Pamela McClintock of Variety, writes in today's edition, about his plan discuss the issue at this weeks' Sho West event:
In the past three months, MPAA chairman-CEO Dan Glickman has been working to fine-tune the movie-ratings system. But this week at ShoWest, he will face his biggest hurdle yet: trying to make NC-17 respectable.
The awkwardly named rating, which originated in 1990, has become synonymous with tainted goods. Distributors and exhibitors blame each other for the fact that the category is virtually nonexistent for Hollywood product.
Parents have been pressuring Glickman and his cohorts at the Motion Picture Assn. of America, along with National Assn. of Theater Owners John Fithian, to find a solution to the dilemma.
Naysayers claim that the R rating is too broad, encompassing everything from a few swear words or brief flashes of nudity to repeated scenes of stomach-churning mutilation and disembowelments.
The biggest complaint is that, with parental permission, children and teens are allowed to see R's, and parents think the definition of R is too wide-ranging to guide them.
The goal is to find a category for some films that are now informally called "hard R's" -- i.e., content so graphic that no one under the age of 17 should be allowed to see it at all in theaters. The new generation of horror pics, namely, the "Saw" and "Hostel" franchises, are pushing the limits of the "hard R" category.
While most sides agree that there is a need for a change, the big debate is whether to create a category or to revive -- and make respectable -- a rating that's been around since Universal's 1990 "Henry & June." Because of the realities of the marketplace, one idea that has been floated is to create a disclaimer for R-rated pics, saying it isn't appropriate for children, period. And there's been talk in the past of creating a rating between PG-13 and R.
Glickman, along with Fithian and Classification & Ratings Administration topper Joan Graves, will raise the subject of NC-17 when briefing exhibs at ShoWest this week on overall changes being proposed to the ratings system that are designed to make the system more transparent.
Also, the trio are expected to talk about somehow incorporating smoking into the ratings system. Watchdog groups have long complained that movies romanticize smoking.
When Jack Valenti debuted the ratings system in 1968, there was an X category, but it eventually became hijacked by the porn business.
Before porn took over, the X category yielded several Hollywood hits, including United Artists' 1969 best pic winner, "Midnight Cowboy."
But the major studios have released only 19 films rated NC-17. The highest grossing was MGM's 1995 "Showgirls," which took in $20 million at the domestic box office after costing well over $40 million.
As one studio exec puts it, "There really needs to be a good, commercial movie that can break through the tide. The problem is, most of the NC-17 films have been niche or arthouse. It's unclear whether the problem is the rating or the movie."
Glickman, Fithian and Graves face a tough task in trying to persuade a skittish film business to embrace NC-17. If hard R horror pics were rated NC-17, they would lose a large chunk of the teen audience.
"The ship has sailed on this one," says one top studio exec.
Studios say some exhibitors won't book NC-17 films, and some daily newspapers refuse to carry ads for such pics. (An unrated film, in contrast, is considered on a case-by-case basis.)
Exhibs deny a policy against NC-17, pointing to a NATO survey in which a majority of exhibs said they would give screen space to such a film, depending on the pic, of course.
Blockbuster, too, refuses to carry DVDs rated NC-17.
Studio execs doubt exhibs would really book NC-17 films, despite what they said in the NATO survey, and they aren't exactly rushing to test the waters. Studios consider the R rating restrictive enough, with its marketing limitations (e.g., no TV ads before 9 p.m.) and a proviso that kids aren't allowed in without an adult.
The studios' bread and butter comes from films rated PG-13, which in 2006 accounted for roughly 50% of box office receipts...
...And, of course, there is always the worry that the ratings system will somehow make its way into the 2008 election campaigns.
"It's better to self-regulate ourselves than for the government to do it for us," says another studio exec. "God knows, that would be worse. It is very important to have standards. It protects the system. It's good that Dan (Glickman) is trying to open a dialogue
Get the full article right here
The validity of an NC-17 as rating has been an issue since its introduction...I happen to think that the problem here, is not so much the stigma attached to the rating, it's that most of the films in that category are just plain bad. Theater chains won't fret as much about their image if product were better than it is now. Adults will go to the cineplex as long as they feel they are not throwing their well earned $$ away. And hey, let's say the MPPA does implement the "Hard R/Soft R" distinction idea. Wouldn't a new stigma be born out of that as well?
Sho-West runs through Thursday.
No comments:
Post a Comment