ROTTEN TOMATOES: MPAA's Glickman Urges Support for NC-17 Rating

MPAA's Glickman Urges Support for NC-17 Rating

by Jeff Giles | January 23, 2007

Discuss Article | Blog Article | Email To A Friend

In a move perhaps prompted by the success of, and publicity surrounding, last year's "This Film is Not Yet Rated," Variety reports that MPAA chairman-CEO Dan Glickman met with filmmakers and studio executives in Sundance (check out our coverage) on Monday, both to express support for the board's rarely-used NC-17 rating, and to announce the appointment of a liaison to help answer questions and add transparency to the ratings process.

The timing was appropriate, given that the day before, The Weinstein Company and Lionsgate purchased the rights to "Teeth," which the article describes as "a dark comedy about a girl who has teeth in her vagina."

At a press briefing after the meeting, Glickman told reporters:

"We are going to talk about this with the Directors Guild of America and the National Association of Theater Owners ... It's one of our ratings, and I'd like to see it used more."

The NC-17 rating, which was intended to help the commercial prospects of films too graphic to obtain an R, has largely failed to escape the stigma associated with the X rating.

Related Items

Movie:

Teeth

(1-18 of 18 posts) | Reply

dagreenman18 writes:
on Jan 23 2007 05:43 PM

Teeth. in a Vagina? that would hurt. hopefully she's really ugly.

(Reply to this)

rustdog writes:
on Jan 23 2007 06:29 PM

Don't lie guys you're curious?

(Reply to this)

FireflyFan4evr writes:
on Jan 23 2007 07:25 PM

the MPAA is still pointless and deserves to be shut down and/or shot. they ruin potentially great films.

(Reply to this)

bigcfk writes:
on Jan 23 2007 07:47 PM

i was talking about that the other day
no idea it was a movie

ironic

(Reply to this)

Now it's dark writes:
on Jan 23 2007 08:56 PM

As long as they protect from evil naked people, and encourage all the gore and violence possible, I think they will stay relevant in god fearing America.

(Reply to this)

mizzoucritic writes:
on Jan 23 2007 09:47 PM

I think this sounds promising. Valenti wouldn't get behind the NC-17 rating and now Glickman is at least talking about it.

Thank you Kirby Dick.

(Reply to this)

Pilgermann writes:
on Jan 23 2007 11:19 PM

Perhaps this will give Zemeckis a chance of getting an NC-17 version of BEOWULF into IMAX theaters. Yay!

(Reply to this)

FILMCZY writes:
on Jan 24 2007 07:29 AM

Oh look who's liberal now! The MPAA? Sure they will "encourage" more NC-17 films but newspapers STILL will not run the ads , theatre chains STILL will not book the films and Blockbuster Video STILL will not stock NC-17 dvds so what good is all this "encouragement"?

(Reply to this)

RuSH- writes:
on Jan 24 2007 07:33 AM

I dont know where you live but my theater runs NC-17's and who goes to Blockbuster???

(Reply to this)

synergyred writes:
on Jan 24 2007 08:29 AM

In reply to this comment (#853886)
I think you're my hero right now. :) I was just going to say something like that

(Reply to this)

Aqueryan Reloaded writes:
on Jan 24 2007 09:56 AM

It's been a long time coming. Far too many films that are deserving of an NC-17 rating end up as an R due to some minor cosmetic 'surgery.' Theater chains and film studios need to stop looking at NC-17 strictly in terms of potential lost profits. But of course, in a capitalist society that's tantamount to heresy. Which is why - as usual - it requires a grassroots push to really get the ball rolling in terms of meaningful reform that does not make short-term fiscal sense.

(Reply to this)

mojodaddy writes:
on Jan 24 2007 03:34 PM

Wow. Vagina Teeth. Just........wow.

Haha I just read the synopsis for the movie and they describe her condition as "vagina dentata"

(Reply to this)

High School With Money writes:
on Jan 25 2007 09:38 AM

In reply to this comment (#853890)
Well, bully for [i]your[/i] theater, but that's quite the exception from the norm. And suprisingly, more than a few nitwi... people still go to Blockbuster. I know. Shocking.

What does making the rating "transparent" really mean? Giving theaters/advertisers spelled-out excuses for not showcasing adult films? Unless a hit film is made with an NC-17, this rating is dead.

(Reply to this)

EJones216 writes:
on Jan 25 2007 02:47 PM

I've seen some excellent films recently that made me question why the MPAA pretends the NC-17 category exists- mainly "The Descent". Ever since I heard about the excised ending for the US release, I knew it was just an excuse to release an unrated DVD a few months later, because what was remaining certainly wasn't R.

Canada, Australia and the UK all have their equivalents and are doing just fine with them. But the difference between them and us (talking from USA) is that we're the only ones who can really get away with releasing films without ratings. ...and we all know about the utterly ridiculous amount of Unrated DVDs we have today. It's safer, because most video chains will carry them, and they reportedly sell better- recently, Bertolucci's "1900" dropped its NC-17 rating attained 13 years earlier for VHS release, and became yet another Unrated DVD.

The category's there, and both video stores and theater chains have posters or otherwise displays telling us about each individual rating including NC-17. I'd definitely like to see it used like any other rating, but it's just not bound to happen despite "encouragement". There needs to be more than that.

(Reply to this)

Bane Of Anubis writes:
on Jan 29 2007 07:54 AM

Perhaps if they applied the rating to movies with excessive gore instead of ones with overt sexuality the rating would become more acceptable. But that means they'd have to think straight and that'll never happen.

(Reply to this)

High School With Money writes:
on Jan 29 2007 10:53 AM

In reply to this comment (#853896)
If that happened, then the watchdog advocates would pounce and they would scream for governmental/religious intervention.

Roger Ebert talked about how the MPAA should institute a new rating with specific definitions as to what an "adult" film is. I'm afraid this too would fail due to having to trust in that organization to form a coherent definition of "adult" while not inadvertantly tilting the economics of the film industry.

(Reply to this)

FILMCZY writes:
on Jan 29 2007 12:08 PM

In reply to this comment (#853882)
I love how the sponsored links for this movie are for dentists! I bet some dentist would LOVE to have a client with teeth down yonder...

(Reply to this)

Bane Of Anubis writes:
on Jan 29 2007 01:08 PM

In reply to this comment (#853898)
The rate of suicide in the already fragile dental population would soar :)

(Reply to this)