3-4-sex-and-violence-in-movies-copy1Let’s start off with the topic of the NC-17 rating.  Most movie theaters will not play movies that are rated NC-17.  Wal-Mart will not carry films that are rated NC-17.  Video stores such as Blockbuster Video and Hollywood Video do not rent out movies that are rated NC-17.  This is an interesting subject, so let’s take a closer look.

Examples of X Rated Movies:

1969’s Midnight Cowboy and 1973’s Last Tango In Paris were both rated X, and received nominations for Academy Awards (With Midnight Cowboy winning one for Best Picture).  In 1972, A Clockwork Orange came out, and it was rated X as well.  Don’t forget 1972’s Fritz The Cat, as well as the fact that both 1980’s Friday The 13th and 1986′s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 initially received X ratings.

The X rating is no longer used by the MPAA.  However, NC-17 has replaced it as a very similar rating.  I say similar instead of identical because the NC-17 rating is almost exclusively used for sexual content, whereas the X rating could apply to violence as well.  Due to the fact that cinematic violence hasn’t gone anywhere, this has created an incredible injustice in the world of motion picture.

A Modern Movie Injustice

That injustice is simple. Nowadays, sex is considered to be more immoral than violence when it comes to films.

So now we have a problem.  Back in the 1980′s, the PG-13 rating was created due to the pressures of the PG rating to handle the gap between G and R.  There was simply too wide of a margin there for one rating to determine whether or not a film was suitable for all ages, or for adults.  With the inclusion of NC-17, and the fact that it’s only used for sexuality, we now have the exact same burden placed on the R rating.  An R rating can be applied to any film that ranges from “slightly more violent than PG-13” all the way to “Almost unsuitable for people of any age”.

We Need A Correction!

The MPAA needs to do one of two things.  They need to either adapt their handling of NC-17 to include overly violent films, and have it be the true spiritual successor of the X rating, or they need to create a new rating for overly violent films that are too intense for the R rating.

Even though either of those choices would be a huge improvement, I’m in favor of the latter choice.  The simple fact is that not everyone agrees with the idea that sexuality is worse for children to see than violence.  It’s fine that there are a large number of people out there that would rather their kids see somebody’s head get sliced in half, complete with oozing brain matter, pools of blood, and sickening sound effects, instead of allowing their children to see a pair of breasts.  I’m completely fine with that, but give the people a choice!  Let them make up their own minds.

Back in 1995, when Showgirls came out, there should have been a rating that would have allowed people younger than 17 to see it, as long as they were accompanied by their parent or legal guardian.  It is not up to government or society to shape our beliefs about what’s right and what’s wrong for our children.  It is up to US as parents to decide that.  I’m not saying that I would take my kid (if I had them) to a movie with over the top nudity and sexuality in it.  However, I do know that if I had to choose between my kids being subjected to sexuality or violence, I would choose sexuality in a heartbeat.

But It’s Not Just About The Children…

But let’s take the children out of the equation for a minute.  Even if they didn’t let ANY children under 18 into these films, that would be fine too.  However, there’s no reason for the makers of a movie like “Requiem For A Dream” to have to feel the need to bypass the rating process, due to a fear of the NC-17 rating.  Requiem had only brief sexuality in it, and what little it did have was NOT presented in an erotic fashion.  To delete the couple of scenes that had sexuality in it would have completely compromised the artistic merits of the film.  Simply put, movies like this should be rated R, and let be, because if you take your child to an R rating, you need to expect that it will contain ADULT situations.  The idea that parents can take their kids to an R movie, and be appalled when there are questionable things in the film just makes my head spin.

Nevertheless, even if we’re going to assume that sexuality in films is a horrible thing, and must be forsaken at the expense of extreme violence, then can we at least make some changes that will prevent NC-17 from being “box office poison”?  A rating should only be a reflection of the content of the film so that parents can make an informed choice.  Keyword there is CHOICE. Give us a CHOICE.  Theaters need to start playing NC-17 films so that we can make a CHOICE.  Blockbuster and Hollywood Video need to carry NC-17 films so that we can make a CHOICE.  Damnit, film industry… stop trying to tell us what is morally objectionable!  I’ll make up my own mind over what I consider to be morally objectionable.  Who’s with me?