NC-17 ratings suck

Huh. Just read that Sasha Baron Cohen’s latest film, Bruno, was initially given an NC-17 rating by the Classification and Ratings Administration of the MPAA. Universal is now trying to create an R-rated cut instead of releasing the film with the original NC-17 rating.

Having worked at a movie theatre for five years, and having seen more than a fair share of movies, I can understand why a ratings system is in place, and why ratings would be important to many parents. However, I also wrote a very long argument in my Undergrad days about the arbitrary nature of the Classification and Ratings Administration. Comprising a random selection of anonymous parents, CARA watches these movies and comes up with ratings based on their own opinions and very few guidelines (for instance, one f-bomb, strictly as an expletive and not in reference to sex, can still garner a PG-13 rating; any instance of “motherfucker” and that movie can kiss it’s PG-13 goodbye). Their decisions and “reasons” are often vague and, ultimately, inexplicable.

Much like its predecessor X-rating, the NC-17 rating carries a stigma within the movie industry. An NC-17 rating is essentially a kiss of death for a movie. Very few films are released with an NC-17 rating; typically movie studios opt to edit the film for a less harsh rating. Those few movies released with the NC-17 rating are often not given the marketing they deserve, and many theatres that are in NATO refuse to show NC-17 movies. Those that do get shown are often “art house” movies, ones with low budgets and lower reveune expectations, that are actually quite good but are hardly watched due to their supposed “adults only” content.

Sex-related movies are more prone to getting harsher ratings than movies overflowing with violence, a practice that is, at the very least, mind-boggling to me. If I was a parent rating movies for CARA, I think I’d be more strict on the violence-filled “torture porn” genre (if you can call it a genre) than I would on movies like Last Tango in Paris or Lust, Caution. Sure, some sexual content deserves to be rated NC-17, but images of people doing disturbingly violent things to other people is, in my opinion, far more perturbing to young minds than watching some people have sex, a natural act that most people will do at some point in their lives. Giving sexual content an R rating makes more sense to me, because 17-year-olds are probably having sex anyway, whereas most 17-year-olds probably aren’t torturing people or going on killing sprees. Honestly, who wants their kids to be exposed to that sort of thing if they can prevent it?

The most ironic part—if a movie is not submitted to the MPAA for a rating, it can be released as “unrated,” meaning there can be no policing of the audience by the National Association of Theatre Owners. While I find Hollywood’s attempt at self-policing honorable, I believe they’ve gone about it wrong. There are many other resources on the internet that offer concerned parents far more detailed information about movies than “PG-13 for intense plot material” or “intense depiction of wartime imprisonment.” For example, Kids in Mind has very detailed and parent-friendly 1-to-10 ratings in three categories, and descriptions of specific scenes that illustrate why that number was chosen.

Ok, my ranting and raving is over now. Thanks for reading this far (if you even managed!)

Edited: March 30th, 2009