I remember when this movie first got the NC-17, they tried to appeal it and what not. Apparently the edited bit was a very brief shot of Maria by Macy's crotch, implying oral sex. That's what I remember. I was surprised Lion's Gate edited it, since they are an independent studio. I remember reading that the director was conflicted as to whether he should edit it or not. I guess him and Lions Gate thought it was such a minor thing they might as well edit it and get the R rating after their appeal failed. I think Lions Gate also had "Saw" edited for an R rating (probably because they thought it would be a big success.. and it was) but they are releasing the french horror film "High Tension" with an NC-17. They also released "Irreversible" unrated.

So, you're saying that the large corporations that make up the theater chains don't know what the NC17 rating is for?

And the studios are members of the MPAA by choice. They are, in effect, the MPAA themselves. If they want to withdraw, the certainly can. There's no force keeping them there.

It may well be that the studios would like to release movies with NC17 ratings and have theaters play them, but the theaters are companies that have the right to make choices about what they commit themselves to, and, for whatever reason, the theater chains don't want the NC17 content (you say it's because they don't understand what NC17 is. I would maintain that they know perfectly well what it is and don't want it anyway).

As an artist, I would certainly want the movie the way I wanted the movie, but, as an artist, I don't have the ability or the right to force my desires onto others. They own theaters, they make choices of what they want to show. The studios own the movies, they choose to cut their movies to gain a certain rating. The only way around it would be for the artist to finance his own movies and distribute to his own theaters.

That situation is the same if I come up with a recipe in which I would want nutmeg. If I want my recipe distributed, I have to accede to the demands of those who would distribute it or accept the fact that they're private companies/individuals who have the right to make demands of me if I want to use their shelf space to sell my product (and a movie is a product just as much as chicken in the grocery store would be). I could choose to stick to my guns and insist that the nutmeg stays in. That's my choice. It had consequences (because of the choice, my product won't be in those stores), but it's still a choice I make.

I'm no fan of the MPAA overall when it comes to the seemingly haphazard way that films are rated, but it's the process that the studios agreed to and continue to use by their own choice (if the studios stopped submitting their movies for ratings, theater owners wouldn't just quit showing movies).

And the theater owners have every right to make decisions as to what they put on the screens they own. It's not censorship, it's free enterprise. And it's the way this country works (the USA). The fact that we're talking about what some people consider to be an artistic product (though I don't know how a couple of seconds of pubic hair changes the artistic intent of the movie, but I guess that's why I'm not much of a cineaste) doesn't change the rules.

The way around it would be for there to be an uproar from theatergoers that resulted in the theaters changing their minds about what was shown and allowing NC17 movies in, but given the tenor of the times, it's more likely that we'd see the opposite happen (I know if the local Cinemark played an NC17 movie, there would likely be protests, possibly on par with the large protests we saw against "The Last Temptation of Christ").

It is interesting to me, though, that people and stores seem to have so little problem with "Unrated" DVDs (especially since so many unrated DVDs are marketed as being more sexually explicit than the rated versions). And yet, as far as I can remember, none of the studios are putting these "unrated" versions of their movies on the cable channels they own (such as HBO or Showtime). It is an interesting double-standard.

This is an interesting argument to put forth. Basically, what you're saying is that the studio, which *clearly* wanted the cut as it was (otherwise they wouldn't have negotiated to get that nudity in in the first place), is basing their decision on an abritrary thing which they believe (NC-17 hurts box office) which you're demonstrating to be untrue, yet you're using this to demonstrate that the studio has a "choice" (which clearly they *don't* feel they have) and that we should respect that choice, even though the choice is based on something which is untrue.

Interesting logic, but I totally disagree with it. And it seems to me that it demonstrates perfectly that the studios feel that they have no choice in the R/NC-17 debate.

The chains may or may not know, it's immaterial; the point is that the MPAA did not educate anybody (and, in fact, made statements directly contradicting the facts) and, because of this, the "NC-17=porn" thing was sparked. The chains will show whatever gets people in, but don't want to be attacked as being "anti-family" so they won't show something which is perceived as pornographic.

I love the way you guys throw around the word "choice" but then object to the word "censorship". There is no choice involved. Dropping out of the MPAA would be economic suicide for any company which did so, it's absurd to suggest it would be as simple as just choosing to withdraw and it having no other effect on the business.

Here's my point, though -- the MPAA rating was *intended* to be an easy way of warning parents "let your kids see this, don't let them see this". However, because the rating is there, the power has now ballooned so that the theaters will decide arbitrarily not to show a movie based solely on the rating. You keep saying "The theaters make choices of what they want to show," and that's fine, but the point is, they're not watching 'The Cooler' and saying "That's too raunchy for me," they're looking at a piece of paper and saying "Whuh-oh! NC-17!" This all goes back to the point that nobody is choosing anything based on the movie itself, just the rating the movie earns, which has been my whole point all along, that if one version is the "preferred" version based on the decisions everybody has made up and down the line, and the other is the "preferred" version based on a bunch of people who like "R" better than "NC-17", the former is the "preferred" version to everybody who matters. Including the studio.

Pretty sure the law disagrees with you about the legality of that, there was a whole big anti-trust thing when distributors owned theaters.

If every single studio did it? Sure. And, also, if every single pig had wings, they'd fly. What's your point? If a single studio stopped submitting their movies, they'd go bankrupt.

The way you're describing it could be said to be free enterprise, but the way it actually happens -- which is to say, one single organization makes the determination whether (virtually) every theater will show a movie or not -- sounds much more like a monopoly to me.

It does change the rules over which cut is the "correct"/"preferred"/"director's"/"whatever you want to say" one.

And I already agreed the pubic hair itself is a trivial example, but there are other, more significant ones; that's why I tried to sway the topic to more general discussion of it, because I felt kind of absurd strenuously defending a few frames of pubes.

I agree, the MPAA should do a better job of educating the theatergoers about NC-17, because there's no legitimate reason for those protests. They're based on the misconception that NC-17=porn.

I'm especially surprised that Blockbuster rents the unrated discs out.

Actually, the thread was sparked because 'The Cooler' is shown unrated on cable. 'Gia' and 'Original Sin' both come to mind also. I actually wish they'd do it more with comedies and such, but I haven't seen those as much.

I believe the Canadian release is uncut.

No need to do a quote debate. read the response and taking this step of the argument.

A lot of people confuse or have this assumption that film making is all about artistic control/intergrity/etc. You have to remember that first and foremost it's a business. I may not like the MPAA, but I do understand their position in this matter. They have this film that gets processed through all the steps and in the long run a film is made to make a profit. Small budget, big budget, it doesn't matter as long as the film can turn out a profit. If by chance you can make a good artistic film out of it then that's the bonus.

Now lets forget about the MPAA real quick and lets go into the topic I was talking about. Film Test Screenings. months before a film is every released to the market they have lots of test screenings of it performed by third party companies for the studio. The results of these test screenings help shape the movie in its final forms. There is often scenes that go on to long and mess up pacing or are just not well placed but figured out when you play it to an audiance. Now studios make a lot of changes to a film based on the results of these screenings. My best friends wedding got a whole different ending, Dawn of the Dead had a lot of the deleted scenes placed in the film, Garden State had a few more shots and extended scenes with specific lines being read. All this stuff that cause a film to not work as well as it should.

Now these results go back to the creative control and they *can* decide from there what they want to do. Either fix or tweak it slightly by removing scenes, cutting more shots or even changing an ending. Should these things not be considered censorship since we are considering the MPAA censorship? It's just another third company telling the studio what to do in order to sell their product better. The MPAA is just telling them what kind of changes they need to get a better or targeted rating. I'm not seeing that much difference between these factors that go into making a film in this Entertainment Business.

A studio can go for a higher rating if they want. But much like these test screenings. If they need to cut some of the fat out in order to make it a product that can sell (or sell better) and a product that would be alright with the film maker (I don't see the director complaining) then since the studio funded said film, they can choose to give the command to edit it down. I edited your quote to fit this situation now:
Is a test screening any worse then the MPAA? It's all aspects of the industry that need to be taken into account when making a film. Especially when the studio is fronting the bill in hopes to make a profit out of it.


I agree with you TGG. This case is not a case of censorship. Can the MPAA often create a situation that makes it ackward or makes studios think twice about releasing a film with an R instead of watering it down to a PG-13? Sure, it's very possible that it happens. But the that is the choice the studio is making. No one is forcing them to do anything. They do what they feel is in their best interest according to the rules of the game. I do believe that the MPAA really needs to update itself and create a better rating system because the G,PG,PG-13,R,NC-17 ratings are just not cutting it anymore in being anywhere near descriptive enough about the content of the film. But that is a whole different discussion.

A lot of films that came out in the 70's wouldn't even have a chance in hell to be released without an NC-17 now a days because of the change of social morals. Taxi Driver for one, you could never have a hooker be played by a 14 year old. The morals and laws of the land are based off the world we are around. Don't blame the MPAA for the standards of the PC society now a days. Blame the society that has created them. The studios are just working around them making the product we buy. Though we can blame them for the strange rating grade system. But no way near censorship.


TL;DR - This is like a soccar team claiming that they are being censored when they can't use hands in a game. These were self imposed rules of the game that they agreed on and are playing around. Then again, we all love to complain when a ref makes a bad call...

I was going to come into this thread and say the same thing (I don't know for certain though because I have only seen the Canadian cut and have nothing to compare it to), and ended up reading an interesting debate. I don't have much more to add to either side, because most valid points have been stated all ready. But I have to admit that the whole MPAA thing has always left a bit of a bad taste in my mouth, because of the way it's always said that it's all "voluntary" but on the other hand, it's often difficult to get NC-17 or unrated films shown in many theatres, advertised in many newspapers, sold and rented in many stores, etc. And it's also difficult for a independant film to get financing unless they deliver an R rating for example. So no, not censorship, but almost a defacto "censorship" takes place anyway.

can anyone confirm that this release which i guess is scheduled for 2/22 is indeed uncut and shows the little extra of whatever?? or if the Canadian rating system is different than US because I noticed some other movies rated NC-17, "Boyz in the Hood" and "Raging Bull" (perhaps for the violence) were a couple, now I can't see those ever getting an NC-17 in the states, so perhaps Canada has different rating system.
anyone...

I'm hoping this disc is in fact uncut since I have had this on order with dvdsoon since around the middle of Dec.

do they keep changing the release or something?

when I placed my order the disc was in stock according to their site. then the next day it my order changed to "in transit". then a day or 2 later it changed to "on order" and then toward the very end of the month it changed back to "in transit" with the new Feb. release date.

well, that's odd, but we still need confirmation if this is Unrated by US standards and includes the cut scenes or not. there must be some way to tell...

also, the DVDSoon lists different extras, including and alt. ending and deleted scenes which are vastly different than all other region extras including US R1, so hopefully this is the real deal...non-censored.
anyone with me?

The Canadian rating system is indeed very different compared to the US. Our "R" is the equivalent of the US NC-17 (without any attached stigma to the rating, of course). THE COOLER is rated "18A" (adult accompaniment under 18), so almost the same as the US "R" (but is usually much more lenient regarding how much sex/nudity is allowed). I have the earlier Canadian version (I had no idea there was a new one coming out). If anyone can give me the exact part that was supposed to be cut, I can let you know if it's present on my DVD.

well, this release is also rated NC-17 (Canadian) alnog with 18A and has alt. ending, deleted scenes...does the current Canadian contain those? i believe this could be the real deal if Canadian NC-17, and hopefully the one playing on satellite systems, no?

i have a msg. into DVD Soon, i'll keep ya posted...

Well, there is no such thing as "Canadian NC-17". NC-17 is only a US rating. If the DVD packaging was meant for both the US and Canadian markets, there would be both a NC-17 and 18A logo on it. If the release is only meant for Canada, there would normally be no NC-17 on the packaging. At any rate, my Canadian DVD does not have the alt ending or deleted scenes. As to whether or not it's uncut, I really don't know. I have no other version to compare it to. But there would be no logical reason for the original Canadian release to be missing a few seconds of footage, and the new release not.

of course there is, it is called Double Dipping! The same reason all versions are 'R' and this could be the true 'Unrated' with the few snippets. If there are different extras in the Canadian releases, then very reasonable to say it is a slightly different version of the movie.

Well, my DVD Soon pre-order is now a "Re-Release" which means most likely is the same version as previous, but still their site has different extras including Deleted Scenes and Alternate Endings which I don't believe was on the original release. This is also NC-17 but that is Canadian standards, so I think that means R here, correct?

I think I am disappointed now as I was hoping...

well here's a nice big pile of poop I just noticed about my order - when I placed my order for this at dvdsoon the price I paid was 23.98CAD and now it's 9.98CAD. any idea if they'll adjust the price for me or am I out of luck?

Jack, sorry I didn't see your extensive post earlier. I probably would've had a lengthy response. But I did want to respond, at least, to this part:

Test screenings can be as bad as the MPAA, yes. Not automatically, but if a person at the studio issues a blanket statement like "You have to cut X, Y, and Z because the test audiences said they don't like them" then, yes, that's as bad as saying "We have to cut the nudity for a rating" because it's just as arbitrary. However, test screenings *do* have validity, in that a great filmmaker can watch his/her film with an audience and get a better sense of what parts are working, that sort of thing. It's only when the studio begins to take what the audience says too literally (what I mean is, if an audience doesn't like a scene, a lot of times that can actually be because of some other scene not doing what it's supposed to) that the test screening process becomes bad.

[This isn't to say the filmmaker is infallible either; I'm saying, I'd trust a person who sat and watched the audience watch the film over a person who read their one-page responses written as quickly as possible so they could be let out of the theatre. If it's flipped, and the studio guy watched the film and the director tried to just read the cards, I'd listen to the studio guy.]

chris..you have to cancel and use the store credit to re-order. it won't adjust automatically. i called and was told this. they also said same as original release, but who the hell knows.

Yes, as I've mentioned, the original Canadian release did not have deleted scenes or alternate endings, and again, there is no such thing as a Canadian NC-17 rating. "R" is the highest, most restrictive rating we have.

ok, then maybe it is an NC-17 new release! i guess only time will tell...either way $8.00 USD isn't bad considering i didn't have any version and i really liked the movie and loved Maria Bello since ER.

anyone have this release yet (perhaps a couple days early)? or at least verify any differences in content and/or extras, if there are, with the R1 release?

thanks...