What is the NC-17 rating?
The NC-17 rating was introduced in 1990 by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) to replace the X rating. It is used for films with content that the MPAA considers to be too sexually explicit, violent, or profane for viewers under the age of 17. Some key facts about the NC-17 rating:
- NC stands for “No Children Under 17 Admitted”.
- Films with an NC-17 rating cannot be marketed or shown in most mainstream cinemas in the United States.
- Many major media outlets refuse to advertise NC-17 films.
- Only about 1% of released films have received an NC-17 rating.
So in short, NC-17 is seen as a commercially damaging rating in the film industry, as the restrictions around it can severely limit a film’s distribution and revenue potential. Many filmmakers therefore choose to cut their films to be rated R instead of NC-17.
What are the content guidelines for an NC-17 rating?
The MPAA never releases the exact criteria they use for ratings. However, based on the types of films that typically receive NC-17 ratings, the main content areas seem to be:
- Sexuality – prolonged scenes of graphic sexual content, including penetrative sex and oral sex.
- Violence – extreme, gory, or sadistic violence.
- Language – excessive use of expletives, especially sexually derived words.
Basically any content taken to the most graphic extremes in these areas could potentially end up with an NC-17. The MPAA makes subjective judgements depending on the overall context, intent, and impact of the content in question.
What are some examples of NC-17 rated films?
Here are some of the most well-known films that have been rated NC-17 over the years:
| Film | Year | Reason for NC-17 rating |
|---|---|---|
| Showgirls | 1995 | Strong sexuality and nudity |
| Crash | 1996 | Extreme sexual content |
| Requiem for a Dream | 2000 | Drug use, sexuality, nudity |
| Lust, Caution | 2007 | Strong sexuality |
| Blue is the Warmest Color | 2013 | Prolonged graphic sexuality |
As you can see, sexuality and nudity have been the predominant reasons for the NC-17 rating. Violence can also be a factor, but sexual content tends to draw more controversy.
How many NC-17 films are released each year?
NC-17 films make up only a tiny fraction of overall films released in the US – on average about 1-3% per year. Here is a breakdown of the number of films released with an NC-17 rating since 2000:
| Year | Total Films Released | NC-17 Films | NC-17 % |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 475 | 3 | 0.6% |
| 2005 | 534 | 0 | 0.0% |
| 2010 | 564 | 3 | 0.5% |
| 2015 | 688 | 2 | 0.3% |
| 2020 | 348 | 1 | 0.3% |
As you can see, some years have seen zero NC-17 films, while the maximum is around 3 per year. So it’s a very small club of films that receive the dreaded rating.
Is NC-17 a death sentence commercially?
The heavy restrictions around NC-17 films certainly create huge commercial hurdles. But a closer look shows that while NC-17 presents challenges, it doesn’t automatically spell doom:
- Showgirls (1995) – Despite being panned by critics, it earned $20 million at the box office.
- Lust, Caution (2007) – Earned $67 million worldwide.
- Blue is the Warmest Color (2013) – Won the Palme d’Or at Cannes and earned $19 million globally.
However, there are certainly plenty of NC-17 films that flopped badly or never secured proper distribution, such as The Evil Dead remake and Killer Joe.
So NC-17 limits options, but isn’t always a death sentence. With the right filmmaking pedigree and marketing, NC-17 films can succeed. But the road to profitability is much steeper compared to an R rating.
Do NC-17 films win Oscars?
Despite the stigma, NC-17 films have managed to win Oscars over the years:
| Film | Oscars Won |
|---|---|
| Midnight Cowboy (1969) | Best Picture, Best Director |
| A Clockwork Orange (1971) | Best Screenplay |
| Last Tango in Paris (1972) | Best Actress (Maria Schneider) |
However, no film has won Best Picture since the NC-17 rating began in 1990. Films with risque content now seem to have a much lower Oscar ceiling than in the 1970s.
But NC-17 films can still get Oscar attention in categories like Acting, Directing, and Screenplay. For example, Showgirls actress Elizabeth Berkley earned praise for her bold performance, despite the film’s overall reception.
Do the Oscars allow NC-17 films to be nominated?
Yes, the Academy does allow NC-17 films to be nominated and compete for Oscars in any category.
However, very few NC-17 films actually get nominated in major categories these days. The stigma makes them long-shots for Best Picture or Director. Acting nominations are rare – the last was Pedro Almodóvar for a Best Original Screenplay nod in 2004 for Bad Education.
But the door is open for NC-17 films to be Oscar players if they gain enough momentum on the festival circuit and get audiences talking. Though the odds are stacked against them.
How does NC-17 compare to ratings globally?
The NC-17 rating is unique to the United States. Other countries use different systems to classify mature film content:
| Country | Rating System |
|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 18 – Adults only |
| Canada | 18A – Provincial ratings can vary |
| France | -16, -18 – Age-based ratings |
| Japan | R18 – Hardcore pornography only |
| Australia | R18+ – High impact content |
Globally, mature film ratings focus on legal age restrictions rather than specific content guidelines. And in many places, the highest age rating like 18 or R18 doesn’t carry the same taboo as NC-17 in America.
For example, in Europe and Australia, an 18 rating is common and does not prohibit cinema releases or advertising. This is a sharp contrast to the commercial restraints around NC-17 in the US.
Do other countries have equivalents to the NC-17 rating?
Not directly, since NC-17 was created specifically within the MPAA’s ratings system. But here are some international ratings that correlate to NC-17 content:
- United Kingdom – Works rated 18 by the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification)
- France – Films rated -18 or films banned for release by film body ARPP
- Germany – FSK 18 rating from German ratings board FSK
- Australia – Films rated R18+ or banned from regular cinemas
- South Korea – Films rated Youth Restricted by media ratings board KMRB
These ratings all cover films with mature content like strong sexuality, violence, horror, etc. But key difference is they primarily restrict cinema entry for underage viewers, rather than imposing blanket distribution bans.
So while other countries have equivalents in content covered, no rating carries the same commercial toxicity as NC-17 in America. The US film industry views it as uniquelly problematic.
What was the reaction to introducing NC-17?
The NC-17 rating was introduced in 1990, replacing the X rating which had become associated with pornography. The intention was to have a respectable rating for serious adult-only films. But reactions were mixed:
- Some praised the change as properly distinguishing mature films from porn.
- However, many still equated NC-17 with X and considered both ratings toxic.
- Big cinema chains continued to ban NC-17 films from most theaters.
- Many media outlets refused to advertise NC-17 movies.
- NC-17 limited box office revenue potential.
So while created with good intentions, NC-17 inherited many of the same taboos and commercial restrictions as the old X rating. It remained a problematic classification for filmmakers seeking distribution.
Did NC-17 succeed in its aims?
Not really. The goals were to:
1. Destigmatize adult-only films versus pornographic X rating.
2. Allow serious artistic films to have an adult rating category.
But both aims largely failed:
- NC-17 is still seen as unmarketable “box office poison” in mainstream.
- Most directors edit films to get an R rating rather than go out with NC-17.
- Very few “serious” dramas earn an NC-17 – it’s still associated with exploitation.
So rather than establishing a respected category, NC-17 remains a commercial risk that few mainstream filmmakers are willing to take. It is still seen as taboo despite hopes of separating it from the old X rating.
Should the NC-17 rating be abandoned?
Many critics argue that after 30+ years, the NC-17 rating has failed in its purpose and should be abandoned entirely.
Some pros and cons around keeping or scrapping NC-17:
| Pros of NC-17 | Cons of NC-17 |
|---|---|
| – Does restrict cinema entry for minors | – Limits distribution opportunities for films |
| – In theory allows space for adult content | – Inherited stigma of X rating it replaced |
| – Shows patrons a film’s adult nature | – Used inconsistently, “curse” not benefit |
There are reasonable arguments on both sides here. Ultimately it may come down to finding the right balance between informing audiences without demonizing certain content.
Perhaps a new approach beyond NC-17 could achieve this balance better. But any revised system would need to be carefully constructed to avoid repeating the same issues.
What are the alternatives if NC-17 was abolished?
Some options that have been proposed:
- Adopt letter ratings used in Europe – e.g. 18+ or R18 for adult content.
- Add detailed content descriptors rather than a stigmatized rating.
- Divide current R rating into 14, 16, and 18 age categories.
- Classify based on specific content like violence, language, nudity.
Any new approach would still need to restrict underage access. But Removing the scarlet letter of NC-17 could help reduce stigma and judgement around mature films.
This would support artistic expression while still informing audiences and keeping youth protected.
Conclusion
The NC-17 rating aimed to carve out space for serious adult films, but inherited many of the same taboos as the X it replaced. While it technically allows mature content, the label heavily restricts distribution and earnings potential. Very few filmmakers are willing to release with NC-17, and even fewer achieve commercial success.
So while the rating still serves a purpose for restricting youth access, arguments persist around whether NC-17 does more harm than good in demonizing films with mature content. Striking the right balance remains an ongoing debate among film industry stakeholders. But many feel it’s time to move past NC-17 and find a new solution that protects both artistic freedom and young audiences.