Argument #2: NC-17 Ratings

One of the more controversial ratings of the MPAA is the much-dreaded NC-17. Films with an NC-17 rating are intended for adults only, and children 17 and under are forbidden to view them. Filmmakers and audiences alike commonly resent an NC-17 rating. For the filmmakers, the rating can be highly detrimental to finding an audience; an entire age group is lost, and studio executives are likely to insist upon a re-edit that may require a filmmaker to abandon his or her own vision.

While a film that has enough mature content to receive an NC-17 rating is undoubtedly inappropriate for children, viewing an NC-17 film can be a difficult feat for adults, as well. Certain publications refuse to advertise any film with an NC-17 rating, disregarding them as pornographic. This prohibits news of a film from reaching a general audience. In addition, certain theaters or video stores refuse to show or carry a film with an NC-17 rating following a series of criticisms from the public. Theaters or stores occasionally fear giving the impression that they have no moral value. Thus, even if an adult is aware and interested in an NC-17 film, he or she may never be able to find it.

The controversy surrounding the NC-17 rating is due to the MPAA's little distinguishment of what it means to obtain such a rating. In fact, people continue to associate the NC-17 rating with an X-rating (used for pornographic films). In the months following the creation of the NC-17 rating, communities and religious groups alike protested the new system, accusing it of attempting to bring pornography to the masses. The respected film critic Roger Ebert asserts the need for an A-for-adult rating in order to establish a clear difference between pornography and art. Until such actions are followed through, the NC-17 rating will always be received with anger from filmmakers and audiences alike.