Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, April 27, 1990 TAG: 9004270284
SECTION: EXTRA PAGE: E-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Chris Gladden
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
"Wild Orchid," which opens today in Roanoke, is just such a movie. Starring Mickey Rourke, Jacqueline Bisset and Carre Otis, it appears to be a glossy and erotically propelled love story set in Brazil. The film's director, Zalman King, has shown a penchant for the lurid in his work as the producer of "9 1/2 Weeks" and "Siesta" and his direction of "Two Moon Junction."
"9 1/2 Weeks" also began life with an X and was pared to an R. Of course, such controversy can help a movie financially - if not in the theaters then later in the video stores. The uncut versions generally wind up on video for those of us who are curious about the scenes that were cut. And even among those who aim to be the high-minded, that curiosity is generally there.
You know who you are.
This month, there's a whole flock of X-rated movies out there that seem to aspire to be more than pornographic - "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer," "The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover" and Pedro Almodovar's "Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!"
"Wild Orchid" was another before it went back to the editing room.
"Henry" and "Cook" apparently were given their X ratings largely because of depictions of graphic violence; the others because of sexual content.
Generally, when a movie receives an X, a filmmaker has three options: He can release the movie with an X rating; recut the film and resubmit it to the MPAA in hopes of getting an R; or release the movie without a rating. Many maistream theaters will not show X- and unrated films, leaving art houses and film festivals as their main outlets - not a formula for commercial success.
To further confuse things, a film's lack of a rating doesn't necessarily mean a movie contains explicit sex and violence. A lot of small, independent filmmakers don't submit their work to the MPAA ratings board - which is made up of nine parents who have no formal ties to the movie industry - and release them without a rating. I have seen unrated movies that could pass for a G.
The recent flurry of controversial movies has again stirred up the whole ratings controversy - one which has been uncharacteristically dormant of late.
The system came into existence in 1968. The MPAA devised it to head off threatened community censorship - something still far more disturbing than the flaws in the ratings system. But the system remains imperfect and some critics are calling for it to be revamped.
Much of the problem rests with the X designation itself. When the system was introduced, the MPAA did not copyright the X rating. So where G, PG, PG-13 and R ratings can legally only be applied to MPAA-evaluated movies, anyone who makes a movie can call it "X-rated." Porno moviemakers blithely promote the explicitness of their products by slapping the uncopyrighted X on them, thereby doing a lot of the MPAA's work for it.
But some critics are now calling for the MPAA to establish an A (for Adult) rating. They argue the new rating would distinguish serious movies with content unacceptable for those under 18 from outright pornography. The MPAA, through its longtime president Jack Valenti, contends that an additional rating is not necessary.
Both sides have valid arguments - obviously, such X-rated movies as "Midnight Cowboy" and "Last Tango in Paris" are not aimed at the same audience as "Debbie Does Des Moines."
An A designation would also give mainstream theaters that do not show X- or unrated movies an out and allow them to play such movies. But who is to sit in judgment on such movies - the nine-member board?
As it stands, the board desides ratings solely on the amount of sex, violence, nudity, strong language and drug references that a movie contains. It doesn't make artistic judgments.
That's a good thing. I don't mind a group of anonymous people telling me what's suitable and not suitable for children, even though I do know the board makes some poor judgment calls.
However, I don't want the MPAA telling me what is serious or isn't serious moviemaking or what has artistic merit and what doesn't.
Though the MPAA system has problems, the association is not intractable when it comes to change: the PG-13 rating was instituted in recent years and other improvements may someday occur. But the A rating could cause as many problems as it solves.
For now, the only answer appears to be an informed public. Through a little research - reading reviews and calling the theater - most of us can determine beforehand whether a movie is standard porno fare or something with more serious aspirations.
Besides, if a film is rated X, the kids can't see it anyhow.
by CNB