The NC-17 Movie Rating Gets an X From Director

I read with indignation Jack Mathews’ column, “Harlem Trailer Ignites a New Ratings Rage” (Calendar, April 15), wherein he ends up by stating that: “Those of us who whined for so many years about the MPAA’s de facto censorship can no longer justify whining.”

I find it hard to believe that a journalist of his stature could say that in light of The Times’ policy instituted immediately after the MPAA added the NC-17 rating--any advertising for an NC-17 rated movie had to be approved by the paper’s publisher. If an ad was rejected, a film would be forced to be released in Los Angeles without any advertising in the city’s only major newspaper. In today’s highly competitive marketplace, that would be a sure-fire disaster.

(Editor’s note: Under the present Times policy the advertising department can accept advertising for unrated and NC-17 movies. If a question arises about the artistic legitimacy of the film or the content of the advertising material and a recommendation is made that an ad be rejected, the legal department and the publisher are notified.)

I can speak authoritatively on this subject, being the director of “Flesh Gordon II,” a sequel to the 1974 cult hit. We attempted to place an ad in The Times announcing our March 22 opening, but were told that advertising would not be accepted, even to the extent of not listing the film’s title under the theater in the movie directory ad section.

This decision was all the more difficult to comprehend considering The Times ran a review of “Flesh Gordon II” the day it opened. When Daily Variety contacted The Times to explain its policy, a spokesman said that due to “new information,” the paper had reversed its decision and would accept advertising for the film. With three days left in our one-week play date at the Nuart, The Times listed the name “Flesh Gordon II” in the ad listings.

When the MPAA created the NC-17 rating, I believe the public was led to believe that it was a bridge between the R rating and the X rating that had become equated with porno films. It appeared that the NC-17 rating would open the door for the production and release of artistic and serious films that dealt with adult or controversial subjects. But, in fact, the NC-17 is being treated as a replacement for the X rating, thereby not accomplishing anything.

In our case, we decided when making “Flesh Gordon II” to avoid the hassle of dealing with the NC-17 rating by making sure our film would receive an R rating. As “Flesh Gordon I” had received an R in 1974, we used it as a guide as to what was acceptable to the MPAA. “Flesh Gordon II” has its share of crazy sex-starved monsters, erotically shaped rocket ships, topless men and women, but has no frontal nudity, erotic sex scenes or excessive foul language.

However, in spite of our efforts, the MPAA gave us an NC-17 rating. Moreover, it refused to outline cuts that would allow the film to receive an R rating, leaving us with the comment that the theme of the picture was sex from beginning to end and that made it NC-17. That this was a pseudo criterion becomes obvious when one considers that Woody Allen’s “Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex and Were Afraid to Ask,” a film whose theme is sex from beginning to end, was rated R. “Flesh Gordon II” was rated R without any cuts in Canada, a country supposedly more conservative than the United States.

If NC-17 simply meant that patrons under 17 would not be admitted to the theater, I for one would agree with Mathews’ contention that there was nothing to squawk about. However, my experience has been that an independently produced film that receives an NC-17 rating stands a strong chance of being denied the right to advertise, and when you have millions of dollars invested in the making of that film, that is something to squawk about.

I also think the rights of the moviegoing public are being stepped on. If limiting Americans to viewing inoffensive movies is going to help them deal with the turmoil and complexities of modern life, then one could argue that the NC-17 rating, assisted by the newspapers that refuse to carry NC-17 advertising, is doing its job.

But if seeing films like “Midnight Cowboy,” “Last Tango in Paris,” “A Clockwork Orange,” “The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover,” “Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer” or “Flesh Gordon II” improves our comprehension of human behavior, expands our understanding of human thought or allows us to laugh at human inhibitions dealing with sexuality, then I have difficulty understanding how anyone can seriously imply that for a film to receive an NC-17 rating from the MPAA is no big deal.