to check.
ecl@mtgzy.att.com (Evelyn C Leeper) (11/30/90)
In article <1990Nov29.062845.10281@eddie.mit.edu>, pauls@tellabs.com (Paul Silver) writes: > A third possibility is that the MPAA could refuse to rate the porn > film. Just because a film is submitted for a rating does not mean > that the MPAA is required to give it a rating. It just returns the > producer's fee and tells him they will not rate it. He then is forced > to give it an X rating, or try to release it unrated, which now > amounts to the same thing. I find this unlikely, but for different reasons than Peter Reiher's. Given that some directors currently have a clause in their contracts that they deliver an R-rated film, the action of the MPAA of refusing to rate a film would mean that the MPAA, in effect, can force a director to violate his contract. If the MPAA decides they don't like Spielberg, they just stop rating his films. (Well, yes, they can do this now by giving X ratings, but it becomes so much easier.) If the MPAA can decide what to rate and what not to rate, I suspect that the courts would be called in at lightning speed, since the judge in the latest case has shown himself to be not entirely pleased with the MPAA system to start with. Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908-957-2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or ecl@mtgzy.att.com -- The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. -Edmund Burke
maa@sisd.kodak.com (mark armstrong) (12/01/90)
In article <1990Nov29.222832.11821@eddie.mit.edu> bhanafee@ADS.COM (Brian Hanafee) writes: > >This discussion is ignoring a simple solution the MPAA can use to >solve the problem. If pornographic films are submitted for rating, >the MPAA can simply give them an X rating. This would leave NC-17 in >the region between R and X. An NC-17 rating means this film is for adults only. Porno films are made for adults, why shouldn't they get or deserve a NC-17 rating. The rating should not categorize a film. A film showing extreme violence or explict sex should have the same rating, NC-17 adults only. If porno films are given a special rating, they should revamp the entire rating system which attempts to categorize all films. SP- Stupid plots, given to films like Rocky 2-5. FW- Flag waving, given to films like Rambo. HC- Heads Cutoff, the film will have a least one head cutoff. TA- No plot, but alot of nice bodies. Requires at least 10 minutes of nudity which has nothing to do with the plot. IQ100- Warning, you must think to view this film. H- Historical, Glory with fit in well. FG- Feel good, this film will have a happy ending and a simple plot like Pretty Woman. NN- Not Nice, this is not a feel good film, it will not have a nice ending. War of the Roses comes to mind. K10- At least 10 people will be killed by the hero. K30- At least 30 people will be killed by the hero. I don't think porno films receiving a NC-17 rating is a big deal. How many time to you go to a movie without knowing anything about it. I always hear or read about a film before seeing it. I can't believe a porno will be shown without me hearing about. Mark Armstrong
reiher@onyx.jpl.nasa.gov (Peter Reiher) (12/02/90)
In article <1990Nov29.222832.11821@eddie.mit.edu> bhanafee@ADS.COM (Brian Hanafee) writes: > >In article <1990Nov29.193335.3766@eddie.mit.edu> reiher@onyx.jpl.nasa.gov (Peter Reiher) writes: >> >>In article <1990Nov29.062845.10281@eddie.mit.edu> pauls@tellabs.com (Paul Silver) writes: >>> >>>A third possibility is that the MPAA could refuse to rate the porn >>>film. >> >>Do you have any actual knowledge that the MPAA can or would do this? >>Everything I have ever heard about them suggests that their supposed charter >>is to rate any and every film submitted. > >This discussion is ignoring a simple solution the MPAA can use to >solve the problem. If pornographic films are submitted for rating, >the MPAA can simply give them an X rating. This would leave NC-17 in >the region between R and X. As I understand it, the X is still a >valid rating that the MPAA can assign; The MPAA has officially abandoned the X rating. If they were to go back to it, they would be making yet another of those policy shifts they so hate, of the same kind as refusing to rate a film. Presumably they could make up guidelines describing the difference between an NC-17 and an X film. But Valenti has very, very clearly stated that he doesn't want to do this. Here's why: The supposed purpose of the MPAA rating system is to serve as a guide to parents, and a safeguard for the tender little minds of our nation's children. It is not, repeat *not*, a censorship board. (And I do believe in Santa Claus, too. But that's the MPAA line, at least.) The NC-17 rating already prevents any child from seeing a film, at least if the theaters enforce it. Therefore, what would be the purpose of an X rating? The only purpose would be to inform adults of the difference between the material in "Henry & June" and "Deep Throat". But the MPAA isn't set up to advise adults about what they should see, just to protect the kiddies from the violence they also see on TV, the dirty words they hear on the playground, and, of course, the all-important demon, sex. Valenti feels that the MPAA would be treading too close to the censorship line if they got into this business, and he might well be right. Peter Reiher reiher@onyx.jpl.nasa.gov . . . cit-vax!elroy!jato!jade!reiher