MovieChat Forums > Where the Truth Lies (2005) Discussion > Brokeback Mountain/MPAA rating

Brokeback Mountain/MPAA rating

posted 18 years ago by mrsmish
19 replies | jump to latest

I've seen Where the Truth Lies multiple times, and Brokeback Mountain once, this past weekend, and loved both films.

Where the Truth Lies depicted (very briefly) a homosexual encounter (actually, an attempted homosexual encounter) between two characters played by Colin Firth and Kevin Bacon. Because of this scene, the MPAA assigned it an NC-17 rating, which was contested by director Atom Egoyan. In an attempt to get a less restrictive and more commercially favorable "R" rating, Egoyan edited the offending scene and re-submitted the film, but the NC-17 rating stood. In response, he restored the film to its unedited version and opted to release it unrated, which severely restricted the film's distribution and commercial success. Kevin Bacon was convinced (as am I) that the reason for this rating was the MPAA's not being comfortable with two established, mainstream actors doing an explicit homosexual scene.

Brokeback Mountain, which was also quite explicit, was released with an "R" rating and I don't understand the difference, as Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal are also very popular mainstream actors.

[–] goeagles2 18 years ago

I never believed for a minute that the NC-17 had anything to do with homosexuality, and the R for Brokeback proves me right. That version of events was Egoyan's attempt to cast blame upon the MPAA process, rather than on himself for the rookie mistake of not filming cutaway shots.

The sex in WTTL is explicit. The sex in Brokeback is not. It's as simple as that. And if it makes you feel any better, WTTL has pretty much bombed in every country in which it's opened. No reason to think it would have done much better here with a different rating.

[–] jtheway22 18 years ago

WTTL is the only film I have seen so I can't compare. However I did expect 'that scene' to be more shocking, yes it was uncomfortable to watch and that's what was intended, but I did not find it (or any other scene) to be any worse than what is shown on television after the appropriate watersheds. Btw I'm 18 and am British. WTTL didn't do too badly here in Britain; both Kevin Bacon and Colin Firth gave numerous interviews and many newspapers gave postive reviews and I enjoyed it too. I totally agree with the first message about the reasons why this film was given an NC-17 rating. However I do have to ask when Brokeback Mountain was given its rating were members of the clergy consulted as I understand they were with WTTL? Without wanting to offend or upset anyone or cause any arguments I personally don't find this necessary and fail to see what religion and people's religious beliefs have to do with a film rating. Surely people are able to read and understand the contents of the film and are mature enough to decide whether they want to see it or not.

No Brian, I'm the Easter Bunny!

[–] goeagles2 18 years ago

jtheway, when/if you see Brokeback, you'll know what I mean. The two films depict the same activity, but in WTTL it is much more explicit than in Brokeback. And that's the difference in the rating--not the activity or the gender of the people, because otherwise the films would have the same rating.

I have no idea if clergy were consulted or not about Brokeback. Maybe the clergy is present only when there's a ratings appeal going on, and not as part of the regular rating proccess. As to the why the clergy, I discussed this on another thread, but in a nutshell, the US is a less secular country than many others. I may not agree with the process, but I respect it. As an adult here, I can go and see anything I want--as would you, as an 18 year old.

I saw the box office figures for the UK and they were not good, especially given the decent amount of promotion that the actors did. The numbers in France are much better than the UK; still nothing to write home about, but better.

[–] jtheway22 18 years ago

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear on the opinion of it not doing too badly here in the UK. I meant that as opposed to how it did in America, not in regard to every country in which this film has been screened.

As I have said personallty I didn't find 'that scene' any worse than things I have seen on television. I was expecting it to be more graphic. However that is not to imply that I found it to be suitable for all audiences! We clearly have very different opinions and I'm sure we're not the only two people to hold those, and I hope you respect mine like I do yours and anyone elses.

Whilst I have no more to say on the subject, it's nice to have a civilised debate as opposed to having to put up with people who just slag you off when they don't agree with what you say.

No Brian, I'm the Easter Bunny!

[–] Pam_ 18 years ago

There is something about this rating issue I just don't understand. While it was originally given an NC-17 rating it was released in the US with no rating. Basically the same thing -- 18 and over. It was released in most of Canada with an 18A rating; in Ireland and the UK with a Certificate 18. All of them mean one must be 18 years or older.

1. What's the problem or controversy about it being rated as a film for adults? It is for adults on many levels. The obvious sexual content aside, do you really think a kid could follow the way the story was told?

2. Why the buzz about it being rated for an 18+ year old audience in the US and not anywhere else? There is no difference between these ratings.

As much as I enjoy Colin Firth... the truth is this movie did really poor business everywhere it was released. One can only imagine that the controversy helped it and not hindered it. In both the US and UK every week of release saw fewer theaters exhibiting it and fewer people going and fewer dollars/pounds being earned. This usually means that word of mouth from the those who did see it was not good enough to get others into the theater.

I have to agree with goeagles2 -- this is a hit for / to Egoyan. One can debate the why's and wherefore's but it is not going to hinder Firth or Bacon. Egoyan is not a particularly prolific features director. The fact that he had contracted with the producers to deliver an R movie, and couldn't deliver it, is bound to have some effect.

[–] jtheway22 18 years ago

I too wondered why there was much controversy about the 18 rating it received in that States, and nothing was said about it here in the UK.

No Brian, I'm the Easter Bunny!

[–] mrsmish 18 years ago

The truth is there is a stigma attached to an NC-17 rating in the States.

Ironically, our "R" rating is far less restrictive in reality than an R in Canada, in that those under 17 CAN see the film if accompanied by a parent or guardian. The R rating here is so commonplace, unlike the NC-17, which is rare and just screams out "controversial."

Some theaters won't screen an NC-17 film and some newspapers won't advertise it. Here in NYC, the only newspaper that carried ads for Where the Truth Lies was the famously liberal New York Times.

[–] Pam_ 18 years ago

Is there any less "stigma" for an 18+ rating in the UK? And... it wasn't rated an NC-17 in the US. It was released unrated -- an open rating.

This particular movie was not advertised much at all -- anywhere. I live in NYC too and it was showing about 2 blocks from me -- in a Clearview. Not a big chain, but a chain nonetheless. It was in a couple other theaters in town as well. And I saw it in all the listings. The distributors did not pay for advertising. Do you really think a newspaper is going to refuse paid adverstiment because it was unrated?

I find the whole rating thing a red herring. "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife And Her Lover", an NC-17 release, made back it's budget, was advertised, had good word-of-mouth. But Miramax believed in it and put some support behind it. "Henry & June" was an NC-17 release as well and was nominated for the Best Cinematography Oscar. "Aristocrats!" was released this summer with an open rating. It had great press, including advertising.

The bottom-line is that: 1. controversy sells. That's the truth about controversy. That is why there were stories every 3 days in every paper and newservice in the country with Atom Egyon complaining about it's initial rating; 2. most newspapers do not refuse paying advertising -- it's too hard to come by. If it's legal (and sometimes that's iffy), they will take your money; 3. NC-17 or unrated / open rated movies, while not particularly common, often do well with the audience. They make back their budget and often profit; 4. Serendipity Point Films (production company) and ThinkFilm (US distributors) did not provide publicity / advertising support. For whatever reason, they relied on "controversy" to sell the film; 5. word of mouth on this movie abysmal.

Like or not, agree or disagree, most people did not like this movie well enough to recommend it to their friends. Without some kind of advertising -- and even with it -- movies rely on word-of-mouth. I love Colin Firth and his work too --- those of you have seen me around know that. But, Colin or no, I did not like this movie. Even Colin Firth can be in a stinker. And this one was a stinker. It was that, not a rating, which couldn't pull it out of the basement. If it had done well in major metropolitan markets, the smaller markets would have booked it. But it didn't and they didn't.

[–] firthnluv 18 years ago

I agree with you, Pam. I think the makers of this film tried to stir up controversy in hopes that it would create interest in the film and they failed. There are plenty of films that make it to the market with an NC-17 rating or un-rated. The ones that do, do so because in the beginning of their releases, word of mouth was very good and theatres began to pick them up. Where I live, Brokeback Mountain was not played in the little Regal Cinema initially, but because of publicity, they started to show it. I know it is only an R rating, but I think they thought at the beginning that there would be no interest in the film and when people showed interest, they carried it. I think one of the main things that creates censorship in the US is the almighty dollar. If they don't think it will sell or that sponsors will lose business, then a film probably won't get the exposure. I have read on a Firth site that WTTL will be released in DVD in the rated and un-rated versions. The rated version lacks about a minute from the un-rated. Someone contacted the distributors and was told that the parts cut out were the 1. The scene with Alice looking up at Karen with her mouth wet. and 2. The scene with Kevin B and his assistant having sex. If you have seen the film, you know what that scene was about. Both those scenes could have been cut out without hurting the film. I guess we will find out for sure if this is true once the dvd comes out.

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn, is how to love and be loved in return.

[–] goeagles2 18 years ago

Pam and firthluv, I agree with everything you've written. And given what you've posted about what will be cut from the "rated" version of the DVD--what does that tell you about the filmmakers' ranting that the NC-17 was caused by homophobia? It tells me that it was all bull, and an unsuccessful attempt to stir up controversy. We know which 2 scenes triggered the NC-17--the scenes I've been talking about all along, not the ones with the 3-way. It was easier for them to blame the MPAA and accuse Americans of homophobia than it was to tell the truth: they made a very mediocre film that got generally poor reviews, and poor reviews kill an indie movie.

As far the NY Times being the only NY paper carrying an ad, that's because the Times was the only paper approached about running an ad. The audience for the Post and the Daily News tends not to be the audience that supports indie film. Advertisers have to target their marketing dollars. Simple as that.

[–] delsol 18 years ago

jtheway22: As I have said personallty I didn't find 'that scene' any worse than things I have seen on television.

What you in the UK see on television isn't at all analogous to what is shown in the US. As an example, the scene in Donovan Quick where Clive is on top of Lucy Pannick and he's thrusting away would never be shown US network TV and most cable channels, with the exception of the "premium" types like HBO or Showtime.

However, we're talking about movies. Anything can be shown in movies. It's just a matter of the ratings. This film got pretty much the same rating (18+) as it did your country, so why the criticism?

[–] aureliabennet 18 years ago

Am I the only one who hated the book to start with? What was so fantastic about it that it got all the great reviews? What was it that influenced Egoyan to make this movie? I also think the movie got the dreaded rating because of another more explicit scene than that of Colin Firth and Kevin Bacon.

[–] the_whyte_spyder 18 years ago

**Spoilers**
To just further the post above mine, try a full on Lesbian love scene between Alison Lohman and Kristin Adams. I'm sure that caused some controversy. Just because it's females, doesn't make it any less explicit.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] abc_and_d 18 years ago

Watch both the films and you'll see there's a clear difference between the two films. This film has many sex scenes which are quite long and turning quite pornographic as they get longer and longer. Brokeback Mountain has only one sex scene and there is nothing graphic in it. (Let me tell you that I find all this NC-17 thing stupid - R would be just fine)

[–] delsol 18 years ago

I know. I'm amazed when people don't see the difference in the way the sex scenes were filmed between the two movies or claim to have seen similar scenes in other movies. They haven't, at least not lately. They must be confusing scenes from HBO with what's actually in the theatres.

[–] joec_17 18 years ago

I dunno, i found the one scene in BBM to be fairly traumatic.

[–] mathias_t 18 years ago

It's truly interesting trying to figure out the reasons for ratings/censorship when you realize the raters must live in paradoxal worlds.
Now, first, I have seen neither WTTL nor Brokeback Mountain (yet)(WTTL didn't open in Sweden).

Whenever it comes to homosexuality on tv/movies the male sexuality is very very often hard, sadistic in some way and/or full of strong negative emotions.
On the other hand almost every movie/tv-series these days have a more or less mandatory lesbian part in it.
Lesbianism is something supposed to be 'cool' and 'hip' in the eyes of the producers these days while the male homosexuality is still looked upon as something very odd and not even very pleasant.

So when it comes to rating, showing two men doing things, the bureaus goes nuts and puts the 'mature only' sticker on the box while every tv-show is more or less encouraging young girls to be at least bi-sexual.

As if our society isn't stressful enough.

Now I've said this and guess I should have a watch at these two movies and further contemplate on this issue ;)

[–] abc_and_d 18 years ago

Lesbianism is something supposed to be 'cool' and 'hip' in the eyes of the producers these days while the male homosexuality is still looked upon as something very odd and not even very pleasant.

This is because "macho males" want their fantasies to be the hip thing. Women swinging both ways, married women looking around for sex, single women sleeping around with too many partners...This is the image they created for the women in TV series, films and ads whereas male homosexuality just doesn't turn them on and therefore it is almost always depicted as something traumatic or terrible (due to pre-adolescent abuse etc) Did you read about the research done in England? It was on IMDB's home page a few days ago. It talked about the fact that male homosexuality was always portrayed as "BAD" on the screen. They gave the numbers which I don't remember but one thing I remember is that there never even one film/series where the gay men were in a happy and monogamous relationship. That is a shame, isn't it?