On Twitter:
@JamesEpplerRight now, it's tantamount to slapping a scarlet letter on a movie. When a film gets an NC-17 rating, most studios freak out and either appeal repeatedly to the MPAA, or more often, encourage the director to make a few cuts to achieve an R-rating.
The problem is most theater chains refuse to show movies that are rated NC-17, which means you lose a lot of screens by releasing a movie with that rating.
That's why it was so refreshing and even brave for FOX to release a possible Oscar contender this year as an NC-17. "Shame" features an amazing lead performance from Michael Fassbender as a sex addict faced with his own sickness and isolation. He's already received a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actor, and it's likely the Oscars will follow suit.
The film is heavy on sexual content and nudity, as is fitting with the subject matter. But many assume NC-17 equals pornography. Wrong. The goal of this film and the content therein isn't to titillate - this is a character-driven piece that deals with adult subject matter. To my mind, it's one of the best films of the year with director Steve McQueen (not the "Bullitt" guy) plumbing the depths of human despair and loneliness. It's difficult, but it's a terrific piece of work.
But I had to go to Dallas to watch it. None of the theaters in Lubbock will permit me to see it. I guess they think they know what's best for me. Keep in mind, this isn't a local management thing - it's corporate policy.
There's a separate discussion to be had over what should merit the NC-17 rating. Too much violence? Sex? Bad language? For instance, last year's "Blue Valentine" got the NC-17 for a brief scene of sex between a couple in a committed relationship. Yet "Saw 3D" played on numerous screens with an R-rating and featured numerous instances of people being tortured, maimed and killed.
That's another blog. I'm more concerned here with how the NC-17 can become more legitimized as a rating. Yes, there are some films that should be only for adults. And I'm not saying these theater companies don't have the right not to show these films. I'm just saying they're wrong not to do so.
Artists who want to explore difficult and even explicit subject matter should be permitted to do so without fear of censorship from a small group of voters on the MPAA board. If the artist has made a film and a studio has bought it to distribute as is, that's their business. It's also our individual choice whether we want to experience it. It's too bad some theater chains make that choice for us.
So in the coming year when a movie gets an NC-17, studios should stand by their filmmakers. Eventually, theaters may start feeling pressure from viewers. I'm guessing once "Shame" gets some Oscar attention, people will start clamoring to see it.
Theaters already have a big problem on their hands with attendance way down this year. Do they really want another reason for people not to buy tickets?
