Will the NC-17 rating of 'Blue Valentine' scare away audiences?

By Sarah Sluis

Blue Valentine is one of the rawest, real movies I've ever seen. It's certainly one of the best films coming out in 2010. It's also been rated NC-17 by the MPAA.

Last week, I went into a screening knowing that the movie had been assigned an NC-17 rating, which the distributor,Weinstein Co., is appealing. I heard the movie included sex, violence, and scenes from an abortion. I was expecting something to be so bad that it would really stand out and deserve such an extreme rating. I was wrong.

If this movie is guilty of anything, it's making such a compelling, real story that everything hits you three times as hard. The screenplay originated from a child of divorce, Cami Delavigne, and it shows. The dialogue captures the nature of a dysfunctional relationship perfectly. Even when one member of the couple tries to make nice, the other one shuts down their efforts. Dean (Ryan Gosling) tries to plan a romantic getaway, and Cindy's (Michelle Williams) weariness with every extra effort he attempts is excruciating. I have never before been able to intuit a couple's dysfunction from dialogue like this on screen. Their phrases are like psychological onions, with so much hidden meaning and rage and discontentment to unpeel.

According to The Wrap, the MPAA took issue with "a single sex scene in which there is minimal nudity and the sex act is not even entirely shown." Based on that clue, I suspect they're referring to a scene that could be considered the husband raping his wife. Though disturbing, and certainly not appropriate for children under 17, I don't feel it warrants a NC-17 rating. In reality, such a rating is a kiss of death, locking a film out from being advertised in mainstream outlets and branding it as exploitative, gratuitous, and near-pornographic, something that Blue Valentine most assuredly is not. Moreover, Blue Valentine received no comments at all on the festival circuit about "graphic" content--compare that to the outcry last year over Lars Von Trier's Antichrist (which didn't even bother to get a rating).

In the old days of the rating system, filmmakers could only show "bad things" if there was a moral message (e.g. gangsters dying at the end of the movies to show that bad acts are punished). I don't advocate requiring such messages, but context does matter. Blue Valentine does not glorify such acts but takes us to the breaking point in a couple's marriage. This is not "throwaway violence" but an emotionally draining experience that leaves you feeling a bit shell-shocked as you leave the theatre. If realism makes such graphic content acceptable in my eyes, the MPAA often takes a different point-of-view. "Comic book" violence often is considered more acceptable than realistic, bloody encounters. But this viewpoint can also lead to distorted judgments. There's a huge difference between truly innocuous, non-violent "fights," like the enemies just kind of disappearing in G-rated Up (it's unclear if anyone dies) and comic book heroes blasting or hi-yaing enemies to death again and again in PG-13 movies. When it comes to graphic portrayals of violence in R-rated films, there's also a split between spurting, gratuitous horror movies and similarly graphic but drama-driven deaths in war films.

Blue Valentine has a strong case for appeal. The film is stunning and could perhaps find a kindred spirit with Boys Don't Cry, which successfully appealed its NC-17 rating and went on to win an Oscar. The producers of Boys Don't Cry, however, re-cut the film to win an R rating, something the makers of Blue Valentine won't do.

Weighing in on 'The Lovely Bones'

By Sarah Sluis

Many of the people turning out to see The Lovely Bones on Friday will have read Alice Sebold's haunting book. Told from the perspective of a dead girl, Susie Salmon, after she is raped and murdered, the book brought insight into the aftereffects of such a misunderstood and shrouded crime. Profoundly nuanced, its shaded morality gave its characters emotionally complex reactions to the tragedy.

After reading Alice Sebold's memoir of her own brutal rape, Lucky, I felt I understood The Lovely Bones even more: being a victim of such a terrible crime leads you to experience events as though they are outside yourself. You can easily lose a sense of agency. Instead, you often feel as though you are watching things happen from above. Susie narrating the events going on in her family from heaven is not much different than how she might have experienced life had she been raped but not murdered.

Sadly, much of this is lost in Peter Jackson's interpretation of The Lovely Bones, which completely misses the tone of the book. Most grating is his vision of heaven. He seems more interested in giving his special-effects company a lot of work than motivating the move to fantasy. The surroundings, rich and lush and detailed, stick out from the rest of the movie.

Many people have praised the performances in the movie (and I agree with the assessment that Stanley Tucci has a standout role), but some lines sounded really, really bad and misdelivered to my ears. I saw the actor instead of the character. I suspected part of this was related to the tone. When you're trying to make something wispy and ephemeral, and fail, it can lead to dialogue that feels quite odd.

Finally, there's the rape and murder scene. Given that a child is involved, and the movie's PG-13 rating, it's not surprising that this vicious act is omitted. But instead, Jackson moves quickly from the terror of anticipation to a confusing scene where at first she's actually fleeing, and then she's fleeing in her mind, before finally pausing for a brief moment when she realizes what's happened to her. It missed the mark for me, to the point where I was sitting in the movie theatre in disbelief about how the movie was skipping over one of the most painful, but necessary, moments of the story. What I really wanted was a still moment where the audience was forced to dwell on what was happening. Though I already thought the tone was messed up by then, this really sealed it for me.

This omission will be a comfort to some, and for others it may be all they need to conjure up enough horror. Hollywood Elsewhere, for example was happy with the decision, explaining "I really, really didn't want to go there, even glancingly," and liked Jackson's "decision to show her escaping from her own death, running away from something that has happened but is so horrible that she instantly imagines or wills herself into a fantasy-escape mode." For me, it was not enough to carry through the rest of the movie. In the book, the rape and murder is always on your mind, and it's always on the characters' minds. I didn't feel that way watching the movie.

Given the subject matter, this is the kind of movie that people will see only if motivated by must-see reviews touting its artistic merit. Not many people want to be subjected to a Schindler's List if critics are coming out calling it "so-so." By comparison, Precious has garnered glowing reviews. It, too, shows the rape of a child (much more graphically) and her escaping to a fantasy world. Compared to the elaborate world created by Jackson, her escapist moments are downright spare, but the movie works by keeping us grounded in Precious' dismal reality. Translating Alice Sebold's prose to film, which requires depicting these events on-screen instead of in one's head, is a tall order, so it's not a huge surprise that Jackson didn't succeed. Those that have read the book should skip it or go in with managed expectations.