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.






Well since children are the only ones allowed in an NC-17 movie who gives a shit if you are not a child it shouldn’t affect you. But the market is run by sheep who make decisions based on thumbs and letters.
Im moving to france.
The MPAA is a corrupt stooge and lackey of the studios and always comes down hard(er) on indies.
Actually, they worked with me on my tiny indie when it was teetering toward an NC 17. They were kind of great about it.
That’s a shame. Blue Valentine sounds like a really cool and solid film.
Though my personal experience with the ratings board was quite reasonable, I still can’t understand why sexuality is considered more taboo than extreme violence. Isn’t it obvious how backwards this standard is?
Abortion (there I said it, no spoiler alert because everyone knows already)is going to b e graphic and disgusting to see no matter where you stand on the issue, and sanitizing it isn’t helpful. If the film is actually good and there is a context for it, fine leave it in, but I honestly think that a graphic scene of an abortion does warrant a rating higher than a “R” and I am willing to bet the vast majority of moviegoers would agree, regardless of the film’s artistic merit. People who want to see the film will see it, but the larger audience deserves to know what they are in for in seeing the film: a realistic and brutal abortion scene filmed in a Planned Parenthood documentary style.
“…going to be graphic and disgusting to see no matter where you stand on the issue, and sanitizing it isn’t helpful.”
– Actually, the scene is pretty discreet and I think tasteful. I doubt you were specifically speaking to me — but, anyone who as you say “sanitizes” it, is really only trying to be respectful to the people who have not been able to catch the film and the film itself. So, I do believe it is helfpul. Also, don’t assume to know how others may feel on the issue and do as the MPAA has done, which is feel they should make the decision for everyone and not just put it out there and let the movie-goer make their own decisions.
“If the film is actually good and there is a context for it, fine leave it in, but I honestly think that a graphic scene of an abortion does warrant a rating higher than a “R” and I am willing to bet the vast majority of moviegoers would agree, regardless of the film’s artistic merit.”
– That statement right there is an example of the kind of self absorbed activism that takes place in situations like this. I am not going to go into great detail about the scene, but, I think once you see it — although you may be moved in a direction that you may not want or have not been moved towards before — you will see how important it is to the relationship of the couple and personal struggles and battles a woman may have to go through. The chain of scenes can be described best as just plain honest.
Although important, the scene is also not the whole story. What is the most frustrating, is that so many people are so unable to see the big picture. The film is not defined by this one scene. So the entire film should be defined by this one scene? That is unfair and criminal to the story.
“People who want to see the film will see it, but the larger audience deserves to know what they are in for in seeing the film: a realistic and brutal abortion scene filmed in a Planned Parenthood documentary style.”
– It is the responsibility of the MPAA and other groups like it to be responsible and not inject their own personal views into a situation like this. To limit the films release and exposure like an NC-17 would do to the film, is criminal to the story and real intention of the film. The scene is done in a way that doesn’t lead you to believe that the filmmaker is editorializing in any way, and is just giving us another snap shot in the lives of this young and troubled couple. So, if the filmmaker was able to give the film, the characters and the issue an honest shake, why can’t the MPAA do so as well?
Also, I would have more respect for the MPAA’s decision to give this film an NC-17 rating, if they just came out and said why they did it — and not just avoid disclosing the real reason by justifying it with false reasons.
In closing: have you seen the film?
im sorry. but this film is a pretentious boring meandering mess.
I’m tired of reading all these people complaining that the religious zealots are oppressing their art. You are morons. They aren’t doing anything but properly labeling a movie so that people can make educated decisions about watching it. Nobody is keeping you or anyone else from seeing it.
The labels mean nothing. The violence that is allowed is increadible! A little sensuality and a tit and it’s HORRIBLE. I wish I could tell why the movie is R rated or even what made a movie PG. you just never know. One person could find the violence objectionable. and another could care less about the language. The ratings would mean something if they told you anything but that this group of people object to this particular subject or presentation of this subject.
AND yes the fundamentalist are pushing their world view on us. You can’t say that you are an atheist without a backlash or outright discrimination. Atheist cannot get elected in most states. We would never have an atheist president. So yes, the religious right is a force for division and censorship.
That’s not the point. The point is – an NC-17 rating for ANY film essentially dooms it. Not only will it not be publicized, but it will be hard pressed to be remotely recognized as well. People on this site aren’t complaining about their inability to see this film with ease, they’re complaining (and damn rightfully so) about the disservice this establishment does to films that offer something real. Something that provokes its viewers, makes them think, and more importantly, MAKES THEM FEEL. I can not WAIT to see this movie, at any cost. Not for the hype, not for the sex, not for its assumed vulgarity; but because from what I understand, those actors have achieved something great, and through that achievement have offered audiences a relatable, and like a previous poster said, challenging piece of filmmaking.