I'll start by saying that I cannot be a fully unbiased examiner of this issue. In the last edition of MovieMaker, I detailed my experiences with the MPAA when they bestowed an NC-17 rating upon my self-produced, low-budget feature, The Pornographer. After re-cutting the film twice, I was able to secure an R rating, thus meeting the requirements of Hollywood Video, which is exclusively carrying the film and forbids NC-17-rated fare in its stores. At the time, I firmly believed that if I had had the clout of a major distributor, I would have been able to appeal the Rating Board decision and secure a less restrictive rating without having to edit my movie.

MovieMaker asked me to follow up that article with an investigation into other indie moviemakers' experiences with the MPAA to see if a pattern of bias in favor of studio pictures exists. One of the first things I discovered is that many distributors and moviemakers are hesitant about going on the record with their true feelings about the MPAA for fear of possible reprisals when they need to have their future films rated.

Requiem for a Dream is the latest independent movie at the center of a rating controversy, and its producer, Eric Watson, is one moviemaker who isn't timid about speaking his mind. An intense and haunting portrait of four characters battling drug addiction in New York, Requiem was slapped with an NC-17 - not for its shocking vision of drug use - but for several fleeting glimpses of sexual activity in the latter chapters of the movie. After receiving the rating, director Darren Aronofsky wrote a letter to the MPAA describing his intentions in making his "anti-addiction" film, but they were unmoved. When the film went before the Ratings Appeal Board, the NC-17 was upheld.

When I specifically asked producer Watson if he felt the MPAA discriminated against independent films like Requiem, his answer was unequivocal: "If you're a major studio film, you're in a position of having leverage over the MPAA because you're paying their budget. So, essentially, we're dealing with a paid jury. To me it's an unconstitutional concept. It's a jury that must answer to the people who are paying their paychecks. I think that's why films like Scary Movie and 8mm get R ratings, even though the content is extremely shocking and the moral content of the film is suspect."

Watson applauds Artisan, Requiem's distributor, "for not making us stick to the contract" in which they agreed to deliver an R-rated film - and allowing the movie to be released unrated. But he also agreed that the entire rating debacle could have been avoided had the movie been released by one of the seven studios who comprise the MPAA's board of directors. Those studios are Disney, Sony Pictures, MGM, Paramount, 20th Century Fox, Universal, and Warner Brothers.

These echo the sentiments expressed by Matt Stone and Trey Parker, who have gone through similar battles with the MPAA over the ratings of their pictures South Park and Orgazmo. After multiple resubmissions, South Park, released by Paramount, was ultimately given an R rating, but Orgazmo, their first independent film, wasn't downgraded from its NC-17.

"The reason we got the NC-17 on Orgazmo was that it was released by October Films, which had no clout, and we didn't have the money to re-edit the film and continue to resubmit it," Parker told the Los Angeles Times. However, the Rating Board gave South Park, one of the most obscenity-laced pictures in recent memory, an R. "We got an R because Paramount was behind it," said Parker, simply. "But the independent filmmaker gets screwed."

The case of Orgazmo is a peculiar one, because of the lengths to which the movie goes to obfuscate its sexual content. A comedy about a Mormon missionary's stint as an actor in porno films, Orgazmo never seems interested in a realistic documentation of the world of adult moviemaking - but merely uses porno clich"s to create laughs by juxtaposing them against its protagonist's prudishness. There isn't a single instance of full frontal nudity in the picture - in fact, whenever the actors are prepared to doff their clothing, a nude, male extra steps into frame so his bare backside covers the image. In the film's few scenes of bump-and-grind, the players even keep their clothes on!

So, in light of South Park's acquisition of an R (with all its references to "rim jobs," "German scheise movies", and ping-pong ball-shooting vaginas) how did Orgazmo warrant an NC-17? If one were to momentarily put aside the notion that a flat-out conspiracy against non-studio fare exists, one can only surmise that the very notion of a Mormon boy in pornoland was too much for the Rating Board to stomach, and Orgazmo's NC-17 was a fait accompli.

The same might be said for my film, The Pornographer, which suffered the same fate as Orgazmo at the hands of the MPAA. Although both films are set in the world of adult filmmaking, mine is a serious look at the topic. At issue in The Pornographer were two brief simulated sex scenes, in which the number of "pelvic thrusts" and "head bobs" were deemed excessive and ordered to be trimmed. David Rimawi, director of acquisitions for The Asylum, the company distributing my picture, indicated that the Rating Board members are "fairly consistent with their views of 'repeated incidents.' It is their belief that you have made your point after one or two examples of gunshots... or thrusts during sex."

When I expressed my mystification that both Orgazmo and The Pornographer got NC-17s - but Boogie Nights, which also deals with the adult movie arena, was released with an R, Rimawi said "I doubt you'll see in Boogie Nights that [the thrusting] is done more than twice."


So I took another look at the R-rated version of Boogie Nights, and this is what I found: In addition to copious depictions of drug use, intercourse, masturbation, full frontal nudity, suicide, rape, and extreme violence, there are at least two scenes which seem to directly contradict the MPAA's standards of "no repeated incidents." During a montage of Mark Wahlberg's character's rise to porno stardom, there is a moment of simulated oral sex with a whopping 13 head bobs - almost double the number deemed excessive in the NC-17 version of The Pornographer. In another scene, the cuckold played by William H. Macy has a conversation with another actor at a party while his porn star wife has sex with a stranger behind him - and no fewer than 40 pelvic thrusts can be counted.

Neither NC-17 versions of Orgazmo nor The Pornographer has content that rises to the level of that in the R-rated version of Boogie Nights, a much bigger picture with name actors like Burt Reynolds . On the surface, this would seem like clear evidence of discrimination. But Boogie Nights' distributor, New Line, is not on the MPAA's board of directors - which weakens the case for conspiracy. So what gives?

Ray Greene, author, documentarian and former editor-in-chief of Boxoffice magazine, believes there are less troubling explanations for the perceived discrepancies between different films' ratings. "An independent film is going to tend to be - stylistically, thematically and dramatically - different from a mainstream film," says Greene. "If anything, that is what might cause a different scale of judgement to be applied. I don't think there's a nefarious conspiracy to suppress independent films, but I do think that more daring material will run afoul even if it has the same content, because by being more daring it's going to make [the Rating Board] apprehensive and anxious; they'll wonder what's going on."

Having just completed a documentary chronicling the history of exploitation films in America, Greene has closely examined the history of film censorship and bristles at the suggestion that the MPAA is a "censoring body." The MPAA "is in the business of stopping censorship from happening," explains Greene. "When the ratings system came into existence, it actually opened up motion pictures, which contained all kinds of content that were completely proscribed prior to that time. When there was a production code there was a laundry list of things you could not do. Now you can do anything you want, but you have to accept the rating that's bestowed on your film."

The problem is that some moviemakers cannot "accept" the rating bestowed on their products because most distributors will not allow movies garnering NC-17 ratings to be released. That is because many mainstream newspapers, radio and TV outlets will not run ads for NC-17 pictures, and some movie theatres and video stores will not carry the films. Despite the MPAA's efforts to de-stigmatize certain "adult-oriented'"movies by creating the NC-17 some 10 years ago (thus replacing the un-copyrighted X rating), the NC-17 is still deemed by many consumers and retailers to be synonymous with pornography.

If the MPAA does not engage in direct censorship the way a government body would, its decisions do result in "de facto" censorship by forcing moviemakers to remove "objectionable" material from their films in order to get more favorable ratings. Studios routinely make filmmakers sign pledges that they will not deliver NC-17 films, thus resulting in one of the gravest artistic injustices of recent memory, the alteration of Stanley Kubrick's final film, Eyes Wide Shut, in order to earn it an R rating.


So the question remains: Do independent moviemakers receive the brunt of the MPAA's proscriptions when it comes to ratings? Rimawi at The Asylum did admit, "I'd be naive to think that the studios can't influence [the MPAA] - or any company with might that is willing to push them and really make them investigate every decision they make."

In the past, the MPAA does seem to have responded to pressure applied by well-known actors. Clint Eastwood successfully argued before the Ratings Appeals Board to change Bridges of Madison County from an R to a PG-13 rating. And when Kirk Douglas' Diamonds was initially given an R for scenes featuring prostitution and drug use, the actor issued a statement questioning the decision. The MPAA later changed its ruling and gave Diamonds a PG-13.

To many, one of the MPAA's most confounding lapses of judgment was the failure to award Saving Private Ryan an NC-17 for its horrific depiction of violent warfare and gore. In a statement on their website, MPAA president Jack Valenti claims that "contrary to popular notion, violence is not treated more leniently than any of the other material." But one wonders, in the case of Ryan, if the film's noble intentions of depicting the sacrifices made by D-Day soldiers didn't influence the board's decision. Would a smaller film by a lesser-known director haven gotten away with the same level of on-screen carnage?

Ray Greene speculates that "because the board members are representative of middle America, they're going to know Saving Private Ryan is made by Steven Spielberg. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy for them to feel, as so many do, some sense of generosity towards something by Spielberg, and give him the benefit of the doubt because of who he is."

Part of the problem in determining to what extent studios have influence over the board's determinations is the cloak of anonymity that covers the MPAA's decision-making process. According to the MPAA website, "There are 8 to 13 members of the Rating Board who serve for periods of varying length. There are no special qualifications for Board membership, except the members must have a shared parenthood experience, must be possessed of an intelligent maturity, and most of all have the capacity to put themselves in the role of most American parents." The problem is, we have no idea who these people are. Their identities are hidden. And without knowing the backgrounds, dispositions and political leanings of these panelists, an attempt to determine bias becomes extremely complicated.

However, producer Eric Watson was given some insight into the makeup of the Ratings Appeal Board that upheld the NC-17 for Requiem for a Dream when he was told there were two priests on the jury. This calls into question not only the MPAA's assertion that jury members have a "shared parenthood experience," but also raises serious doubts about the board being representative of America as a whole.

Furthermore, the Rating Board seems to eschew any reliance upon precedent in making their determinations. Unlike the Supreme Court, which relies heavily on precedent, the Rating Board, whose members change from year to year, appear to rely more upon subjective gut reactions to what they're watching. When the NC-17 rating for James Toback's movie, Black and White, produced by Palm Pictures, was appealed last year, Palm production chief Hooman Majd was particularly upset by the Appeals Board's refusal to allow the filmmakers to refer to previously rated movies as precedents. Majd told Daily Variety that the whole process of re-cutting and resubmitting the film was "a huge waste of time and money."

I did talk to one independent moviemaker who was able to successfully use "precedent" to partially deter the MPAA from hamstringing his marketing efforts. Jerome Courshon wrote and produced the indie feature God, Sex & Apple Pie, which he will soon be four-walling in Chicago. He decided to have the film rated, because he was worried certain Chicago papers might not run ads for an unknown movie with such a provocative title. He was unaware, however, how far the MPAA's tentacles of influence would extend.

"When I began this process of having the movie rated, they faxed over paperwork," Courshon explains, "But they did not send me their little guideline brochure that everybody has to have in order to navigate their way through the MPAA waters." After Courshon's film was rated R, which cost him $2,500, he was then given the guidebook which explained that all advertising and publicity material must be "suitable for all audiences."

Realizing that his artwork, which featured a woman in a leather dominatrix outfit showing ample cleavage and sitting on top of a bare-chested man, might not be deemed "suitable for all audiences," Courshon quickly went about researching studio releases that had similar artwork. He discovered that the art for Paramount's Sliver featured Sharon Stone in a compromising position, not unlike the one depicted in his film's poster. Courshon also found other studio pictures with artwork featuring actresses with profound bustlines.

The result was a split decision. The MPAA forced Courshon to crop the image so you couldn't see how the woman was sitting on the man - but they did let the cleavage pass. "I have a gut feeling that, had I not done my research, they might not have approved the cleavage, and if they hadn't I couldn't have used anything in this shot," explains Courshon.

Making MPAA-ordered changes in a film or its artwork is costly, and this is one area where independent moviemakers are at a disadvantage. In the case of my film, we didn't go through the standard appeals process, because of the time and cost involved, but simply cut the film the way we were directed. It probably would have been a waste of money to appeal, because, as Requiem producer Eric Watson informed me, only one film in the history of the MPAA has ever been downgraded from an NC-17 to an R.

Perhaps what leads so many independent producers to determine that a double standard exists in the ratings of studio and non-studio films are the other double standards that permeate the MPAA's decisions. The most obvious is the different treatment of sex and violence. Even in the current climate of Washington-led disapproval of violent cinema, sex is the culprit most often responsible for drawing an unfavorable rating. Despite the MPAA's assertion that violent films are just as frequently awarded NC-17s as sexually explicit pictures, a look at their website leads one to draw different conclusions. Of the NC-17 films listed which describe the objectionable material within each film that warranted the rating, only three of the movies cite violence as a contributing factor. All the others list sexual content.

When I examined the NC-17 cut of the controversial film American Psycho, I discovered that the level of violence in this version and the R-rated version was virtually the same. The key difference between the two versions was a sex scene between the psychotic main character and two prostitutes, which was amplified in the racier cut. And you only need to watch the recently R-rated Jennifer Lopez picture The Cell, in which a man's intestine is slowly pulled from his body, inch by agonizing inch, to question the role of violence in issuing NC-17 ratings.

The MPAA also appears to have a double standard when it comes to whose sexuality a movie examines. Colette Burson's first feature, Coming Soon, about "three 18-year-old girls in search of an orgasm," initially received an NC-17, despite the director's strong assertion that the film was less racy than the R-rated American Pie, which followed several male characters with the same goal. Burson told the Boston Herald of a phone conversation with an MPAA member who explained that because most American parents view female sexuality with a double standard, the board judges films with that same double standard in mind.

This seems to be a rare case of where the MPAA actually admitted to some of the strange criteria by which they judge films. Other than by offering some broadstroke standards, such as how they view use of the word "fuck" (one non-sexual use of the word will get you a PG-13, one sexual use commands an R), the MPAA's rating guidelines are murky, at best. Said Matt Stone, "The MPAA has no set rules. Things change from movie to movie. It makes no sense. In going through the notes we saw that they had no standards, so we decided these people are stupid and we'd just try to get it past them. If there was something they said couldn't stay in [South Park], we'd make it 10 times worse and five times as long. And they'd come back and say, 'OK, that's better.'"

Karl T. Hirsch, director of the indie feature Green, now works for The Asylum and spends a good deal of time maneuvering their movies through the MPAA obstacle course. Hirsch explains that "they do have a guidebook. But it really doesn't tell you anything. I was waiting for the handbook to say, 'In a blow-job scene, you can only have four or five head bobs.' But it's completely vague. I've asked them lots of questions, and they come back to me with 'Well just read the handbook.' And what that means is that it all depends on the subject matter and the film itself."

So is it just vagueness and inconsistency on the part of the MPAA that leads to the appearance of favoritism towards studio pictures? Because of the closed-door policy of the Rating Board, we can't be sure. We can only point to numerous instances of Hollywood movies which would seem to warrant an NC-17 when compared to their indie counterparts. My exercise comparing Boogie Nights to Orgazmo and The Pornographer can be performed with many films - and the appearance of contradictory rulings is what leads to the allegations of discrimination.

The MPAA damages its own credibility by being so reluctant to change its policies and procedures. Jack Valenti likes to cite studies that show a 74 percent approval rating amongst American parents as evidence that the system doesn't need fixing. But since when do "American parents" alone have the final say over the efficacy of a trade organization that is supposed to serve the needs of an entire film community? It's perfectly understandable that Valenti and company regard one of their primary duties as preventing government interference in the rating of motion pictures. But if a director is forced to cut material from his or her film to a get a more favorable rating, does it really matter if it's the government or the MPAA ordering the changes?

It does not seem overly idealistic to demand a system that is both fair to filmmakers and accountable to parents. One solution, posed by Matt Stone in an editorial in Daily Variety, is to do away with the NC-17 rating altogether and strictly enforce the R. Right now, most kids can get access to any movie they want to see. But if we treated access to R-rated movies the same way we treat access to buying cigarettes, the need for a more draconian rating of NC-17 would hopefully disappear - and with it the need for moviemakers to tamper with their work.

The DGA could also be instrumental in finding a solution by perhaps fighting to put an end to contractual obligations that force moviemakers to deliver films with certain ratings. Distributors could also refuse to do business with companies such as Hollywood Video and Blockbuster until they abandon their refusal to carry NC-17 titles.

But the real problem lies with the secretive, inconsistent and confusing manner in which the MPAA Rating Board assesses motion pictures. As long as these decisions are made in the dark by anonymous board members on the payroll of the studios, the independent moviemaker saddled with an unfavorable rating will always be left second-guessing the process.

If the MPAA doesn't change its system, moviemakers like Requiem for a Dream producer Eric Watson will continue to feel as he did when he recently told the Hollywood Reporter that "morally bankrupt studio films will continue to be released unscathed due to their financial and political muscle, while independent films dealing with powerful moral themes are going to be scapegoated." MM