Cracks in the System: The MPAA, Blue Valentine, Black Swan, and This Film Is Not Yet Rated

Earlier this month, LA Times columnist Steven Zeitchik posed and then immediately answered this question:

If a film scene lasting a little more than a minute depicts oral sex performed on a woman without showing nudity, does the movie in which the scene appears merit an R rating or an NC-17?

Both, apparently.

The two films under consideration here are Blue Valentine (Derek Cianfrance, 2010), which initially received an NC-17 rating, and Black Swan (Darren Aronofsky, 2010), which received an R. Both films include brief oral sex scenes — the former straight, the latter gay. Specifically, in Blue Valentine, Ryan Gosling’s character performs oral sex on Michelle Williams’s character; in Black Swan, Mila Kunis’s character does the same with Natalie Portman’s. I haven’t seen the former, but according to Zeitchek’s article (and this one), the only major difference between the two scenes is “that Black Swan is put together with action and reaction shots and Blue Valentine is filmed in one take.”

So what gives? Why does Swan earn an R and Valentine (initially) an NC-17 for nearly similar sex scenes? Well, no one knows, and no one is saying. And that’s the way it often seems to go with the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the board that labels American films G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17 (formerly an X). For example, Aronofsky speculates: “I’ve heard the Blue Valentine scene is more emotionally authentic.” Whatever the hell that means. And if it IS “more emotionally authentic,” then shouldn’t it get the R? The co-president of Fox Searchlight echoes the same sentiment: “Black Swan doesn’t strike me as an NC-17 because there’s no nudity. [Aronofsky] does a lot by implication, and there’s a dreamlike quality. It’s all not taken very seriously.” Um, I don’t recall anything “implied” in that scene (even if it was supposedly a dream).

A similar discrepancy occurred back in November when the MPAA slapped an R rating onto Tom Hooper’s The King’s Speech (2010) — the film is FAB-u-lous, btw — because Colin Firth’s character, George VI (right), uttered a few four-letter words as part of his speech therapy. (Don’t even get me started. It’s utter ridiculousness.) Rightly, Hooper lashed out about the board’s decision and its disconnect between language, violence, and appropriate context:

“What really upsets me is that the boundaries for violence have been pushed farther and farther back while any kind of bad language remains taboo. [...] I can’t think of a single film I’ve ever seen where the swear words had haunted me forever, the way a scene of violence or torture has, yet the ratings board only worries about the bad language.”

Significantly, the U.K.’s ratings board gave The King’s Speech a 12A, which means that the historical film is suitable for anyone above the age of 12. I guess England’s pre-teens are considerably more mature than America’s. But I digress.

Although the film’s distributor, Harvey Weinstein (of The Weinstein Co.), contested its rating, The King’s Speech (unnecessarily) remains an R. Joan Graves, the head of the MPAA, reacted: “We’ve made clear what our language guidelines are, and it’s not fair, in fact it would look arbitrary, if we threw it out for just one film.” Yes, we know, we know. Your “language guidelines” state that PG-13 films may contain only one fuck. But MPAA, you ultimately released Gunner Palace (Petra Epperlein, Michael Tucker, 2004), which included 30+ uses of the word, with a PG-13. Also, as Ben Brown points out, what about the three fucks in the PG-13-rated Antwone Fisher (Denzel Washington, 2002) or the 17 in The Hip-Hop Project (Matt Ruskin, 2006)? I mean, in The King’s Speech Firth’s character says the word maybe 6 times, very fast, and in no way related to the act itself. Where’s the consistency? Why didn’t the appeals board realize the absurdity of this situation and overturn the rating?

A few weeks ago, Weinstein also appealed Blue Valentine‘s NC-17, but this time, he emerged victorious. Much to everyone’s surprise, Graves and the MPAA succumbed to the pressure (?) or realized the error of their ways and gave the independent film an R rating. This is a big deal for a couple of reasons:

1. First, the MPAA rarely overturns NC-17 ratings on independent films. According to Kirby Dick, director of This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2006), the MPAA has lowered the ratings of only 10-20% percent of independent films since 2002 (and about 50% of studio films).
2. Second and more importantly, this decision — in conjunction with all of the publicity it received and outrage it spawned — reveals significant cracks in the system. The Hollywood Reporter sums it up thusly: “The inherent flaws of the MPAA ratings system were put on full-frontal display with Blue Valentine. […] The entire integrity and legitimacy of the MPAA ratings system has been compromised. There is no transparency; there is no consistency; and there is no accountability.”

This is something people within the industry and people who study the industry (myself included) have known for some time, but now the public is more aware. Indeed, like The Hays Code before it, the MPAA’s ratings system is grossly flawed; it is inconsistent, generally biased toward violence, afraid of sex, and arguably out of touch with those whom it supposedly serves. Unfortunately, I can offer no solutions here, nor do I think the system will be fixed anytime soon. But I would like to use this opportunity to make my readers aware of This Film Is Not Yet Rated, the aforementioned documentary which unveils several more problems and inconsistencies with the MPAA.

I will warn my readers as I warn my students: since This Film Is Not Yet Rated is a documentary, it will inherently contain several problems. For example,

• it is (of course) bias, e.g., as I’ve mostly done here (!), it demonizes the MPAA and portrays Jack Valenti and Joan Graves as villains;
• it is selective in its subjects, e.g., the director doesn’t interview or edits out filmmakers who’ve had good experiences with the MPAA; and
• it pushes irrelevant agendas, e.g., that the private investigator is a lesbian has nothing to do with her detective work or the thesis of the documentary.

Still, This Film Is Not Yet Rated is highly entertaining, informative, convincing, and hilariously (and sometimes horrifyingly) edited. Among other things, we learn the following about the industry as well as the MPAA, its secretive ratings board, and its appeals process:

• Representations of violence are much more acceptable than sexual ones.
• Gay sex scenes generally receive NC-17 ratings while straight ones, which are shot and framed in almost the exact same way, generally receive R ratings.
• The MPAA ratings board is confidential “to protect its members’ privacy and safety.”
• Hollywood and the military work in conjunction to ensure that images of America’s armed forces, wars, etc. are virtually always presented in a positive light. “It’s propaganda that has made our country more war-like,” one scholar states in the film.
• Only 2-3 companies control the information in our media and culture. They are almost impossible to break up.
• Aside from the CIA, the MPAA is virtually the only other public-policy group that operates undercover.
• Filmmakers who wish to appeal their NC-17 rating cannot quote precedent; they cannot reference other films or previous cases in their hearing.
• Two priests serve on the appeals board. There is no rotating basis; the priests will always be Episcopalian and Catholic.
• Films with a rating of NC-17 will not be promoted or released widely, i.e., the film, filmmaker, distributor, etc. will make virtually no money unless they obtain an R rating or below.
• The appeals board rarely overturns NC-17 ratings for independent films.

Would love to know your thoughts or hear your rants (!) after you screen it…

Related posts: