Will my movie get an NC-17 if....?

H

harmonica44

There is a scene where a woman is being tortured, which I was given the idea from the torture scene in Casino Royale. But instead of a man being given extreme pain to his genitals, it's a woman. It's not one of those torture porn movies where it is being done just to show bad taste violence, there is a point to it, and it's part of the plot. Now Casino Royale got a PG-13 for it, but if it is being done to a woman, which means the interrogator would have to go into her womb to cause more pain, would it get an NC-17?

I wouldn't have to show anything down there, but there would be some slight sound effects and she would be screaming in pain, as much as Daniel Craig did. The MPAA has been gender biased on assigning ratings before, so will this be no exemption? I don't want an NC-17 cause that's box office poison. I would like opinions from people who are familiar enough with the rating if that's possible. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Sort by date Sort by votes
harmonica44 said:
Well I don't get why most independent films would not want to spend the money on getting a rating. I watch a lot of indies and everyone I've seen that I can think of has a rating. Which means that in order for indie films to get anywhere in theaters, or dvd sales, they need to be submitted to the MPAA unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but there's no need to pay the expensive fee to get it rated, unless you're looking at a theatrical distribution deal (which is very difficult to get).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well after I'm finished it, I will send it off to the festivals and then see, what happens. If it does get recommended for a theatrical distribution or dvd distribution, then yeah. How much does it cost to get rated?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well almost every movie in theaters has it because almost all theaters won't accept them otherwise. Plus it's hard to get advertising and tv spots to see it since a lot of companies don't run ads for movies if there is no rating. Out of all the successful indie films I've seen say, in the past two years, they all had ratings. I can't think of one successful theatrical release movie that hasn't but perhaps there have been many I just missed.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
harmonica44 said:
Well almost every movie in theaters has it because almost all theaters won't accept them otherwise. Plus it's hard to get advertising and tv spots to see it since a lot of companies don't run ads for movies if there is no rating. Out of all the successful indie films I've seen say, in the past two years, they all had ratings. I can't think of one successful theatrical release movie that hasn't but perhaps there have been many I just missed.
Click to expand...

You seem to be under the illusion that your film will actually get a theatrical release.

Most don't.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yeah I was just planning way ahead out of shear curiosity. What about DVD releases, which is what I am at least aiming for. Will the rating, or no rating, greatly affect that? I guess not, since a lot of DVDs have are 'unrated' as they call it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I agree.

He will have to have his c**k chopped off and balls turned inside out to be comprable.

H, don't waste your energies on stuff that may never happen = write it - shoot it...

then edit, you can always do different cuts - no?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
harmonica44 said:
Yeah I was just planning way ahead out of shear curiosity. What about DVD releases, which is what I am at least aiming for. Will the rating, or no rating, greatly affect that? I guess not, since a lot of DVDs have are 'unrated' as they call it.
Click to expand...
You are right - to get a theatrical release it is much better to have
a MPAA rating. Planning ahead is fine - second guessing your approach
to your story is foolish. Here's what will happen:

You make your movie YOUR way without thinking what the MPAA
might do in two or three years.
You finish your movie exactly the way YOU want it.
You submit to festivals.
A distributor LOVES it and wants to distribute it theatrically.
They pay you for the rights, they pay for the MPAA rating.
The MPAA gives it an NC-17 so the distributor tells you you need
to make some changes to the torture scene. You make the changes.
The distributor resubmits - gets an R.
Your movie is released in the theaters!
Then you have the "director's cut" for the DVD release and it sells
even more.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jamster said:
I agree.

He will have to have his c**k chopped off and balls turned inside out to be comprable.

H, don't waste your energies on stuff that may never happen = write it - shoot it...

then edit, you can always do different cuts - no?
Click to expand...

Well movies that have had castrations, like Sin City, have gotten an R. So I guess that means it will likely be the same for mine then I'm guessing. I'll shoot it the way I see it, but won't show a lot or go overboard.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You seem be trying to justify this scene quite a lot, through point of comparing to similar somewhat sexual torture scenes (although if we're talking sexual torture, the first film that leaps to mind for me is 'Antichrist'.
Why do you want this scene so much? Is it actually relevant or are you just trying to push boundaries for violence?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It is relevant because something that happens as a result of the torture, creates an ironic twist of fate sorta thing. It wouldn't be at all pushing the boundaries I don't think. There's worse more graphic violence in Hostel and scenes from the Saw movies.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
If this scene is absolutely, positively crucial to the story and the story will break apart without it then you'll need to shoot it several different ways and just include the one that get your work out in front of people.

Shoot one as explicit as your actors are willing to go.
Shoot one where your common sense tells you "That's good enough to suggest what the story needs".
Shoot one where the implements of doom pass out of eyesight, cut to screams, cut to blood on the floor and squirting in peoples' faces.
Shoot one where the "handler" flat out says what's about to happen to her as the door shuts or window curtain is pulled followed by her throat ripping screams.

There's probably no need for "speculum-cam" work.
In THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO Lisbeth Salander's rape cuts off before whatever created that painful penguin walk home. Butt the story is communicated.

I don't think stating something will get you an NC-17.
I don't think suggesting something will get you an NC-17.
I think speculum-cam will get you an NC-17.
So, somewhere between "the door closing followed by screams" and "SpecCam" is what you're gunning for.

In the context of the rest of the movie, how "detailed" is this scene planned?

When a character goes to the car to drive somewhere will you film: Bob pulls his car keys from his pocket, Bob inserts the car key, Bob turns the car key, Bob removes the car key, Bob pulls the door open, Bob sits down, Bob inserts car key into ignition...
Or does Bob leave the house, cut to Bob driving down the road, cut to pulling into the office parking lot?

How will the "violation" scene fit in context with the rest of the piece?

EDIT: I know this is old as dirt, but perhaps "the critical deed" could be handled in a similar fashion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon_Seed
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
harmonica44 said:
It is relevant because something that happens as a result of the torture, creates an ironic twist of fate sorta thing. It wouldn't be at all pushing the boundaries I don't think. There's worse more graphic violence in Hostel and scenes from the Saw movies.
Click to expand...

I've seen the Saw movies, I never thought they were too graphic. Certainly not in the sexual way this is, which is why yours will create controversy.
Well, if you need it for the plot, then I'm gonna give you a tip I picked up watching Hitchcock films for an essay, suggestion can be more powerful than showing things.
Experiment with that
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If you wrote this scene the way you initially described, it all depends, rating-wise. I mean, you could show the first cut of your film to two different MPAA rating groups and get two different ratings. It's a crap shoot.

If you're asking the tell-tale things that will get you an NC-17? Here's a few, offhand, I've learned over the years from different directors.

You can say "cum". You can say "guzzling". You can say "queen". You can't, however, say "cum guzzling queen". That will get you an NC-17 and GLAAD all up your ass. Kevin Smith did this in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.

You can't linger on violence. If you show a head being ripped off, it better happen in less than 10 frames. Ask Adam Green, or George Romero.

Abusive/violent language. Obviously, you can say nearly anything in an R rated film. But if the way in which your character uses language is constantly derogatory and predatory, they can assign it "abusive" and "torturous". This is what they did to Ryan Gosling's character in "Blue Valentine", although they were able to get it appealed and knocked back down to an R.

Oral sex. If you show anything other than a comedic depiction of oral sex, that's almost nearly a guaranteed NC-17. See The Brown Bunny and Intimacy for that lesson.

Any kind of sexual behavior the MPAA deems "unnatural", which Trey Parker has had a problem with on Orgazmo (which got the NC-17), South Park (which got the R due to it being a big studio film), and Team America (which got the R for theatrical, came out unrated on disc). All for the entirety of sex jokes in Orgazmo, the depiction of anal sex between Satan and Sadaam Hussein, and the epic puppet fucking scene.

In your case, it would be:

Insertion. A big no-no. You can't clearly depict (either through showing, or having just barely off screen) vaginal or anal insertion. Simply won't fly.

Now, if you shoot the hell out of it, and have coverage of the scene that "artfully" hides the disturbing moments, while still letting the audience know it's happening, maybe, just maybe, they'd let you slide. All depends how it's shot, really.

But if it's for a spec script, don't think twice. A buyer will cut what they want to cut no matter what, they won't be hemming and hawing over a small scene. They'll either shoot it and lose it on the cutting room floor, or find a way to make it work if that's what they want.

I can tell you now though that any studio in town would change it immediately. Changing from man to woman changes it as well. You might argue the Bond scene, but they'd instantly shoot it down because with a woman, it's instantly sexual torture.

Now, if you're trying to get this made independently or on your own, again, don't worry about it. A rating is your last worry.

Actually, that stands as my full reply. A rating is your last worry on any film or script, really, unless you're the head of marketing or executive producer.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
harmonica44 said:
Well movies that have had castrations, like Sin City, have gotten an R. So I guess that means it will likely be the same for mine then I'm guessing. I'll shoot it the way I see it, but won't show a lot or go overboard.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but castration isn't exactly sexual.
Think more along the lines of the guy having some kind of electric shock device, either shaped like a fleshlight, or, shoved up his ass.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Semiazas said:
I've seen the Saw movies, I never thought they were too graphic. Certainly not in the sexual way this is, which is why yours will create controversy.
Well, if you need it for the plot, then I'm gonna give you a tip I picked up watching Hitchcock films for an essay, suggestion can be more powerful than showing things.
Experiment with that
Click to expand...

Well yeah I won't show it graphically, but it will be implied. In Casino Royale, they didn't show what was happening to Bond below the waist, but we knew what it was. Kinda like how I will shoot mine. You still see the woman screaming though. In one of the Saws they showed entrails, which I will definitely not show. So they are definitely more graphic. Perhaps not sexually though.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Only show as much as you need to. Cut away from the torture to a reaction shot maybe. If you leave the audience wondering exactly what it is that happened, their imagination can do the rest. And, in many cases, not showing is scarier than showing.
Take the shower scene in Hitchcock's "Psycho". I gather it seems a touch dated now, but the principle applies. Through the way the scene is edited basically none of the killing is shown and it's still effective.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It's probably not the best idea to push the horror genre further over the line than it's already gone in the last decade.

It's clear that you're writing these things into the plot just for the sake of shock value, and unless you're filming a historical account of what the more psychopathic nazi scientists got upto in the 40s then it's just thoughtless and disturbing.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top