By Katie Mercogliano ‘14

It seems absurd to “lightly suggest” to some of the most esteemed directors in film history, such as Francis Ford Coppola (“The Godfather Part I, II, III”), Quentin Tarantino (“Pulp Fiction,” “Inglorious Basterds,” “Django Unchained”) and Darren Aronofsky (“Requiem for a Dream,” “Black Swan,” “The Wrestler”), to cut parts of their movies to make it more “viewer friendly.” Yet, as ridiculous as it might seem, each one of these award-winning directors has had to edit their films to receive an R-rating, rather than the NC-17 rating the Motion Pictures Association of America  gave them originally.

In 1968, the MPAA decided to come to the rescue of movie makers and protect them from the government’s censorship by reinventing the current ratings system, the Hays Code, which had been the standards since the early 1930s. Thus began the seemingly ever-changing ratings system a majority of theaters in America enforce.

Throughout the decades, the system has had many makeovers. The most controversial was the addition of NC-17 in 1990, which then meant children under 17 are not admitted but has since changed to children under 18. Intentionally created to give movies with substance a different rating from X, the rating has since developed a reputation almost as risque as a “dirty” movie.

Although a film can be stamped with an NC-17 rating for violence, the MPAA has revealed a clear trend of giving a harsher rating for movies depicting “graphic” sex (no matter the context). And furthermore, movies with gay sex and sex focusing on women’s pleasure dominates the list of NC-17 movies. There are no actual criteria or standards the anonymous raters (their names don’t get revealed) have to follow. When harsher and inconsistent ratings are given because of certain types of sex scenes and not others, it only reinforces homophobic and sexist mindsets in society.

Context is almost never taken into account when deciding a movie rating. In the independent drama “Blue Valentine” starring Academy Award nominated Michelle Williams and mega star Ryan Gosling, there is really only one sex scene that has nudity in it. It was a not-so-steamy realistic scene that was vital to the plot and tone of the movie. And of course, it received an NC-17 rating for this scene because the focus was on the woman. But the  shocking aspect of this rating was the sex scene was between a married couple and it was completely consensual. Gosling immediately spoke out, criticising the decision and saying it was sexist because there have been R-rated movies showing women tortured, beaten and raped, but showing a married couple having sex is considered more inappropriate for teens to see. The MPAA didn’t give reason why because it’s not required to, but eventually the outlash against the rating influenced them to change the rating to R without any changes to the movie.

Movies with NC-17 ratings  have little to no commercial viability because theaters seldom play them and previews are usually banned. A good amount do have critical success, though (see sidebar for more). Aronofsky’s Requiem for a Dream, the uber gritty, horrific portrayal of drug addiction, was praised highly by critics, yet didn’t even earn back its relatively small budget of 4.5 million. He refused to re-edit the film, claiming it would lessen the message of it. He appealed the rating but was denied.

By attempting to prevent government censorship of movies, the MPAA has only forced its own censorship on the art form of the 20th and 21st century. Branding the NC-17 certificate on any film is almost a guarunteed kiss of death in the film industry. To label a director’s vision “obscene” will be viewed with the same dismay people now feel about the banning of books in the past.