NC-17 my a$$


I got the NC-17 version from NetFlix, not the Neuter version at Blockbuster...I've seen R-rated movies that are way, way more graphic & explicit than this. A Dirty Shame is totally cheesy & campy & goofy...there's hardly any nudity, and when there is, they're not having sex; they're just standing there. Even the language isn't that bad; I'd bet they say f^ck less than a dozen times the whole movie. There is a lot of language in regards to sexual acts, but they name it and describe it in terms that are mostly rather tame...because it's all just a big joke!

This is how independent films are treated by the ratings board, which is apparently made up entirely of Neuters. Because it's "officially" rated NC-17, Blockbuster won't carry it, but they WILL carry, and promote, and sell, the unrated version of 40 Year Old Virgin. And you know why it's unrated? Because the studio submitted it to the MPAA, who then said "This would get an NC-17, and we know you want it to be R." So the studio cuts out a few things and gets an R, thereby leaving the filthier version still unrated.

I've got nothing against filth, when properly identified. I just think the ratings should be consistent.

http://moviesonthemind.blogspot.com/

reply

Have you seen "This Film is Not Yet Rated"?

It's interesting, and worth watching just for entertainment value. You get to see how the MPAA works and the inconsistency of their rating 'system'.


I agree with you that A Dirty Shame was actually pretty tame, but sex is apparently something the MPAA is unfamiliar with..

reply

[deleted]

I bought the NC-17 version from the US before it was released here in the Netherlands.
After it got released in the Netherlands I was curious if they released the nc-17 version or the neuterversion over here;
it was the nc-17 version; and guess what;
it was rated here: 6 years an older, haha.
I guess we're a bit more tolerant than the Americans.

reply

They use to say that for Asia, you have to censor sex, for Europe violence, and for USA both.

reply

Yet further proof that the Netherlands is as close to a truly unrepressed/free society as any we will find in the world. I actually think that rating is about appropriate. This movie is way too light to be heavily censored. But I guess in America and most of the inhibited world the mere mention of sex is enough to put them on edge, let alone talking about it constantly!

I seriously doubt there is any diversity whatsoever in the MPAA. I doubt even one of them likes a Water's film. I think they are chosen due to being fundamentally conservative and thus that all their ratings are heavily biased and far from objective. It is like they cumulatively add up to this person who thinks cursing and sex are horrible but violence is pretty tolerable. In short, the profile perfectly fits that of a sexually repressed psychopath.

reply

they are biased and have indeed something against Waters.
You should see the documentary Divine trash, about the dreamlanders,
there's also a segment about the ratings, and even an old bag from the MPAA is interviewed; from that interview you can conclude that she is indeed very conservative and biased

reply

it's ridiculous that "A Dirty Shame" gets NC-17 and "American Pie" and "Basic Instinct" are both R.

reply

I agree that this movie is NO WAY an NC-17, it's barely even an R.

The Neutered version? PG-13 tops.

reply

I have only just seen the Neutered Version and definitely agree that it is a PG-13 tops. That R was as ridiculous as the NC-17 sounds!

reply

The appointees on the MPAA are all neuters; that's why.

And yes, by all means see "This Film is Not Yet Rated." Highly illuminating!

Am I anywhere near the imaginary cliff?

reply

Thank you! This film is definitely not Waters' best, and even the NC-17 version looks like a "soft R" film. Seriously. The NC-17 ratings are wholly unreasonable for both this and "Female Trouble." I'd love to be on the MPAA board. :]

"This? This is my over-the-moon face."

She will be missed.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]