Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!thakur
From: reiher@onyx.jpl.nasa.gov (Peter Reiher)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.cinema
Subject: NC-17 controversies
Message-ID: <1990Nov27.205705.5453@eddie.mit.edu>
Date: 27 Nov 90 20:57:05 GMT
Sender: thakur@eddie.mit.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur)
Reply-To: reiher@onyx.jpl.nasa.gov (Peter Reiher)
Followup-To: rec.arts.cinema
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Lines: 53
Approved: thakur@zerkalo.harvard.edu


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