Random thought: NC-17

4 post in about 15 minutes. This is what boredom does to a person...

Random Thought

What is the big fucking deal with NC-17 films and theatres and distributors refusing to put them out? This nation has a large conservative stick up it's ass. For those that don't know (all two of you), NC-17 means no one under 17 can see it. 18 and up. For the most mature of audiences it seems. This usually only happens with extreme sexual content including male genitalia, graphic sex real or not, and graphic nudity of the female variety. Or as Tom Green eloquently and smartly put it, "It's basically porn with murder."

But it seems to me that not allowing is a stupid business move considering attendance is at lowest in 16 years. A controversial carrying of a NC-17 film might bolster the box office. And just because it has that high rating doesn't always mean it is fully smut. One of the best film of the past year was SHAME, that tackled sex addiction fearlessly. But it was rated NC-17 and can basically only be seen in NYC where apparently the only mature people in the nation live.

Hasn't everyone forgot the golden rule; telling someone that can't do something makes them want it more. And besides hearing about a controversial film and how its banned, or graphic in detail, makes people want to find it.

Let me give an example. A British filmmaker made a film called 9 Songs a few years ago. It was banned for its graphic sexual content. Have the flipped through the movie, there's not much there in terms of content. It's purpose was about pushing envelopes and rightly so. Its claim to fame as it were is because the two leads in it actually have sex on camera. That's right, two professional actors, who had never met before had to construct a fuck buddy relationship on film, by you know actually fucking on film. Now I'm not saying you just hype a controversy to get press, but it is useful tool. If this was going to be in the U.S. and people heard that there was a film where the lead actors had actual sex for the movie, there would be uproar, but a lot of fucking people would want to see it and thus there is box office revenue for that.

Now let me stress once again, that I am not advocating for crap to be put out just to use the rating. On the other hand, that hasn't stopped Hollywood from putting out numerous other crap. I just think that the rating used wisely and maturely, can be a good thing. And we shouldn't be worried about "the children" or anything like that because THEY CAN'T FUCKING SEE IT ANYWAY. I'm a fucking adult and I should have the right to decide it I want to see a mature film or what they consider mature. The SAW franchise was Rated R but god forbid we see some enthusatic sex. It just blurs back to the violence is okay but sex is not fallacy. We can watch a person get fully dismembered and that is somehow less tramuatic than watching the ole bump and grind. That argument has never held water to me. Not saying that young kids should be exposed to graphic sexuality until they are mature enough for it but somehow saying that violence is milder than sexual activity is one of the stupidest arguments that can be used for censorship of the film medium.

So I don't know if the NC-17 rating has to be a kiss of death. It doesn't have to be. We allow it to be so, because the studio system thinks we are not smart enough or mature enough to handle certain topics, or ideals. And because of that, they continue to put out junk on family approved R and PG13 ratings. In these harsh conditions, it takes the smart film viewer due diligence to search out alternative programming from the Hollywood machine in order to have a full, enriched experience.

At least until everyone grows the fuck up. That should be any day now. Not.

Until next time, fly high and fly well.