
EXCLUSIVE: In a surprising development, the MPAA ratings board has slapped an NC-17 rating on Blue Valentine, the Derek Cianfrance-directed drama that is creating Oscar buzz for the performances of Ryan Gosling and Michelle Willams. The film, about the slow corrosion of the relationship between a young couple, was acquired by The Weinstein Company after its premiere at the last Sundance Film Festival. The film also played at Cannes and Toronto.
Now, I’ve watched Harvey Weinstein use the ratings controversy for maximum promotional mileage on past movies that otherwise might have gotten ignored, but I saw Blue Valentine when it premiered in Park City. It is a powerful, worthy film, and the NC-17 is an absolute head-scratcher. I’m told the rating was given for a scene in which the characters played by Gosling and Williams try to save their crumbling marriage by spending a night away in a hotel. They get drunk and their problems intensify when he wants to have sex and she doesn’t, but will to get him off her back. That hurts his pride and the result is an upsetting scene that makes you squirm, but is an honest one that establishes clearly that this couple has nothing left and isn’t going to make it because love has turned into contempt. There is barely any nudity in the scene, as I recall (though I haven’t seen it since last January) and there is no violence. It was hardly a moment that would make you think, well here comes an NC-17.
It wasn’t immediately clear what TWC and the filmmakers will do. Certainly the notoriety will help get the film attention, but it seems clear that if they fail in the appeals process, they will have to cut the film to get an R rating, if the picture is to have a shot at broadening beyond a very small release. There are likely complications in running an NC-17 film through TWC’s ancillary deals. This is the third Oscar season film on which TWC has butted heads with the MPAA. Weintstein lost a challenge appealing the R rating given The Tillman Story, and he has virtually no chance to overturn the R rating given The King’s Speech. The latter film, which many feel will be a strong contender for Best Picture and other awards, lost its chance at the PG-13 because of a scene in which speech therapist Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush) helps King George VI (Colin Firth) overcome his stammer by peppering his speech with curse words. He says “fuck” about 42 times in a short amusing sequence. Everybody knows there is a three “fucks” before the R is given, and Firth blows past that in a single line. Director Tom Hooper told Deadline recently that he won’t change a frame, but is perplexed that a scene that falls within the context of the film gets an R while a PG-13 is given to Salt despite Angelina Jolie getting waterboarded, and Casino Royale even though Daniel Craig has his testicles pummeled in a rather graphic scene. Hooper felt that the MPAA doesn’t consider context when it comes to curse words.
The Blue Valentine preliminary rating is bound to raise similar questions. It doesn’t get the R granted a movie like The Human Centipede (First Sequence), a graphic depiction of a mad surgeon’s campaign to kidnap victims and surgically link their digestive tracts to create a human centipede?
It was too early to roust the filmmakers, TWC and the MPAA for comment, but I’ll update when I do.


Further proof that the MPAA is archaic…
This is also a further reason we should do away with the MPAA altogether and throw off the final shackles of censorship. Ratings should be done internally at the studios and it would save millions of dollars a year. The studio now has to pay extra cash to get re rated what a scam. I thought studio people were better at business than that.
You need to read up on why the MPAA exists. I’m not saying that this organization is currently under the best management, but if that group is dissolved, Congress will retake control of issuing movie ratings, which you DO NOT want.
Not to mention the fact that the MPAA is run and pretty much indirectly owned by the studios.
This isn’t the 1930s, and even if conservative crackpots get on their pulpits and scream “Indecency!” it’s a cowardly argument to refuse to change things for fear of what MIGHT happen.
So the people who are calling for the ord “gay” to be removed from the trailer for dilemma are not crackpots because they are not conservative?
If you Liberals were not so annoyingly stupid it would be a lot easier to feel sorry for you.
It is not only “conservative” crack pots who complain about films. Liberals take aim all the time about film content. Just this week GLAAD was trying to demand the studuio edit a line in the upcoming film “The Dilemma” because the word “gay” was used to describe a Pruius.
Congress never had control of movie ratings, nor would they have the time to. The MPAA exists to create a generalized idea of a movie for parents and theater owners. As Mike noted in the article, the MPAA lacks a rating system that actually reflects content. This is an outdated system representing remnants of Reagan Administration ideals.
The MPAA and CARA may certainly have issues (and I AGREE that this scene should not warrant an NC-17). I am not affiliated with them in any way. However, true censorship is exactly what you will get if an industry organization doesn’t rate movies in some manner providing right wingers some guidance on content.
I fear local censorship boards will again spring up, administered by the most conservative amongst us all for political reasons and to generate headlines and advance causes having nothing whatsoever to do with movies and entertainment.
Should that happen, MPAA member studios would have to spend multiple millions more on creating unique versions of movies on a city by city or state by state basis.
CARA ratings were created in large part to thwart local censorship and provide “parental guidance” on subject matter and age appropriateness on a national scale.
Would you rather have Salt Lake City or some bible belt church group cut scenes and modify language and impose their “standards” on you?
I think not.
We should also teach people what the word “censorship” means. Idiot.
The MPAA & CARA will disappear of their own accord in 10-15 years when the majority of homes have big screen TVs & no one goes out to the movies anymore. Everything will be seen after being streamed to your home.
No possibility of censorship then!
You’re exactly right. Thank you. I just saw ‘Blue Valentine’ tonight, and I must say, I don’t know if I wouldn’t have made the same decision, but damn is it a good film. I think in this case the film should be brought down to an R rating. Pray to god it happens.
I saw this film when it premiered in the Un Certain Regard category at Cannes and was blown away by the struggle of the characters to reconcile their marriage. I am outraged at the prospect that this film was given a rating of NC-17 and thus will be relatively inaccessible for the general audiences because this film, although heart-wrenching, I feel is important in the greater scheme of how relationships develop and how they can be repaired through hard work on the part of Gosling’s character.
The MPAA is completely out of touch with moviegoers. It needs to be revamped. That’s why there are so many disparities like Slumdog Millionaire getting an R rating while The Dark Knight escapes with a PG-13. If you’re being prudish, atleast have consistent standards. They’re morons if they think a couple of curse words and sex/nudity is more harmful than violence.
Slumdog Millionaire certainly deserved its R-rating.
I will agree, however, that The Dark Knight also deserved that rating, no questions asked.
The MPAA is possibly the most prehistoric, and corrupt institution I can think of. Making their judgments based upon their own personal moral values with zero consistency. Yet, who are these secret upper middle class what people protecting? What kid is gonna try to sneak into “Blue Valentine”? It’s a profound adult drama, why destroy it’s chances for wide release? Probably as simple as the haughty rated sitting in that darkened theater saw something a little too close to home in that scene o pathetic lovemaking. Disgusted by these actual “emotions” they lashed out with an NC-17. Then went home to their failed marriage.
The MPAA had outlived it’s usefulness by about 40 years ago. It’s unfortunate, but the only way to get rid of the MPAA is to dry it up from the inside out, and the studios are too cushy with the MPAA most of the time, and too damn chicken the rest of the time, to take them out. All the studios have to do to get rid of the MPAA is – gasp – STOP SUBMITTING the films to be rated. Release EVERYTHING as “Unrated” with notations as to what is in the film. And then start leaning on the theatre chains HARD to take the films anyway; the theater chains will fold in a second if they think there’s revenue to be lost by NOT carrying an Unrated film. And if there is nothing to rate, and studios and producers can get the theatre chains on their side, then the MPAA will dry up and blow away like a tumbleweed in the desert…
The studios ARE the MPAA — all they have to do is disband CARA — the Code and Ratings Administration arm of the MPAA — but the tabloid hypocrite culture would never let that happen without an outcry and the studios have no moral courage whatsoever.
IIRC, a number of theaters have lease agreements with shopping malls, etc., that bar them from showing unrated films. Some print publications won’t accept advertising for unrated films. So it’s not as simple as all that.
Including last I heard the L.A. Times and its parent, The Chicago Tribune.
Ridiculous. Finally an alternative to all the ham-fisted, sentimental, traditional “Oscar-pap” bullshit, and it has no chance at wide release?
Woo, Craig, you actually made it very clear. Kudos to you man…
I see ‘This Film Is Not Yet Rated’ had no impact on the MPAA or the ratings board…
If anyone hasn’t seen that documentary yet, do so immediately and you will understand why Mike (as well as other commenters) are upset about the NC-17. There are no set standards for ratings, it’s all subjective and even the appeals process is an absolute joke.
‘Blue Valentine’ could potentially speak to a lot of relationships out there that are struggling and make them better, instead the MPAA is being absolutely ridiculous with their “thought process”. Sex within the context of marriage (even if it is a more disturbing depiction) merits and NC-17, yet the ‘Saw’ movies all can be wide-released with an R? Pathetic.
I wish the ratings system here was more like the rest of the world, where violence is frowned upon moreso than sex (except extreme situations). Oh, and one more soapbox rant…would this film have gotten an R had it had a big-time director and major A-list stars? What if Ron Howard directed Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock in this? So much favoritism and bull at the MPAA.
I think the MPAA has basically colluded to make changes in film that should never be. It’s time for studios to take a tact and steal. Just say “In light of TV ratings, we feel it’s more appropriate to release a film saying what is in it. Our film, “Blue Valentine” is MA, L, MV, N (Mature, Language, MildViolence, Nudity) We feel rating our films in a way parents deal with every night, to make them feel comfortable with what they will see”
Just strike the pen. Adopt informative, information that people can understand, and end the BS that is the MPAA rating system.
Considering that TWC owns somewhere in the midst of $50million to Technicolor, they most likely arent sitting too pretty with anyone.
Either Harvey paid the MPAA, (so he and the picture could recieve some much needed publicity)
or
The MPAA genuninely hates him.
Either way, Tarantino needs to come back and make a hell of a picture, make a great deal of money, and save the Weinstein Co. yet again. (As he did w/ Basterds last year)
they’re waiting Quentin.
Sanctimonious. Preposterous. The world is slaughtered in 2012, but a marriage falls apart truthfully and the MPAA can’t handle it… too close to home I suppose for these cinematic guppies. The one thing the MPAA wants to make sure of: that audiences feel absolutely nothing.
Wait, wait, wait… This got an NC-17 rating, and the HUMAN FRICKIN’ CENTIPEDE got an R? That’s the most insane thing I have ever heard in my life.
What a bore! Not only do I have no desire to see another ‘relationship’ study but the NC17 rating doesn’t even help the matter.
I’m a bit fed up with ‘relationship’ films. There boring, lack maturity and in most cases completely convoluted.
Did you see this film? It is the most mature study on life I have seen in a while.
Not surprised at this comment at all …..Where boring? THERE boring.
You sir, lack maturity. I saw the film a few days ago and can tell you it is brilliant and in no way deserves this rating.
MPAA is a meaningless and tiresome system. I can’t believe anyone even bothers getting films rated. Who cares! If it is a kids movie, then you know it. Why do adults endure the censorship of art based on a few peoples opinions. Do away with the MPAA! And see “This film has not been rated”. Makes me want to see the movie UNCUT even more now.
F the MPAA!
I saw Blue Valentine in Toronto. There is no way this film should be rated NC-17. The MPAA is really out of line. This is a great film and deserves a large audience.
If I’m being honest, the NC-17 rating actually makes me more interested in seeing the movie. They’re both fine actors, but we’ve seen Revolutionary Road. I know it’s not exactly the same, but the concepts sound very similar.
TWC isn’t a member of the MPAA and can release unrated films, so I think TWC will release “Blue Valentine” without rating.
Unrated has little negative effort on niche films’ box office potential. The box office successes of “Tell No One” , “The Aristocrats” and “Y tu mama tambien” proved that all.
I agree with sidelined. If we dump the MPAA ratings, we’ll end up with a bunch of self-righteous church groups, or pseudo-gov orgs telling us what is appropriate to watch. Remember when MGM had to fight to allow Clark Gable to say “Frankly, Scarlet, I don’t give a damn.” Believe me, we don’t want to go back there.
Mike, can you please not give away important details of the movie for those of us that have not seen it yet?
The problem isn’t the MPAA, but rather the theaters and newspapers that have blanket refusals to play movies based on their rating, as alkali pointed out.
hey you can have the MPAA’s BS ratings or you can live in Egypt or some other country where a government board won’t let a movie be released until entire cuts are made….though much like the MPAA they don’t seem to be as offended by violence and cursing as they are by sex. It’s the height of retarded but that’s what’s there. In Egypt (As far as I saw when I visited and went to the movies)cursing is not censored in American movies, the just won’t let it be subtitled but everyone knows what fuck and shit etc…mean. In their own movies though, they will flat out cut the words out or mute them.
So while I don’t like how the MPAA is so generous with the R’s and NC17′s when it comes to language and sex (And God forbid…gaaay sex…scary!) and their odd ease and comfort with heads being chopped off and people being blown to pieces, I can still see the movie somewhere (Unless the movie’s called Eyes Wide Shut but that was the filmmaker’s discretion so he can get an R)
Is the problem the MPAA’s rating or is the real problem the fact that many theatres won’t show NC17 rated pictures?
I agree that the MPAA’s guidelines for what passes and what doesn’t often seem ridiculous (I suspect this is true of most ratings bodies), but seriously, is Blue Valentine going to be of great interest to moviegoers under the age of 17? Would cutting that portion of the audience out really affect how much it would make if it could have the rating and be accessible to viewers?
I’m Canadian, and in the system in my province an R rating means no one under the age of 18 is allowed to see a film. Compared to the NC17 rating, our R rating is given out relatively freely. Currently Resident Evil: Afterlife, Machete, and The Girl Who Played With Fire are some of the films restricted to viewers 18 years of age and older in Ontario. They are playing in local cineplexes and doing fairly well. Resident Evil opened in the number one spot.
The MPAA may need new guidelines, but it may also be time for Americans to start questioning a system than prevents films intended for adult audiences from reaching them. If Blue Valentine gets stuck with its NC17, go down to your local theatre and ask the manager to bring it in anyway.
I think the bigger issue here is the NC-17 not being a viable option for distribution. Why can’t there be a rating for non-pornographic material made for adults? Why can’t these films be carried by mainstream theater chains? Why can’t newspapers or tv stations carry ads for them? The problem to me isn’t the rating it’s that the idiots at AMC or Regal or Pacific or Muvico wont screen them.
Nice “The Human Centipede” reference. Very Appropriate.
Now, I skimmed quickly to try and avoid repeating what someone else may have already pointed out…
But, for the folks who have had the honor of catching this film — and I definitely believe it is an honor because the film is brilliant: don’t you think it may not actually be the “scene in which the characters played by Gosling and Williams try to save their crumbling marriage by spending a night away in a hotel” and actually the scene that took place in the medical clinic — I am trying to avoid giving away as much as I can — that really left the MPAA feeling nervous? Maybe they are just using the sexually explicit scenes as a scapegoat to not just come right out and say why they are REALLY giving the film an NC-17 rating?
If you have seen the film, I hope you remember what I am talking about. Personally, I can not think of a film that has shown that procedure in as honest of a way as ‘Blue Valentine’ did. Although the film was able to push me at multiple points, that one scene I think would be the one that would really put everyone on the edge of their seat, simple due to the sensitivity of the issue to so many. I mean there are crackpots whose decisions on whom to vote for are solely based on where that elected official or candidate stands when it comes to something that is — and I am ediorializing here — really up to the person involved and that person’s physician.
‘Blue Valentine’ was the opening film at most recent Milwaukee Film Festival (www.milwaukee-film.org) and I was able to see it with a sold out crowd. Yes, at times the film can make you uncomfortable and really put you in a place that mentally, physically and emotionally challenges you. But, isn’t that why we go to the movies?
I know that if you are reading my post here, I can only assume you don’t just go to the movies to have a film just wash over you. You see a film for a challenge. And even if there are a few who sneak into the theatre who usually see a film for the entertainment value and catch ‘Blue Valentine,’ shouldn’t we still keep on trying to push the envelope whenever possible?
I really hope the Weinsteins continue to move forward and use this film as an opportunity to push the envelope, because I think it would be a disservice to the film and the viewing public to touch the final product in any way, shape or form.