Successful Appeals and Surviving the MPA Rating System

By William Mavity

Most countries with large moviegoing populations maintain some sort of content-regulation body. In some, like Canada, local governments are responsible for regulating film content.[i] In the US, meanwhile, Hollywood self-regulates through a non-governmental body known as the Motion Picture Association (MPA).[ii] Although the MPA is not a form of governmental censorship, its 54 years as a content-rating body have been rife with controversy.[iii]

 The MPA’s involvement with each of the major film studios and theater companies has ensured that, until the streaming era, most films have been forced to abide by its rules and submit to its regulation.[iv]

The MPA’s judgment can make or break a film’s box-office performance.[v] Thus, when a film receives an R or NC-17 rating, filmmakers often contest the MPA’s rating decisions via the MPA’s own internal appeals system, through state courts, and through the court of public opinion.

The stories of three ratings appeals—Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!, Gunner Palace and Blue Valentine—expose the many contradictions that define the MPA’s rating and appeals system. These examples reveal the MPA’s biases towards violence and against sex and illustrate how prevailing cultural moods can affect the likelihood of a film’s success on appeal.  

What Is the MPA?

The MPA is a trade organization composed of six major film studios: Walt Disney Studios, Netflix Studios, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Universal Pictures and Warner Bros. Entertainment.[vi] It spent more than three billion dollars in 2020 lobbying on behalf of those studios in areas like film tax incentives, international distribution and combatting piracy.[vii]

But what the MPA is best known for is its role in content regulation. Since 1968, the MPA has collaborated with National Association of Theater Owners, Inc. (NATO) to provide a content-rating system for films known as the Classification and Rating Administration (CARA).[viii] Although the CARA rating system is described as “voluntary,” all MPA members must submit their films for rating prior to release.[ix]

More than 82% of the films released theatrically in 2019 were released by MPA-member studios.[x] At least nine of the ten biggest theater chains in North America are NATO signatories. NATO represents at least 35,000[xi] out of the approximately 40,000 movie screens in North America.[xii] Like the MPA, NATO requires its member theaters to comply with CARA rating regulations, such as mandatory ID checks for R and NC-17 rated films.[xiii] Many of the major NATO members have maintained a policy of only showing films that have received MPA ratings.[xiv]

 In short, although CARA is ostensibly voluntary, if a film hopes to be screened in most theaters in America, it needs to submit itself to CARA ratings. The problem is that the rating system is both unpredictable and inconsistent in its decision-making. Its rating guidelines are based on subjective methods that leave room for interpretation.

 How are Films Rated?

 The CARA Rating Board is comprised of: a chairperson, appointed by the MPA Chairman, who in turn selects the Raters and Senior Raters. Raters serve seven-year terms unless they are selected to become Senior Raters.[xv]

Raters’ main qualifications are that they cannot be affiliated with the film industry and must have children.[xvi] Their identities are kept anonymous, ostensibly to protect them from public pressure.[xvii] Raters come from various professional backgrounds, such as finance, social work and construction.[xviii] Many are not from Los Angeles. According to CARA Chairwoman Kelly McMahon, “Geographic diversity is almost bigger for us than all the other kinds of diversity. We’re a big country with so many varying viewpoints and sensitivities, so it’s not helpful to have a bunch of people from California rating movies for the whole country.[xix]” 

Once a film is submitted, a group of Raters view the film and submit ratings via preliminary ballots to a Senior Rater.[xx] The Raters then discuss their ballots among themselves before submitting a final ballot with what they consider an appropriate rating along with an explanation of their decision.[xxi] These ballots are kept confidential and not shared with anyone outside of CARA.[xxii]  

The main guidance CARA provides is that, “ratings are meant to best reflect the opinion of most American parents about the suitability of that motion picture for viewing by their children.”[xxiii]

 According to McMahon, CARA collects the, “opinion of most American parents” from a survey sent every two years to between 1,200 and 2,000 parents around the country.[xxiv] The most recent survey was in 2018 due to COVID delays.[xxv] In these surveys, parents rank the kinds of content that would concern them most in films.[xxvi]

 Based on the results of those surveys, CARA applies the following ratings to films and provides the following explanation of each rating[xxvii]:

 (1) G - General Audiences. “Some snippets of language may go beyond polite conversation, but they are common everyday expressions. No stronger words are present. … Depictions of violence are minimal.”[xxviii]

Such “stronger words” include “hell,”[xxix] “crap,”[xxx] and “damn.”[xxxi] Violence is easier to get away with. For example, Disney’s G-rated Tarzan features a villain being violently strangled to death[xxxii].

(2) PG - Parental Guidance Suggested. “Some profanity and … depictions of violence or brief nudity … and “mature themes.” … No drug use content.”[xxxiii]

“Some profanity” means PG films are allowed to use most curse words besides the f-word.[xxxiv] 

PG films are allowed a surprising amount of violence. Four out of the eight Harry Potter films were rated PG, as were half of the Star Wars films despite featuring deaths by beheading,[xxxv] stabbing[xxxvi] and dismemberment.[xxxvii]

“[N]o drug use” is a hard-and-fast rule.[xxxviii] School of Rock features no language more severe than “ass” and “crap” but received a PG-13 for “drug references” for a scene in which Jack Black’s character jokes that another character “must be doing crack.”[xxxix]

(3) PG-13 - May Be Inappropriate For Children Under 13. “May go beyond the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, [and] language … More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity … will not be sexually oriented. May be depictions of violence … but … not … realistic and extreme or persistent violence.”[xl]

While a PG-13 rating means more money, CARA’s guidelines for securing one are inconsistent and unpredictable. In practice, “harsher sexually derived words” means the f-word,  and “only as an expletive” means using the word in a non-sexual sense, akin to exclamatory swearing.[xli]

A … single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though [used] only as an expletive … requires at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive requires an R rating, as must even one of those words [when] used in a sexual context …. Raters feel that most American parents would believe that a PG-13 rating is appropriate because of the context or manner in which the words are used.”[xlii] 

However, even with those minimal guidelines, there is little consistency among decisions. The Social Network[xliii] and The Martian[xliv] were given a PG-13 rating with two uses of the f-word. Meanwhile, J. Edgar earned an R rating for “brief strong language” for a single use of the word.[xlv]

CARA is equally inconsistent about sex and nudity. Rear nudity is acceptable in a PG-13 film.[xlvi] Full-frontal nudity (referred to as “graphic nudity”) usually incurs an R or NC-17 rating.[xlvii] Female topless nudity depends on the film.

Kate Winslet appears topless in Titanic, which received a PG-13 rating for “nudity and sensuality,”[xlviii] but a brief shot of topless dancers in Lost in Translation resulted in an R for “sexual content.”[xlix] 

On the other hand, CARA tolerates extensive violence in a PG-13 film. Taken received a PG-13 despite featuring its hero shooting and electrocuting his way through a sex trafficking ring in a whirlwind of realistic violence.[l]

(4) R - Children Under 17 Require Accompanying … Adult Guardian. “May include adult themes, adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements”[li]

Graphic violence usually results in an R rating,[lii] but language and sexual content seem to be the easiest ways to secure an R rating.[liii] Sexual content is broadly defined. For example, Vera Drake received an R rating for “strong thematic material” because the film focused on a woman who performed illegal abortions.[liv]

(5) NC-17 - No One 17 and Under Admitted, even when accompanied by an adult. According to CARA, “An NC-17 rating can be based on violence, sex, aberrational behavior … or any other element that most parents would consider … off-limits for viewing by their children.”[lv]

The NC-17 rating was created to replace the X rating, which had become synonymous with pornographic films.[lvi] Unfortunately, the NC-17 continues to be disproportionately conflated with sexual content.[lvii] NATO and MPA rules restrict how member movie theaters can advertise NC-17 films.[lviii] TV advertising for NC-17 films is limited to certain hours of the day.[lix] Some newspapers won’t carry print ads for NC-17 films.[lx] Cinemark, the nation’s third-largest theater chain, will not screen NC-17 films at all.[lxi]  As a result, only three NC-17 films have grossed more than $11 million at the domestic box office.[lxii]

And strikingly, earning an R rating instead of a PG-13 can mean earning 35% less at the box office.[lxiii] In 2018, only four out of the top 30 films at the US box office were R-rated.[lxiv]

Controversy:  

The inconsistency with which these standards are applied is confusing, but it also raises questions about what is actually harmful to children and how CARA defines that harm.

 Why are one or two uses of the f-word acceptable for children to see unaccompanied, but not three? Is language really something children need to be most protected from? For example, Bully, a documentary intended to educate students on the dangers of bullying, received an R for displaying footage of real-life bullying in which the bullies cursed at their victims.[lxv] By CARA’s logic, children needed to be protected from seeing a film that demonstrated how those very words were already being used by children daily, and why using those words should be discouraged.

Why are some forms of sex and nudity deemed more harmful to children than others? CARA has faced criticism for stigmatizing sex between LGBTQ characters. For example, former MPA Chairman Joan Graves admitted that “a gay kiss might earn a PG-13 instead of a PG” because “many parents might feel younger children are unfamiliar with homosexuality.”[lxvi] G.B.F., a teen comedy about a “gay best friend” was rated R for “sexual references” despite not featuring a single f-word or any on-screen instances of sexual behavior.[lxvii]

Historically, films containing LGBTQ-focused sex scenes or those focusing on female pleasure have been more likely to receive an NC-17 rating than films containing male and heterosexual-focused sex scenes.[lxviii] Boys Don’t Cry featured graphic hate-crime murder.[lxix] CARA handed the film an NC-17 rating but said that scene was not the problem.[lxx] Instead, the issue was a consensual sex scene between actresses Hilary Swank and Chloe Sevigny earlier in the film.[lxxi]

CARA said that, in recent years, it has shifted away from rating LGBTQ sex more harshly than heterosexual sex.[lxxii] According to McMahon, “Our mantra now is ‘sex is sex, it doesn’t matter who’s doing it.’”[lxxiii] However, plots focusing on matters such as a character coming out to their parents may still garner a PG or PG-13 for “thematic elements.”[lxxiv]

Perhaps more importantly, why are language and sex more harmful to children than violence?

McMahon says it all comes down to the surveys; “consistently, the issue parents say they are most concerned about is sex or nudity. Parents would much rather talk to their kids about violence than sex.”[lxxv]

Though there have been calls to base ratings on studies from experts[lxxvi] instead of on the shifting standards of what a tiny sampling of parents say they want, CARA has rejected that approach.  

As McMahon describes it, “For every expert that says one thing, you have an expert that says something else. In one appeal, one of the filmmakers was arguing that experts say language does not have a harmful effect on children. I said, ‘It’s great that experts are saying language isn’t harmful to children, but parents still don’t want to hear language in their PG-13 movies.’ It’s up to what the parent is comfortable with, not what the expert is saying they should be comfortable with.”[lxxvii]

McMahon says CARA plans to send out a new survey in 2022.[lxxviii] Perhaps the parents surveyed this time will feel differently. Until then, McMahon remains adamant: “We’re supposed to be taking our lead from parents, not leading them. We’re not supposed to be prescribing social policy—we’re supposed to reflect it.”[lxxix]

Of course, the idea that ratings are solely the reflection of what parents want becomes murkier when the concept of appealing a rating comes up. 

MPA Appeals

Sometimes CARA will lower a film’s rating after the studio makes minor edits.[lxxx] At other times, CARA asks for more substantial changes that would be infeasible without butchering the film.[lxxxi] Sometimes, the filmmaker does not have the time or money to re-edit the film and resubmit it for reconsideration.[lxxxii] And occasionally, the filmmaker just wants to take a stand on principle.[lxxxiii]

Additionally, appealing a rating can generate free publicity for a film. Even if the appeal is unsuccessful, the buzz generated by the appeal may increase a film’s box office success simply because more people have heard about the film.[lxxxiv] 

The CARA Appeals Board does not consist of members of the Ratings Board.[lxxxv] For all the purported emphasis on parents’ wishes, it does not necessarily even consist of parents.[lxxxvi] Instead, it consists of the CEO of the MPA and representatives from MPA member studios and NATO theaters, all of whom may have different standards than parents.[lxxxvii]

Winning an appeal isn’t easy. The standard is, “whether the majority of American parents would … believe that the rating was clearly erroneous.”[lxxxviii] To win an appeal, a filmmaker needs the vote of a 2/3 majority of the appellate board members present at the hearing.[lxxxix] There must be at least nine appeals board members present at a hearing,[xc] but in practice, it is more common to have between 12 and 14 members present.[xci]

A film is allowed only two representatives at an appeal.[xcii] Both representatives must be involved with the production or distribution of the film.[xciii] This can make it harder to have a lawyer advocate for a film, though some distributors hire high-profile lawyers for various day-to-day legal matters and thus can plausibly argue that these lawyers were sufficiently related to the distribution of the film to act as a representative in its appeal.[xciv]

Attorney Alan Friedman, who has spearheaded multiple appeals, says the best scenario is to have a creative person involved in the film explain the creative importance of the scenes at issue to the film as a whole, and then have an attorney apply the standards established in the CARA rules to the facts.[xcv] Because the Appeals Board is composed of industry figures, Friedman emphasizes that having a respected and compelling member of the creative team present is often more important than having a lawyer.[xcvi]

For instance, for Diamonds, Friedman brought along the film’s star, Kirk Douglas, a Hollywood legend, to appeal the film’s R rating. Douglas had just recovered from a stroke. “People were just thrilled to see the living legend Kirk Douglas do something, and I think that made the difference.”[xcvii]

Once the appellant has selected its representatives, the board screens the film.[xcviii] The appellant then has 15 minutes to argue why the film’s rating should be overturned.[xcix] 

Although CARA’s rules state that a film on appeal should be evaluated as a whole, with any objectionable content considered in context of the broader film, according to Friedman, CARA tends to focus extensively on a few specific scenes.[c] Thus, the appellant’s job is to keep directing the focus to the film as a whole, emphasizing why the film itself is not objectionable even if a certain scene is, and why the scene in question is not gratuitous, but rather is crucial to the film’s message.[ci] The appellant should also emphasize why CARA’s own standards and precedents suggest that the film should receive a lower rating.[cii]

Until 2007, appellants were forbidden from citing precedent decisions during their appeal.[ciii] Now, appellants can cite prior rating decisions as long as the appellant informs the Appeals Board of which films they will reference at least three days prior to the hearing.[civ]

After the appellant’s presentation, CARA’s chairperson has 15 minutes to argue why the film’s rating should be upheld.[cv] Each side then has ten minutes to respond to each other, after which the entire board is allowed to ask questions.[cvi]

Finally, the board votes by secret ballot to determine whether the rating was “clearly erroneous.”[cvii]

Smart appellants focus on appealing the rating not only within CARA’s processes, but also through the court of public opinion. In 2013, when the Judi Dench-led Philomena received an R rating for its use of two f-words, the film’s producers appealed the rating within CARA. However, they also brought their case to the public through a viral skit in which Dench, reprising her role as M from the James Bond films, menacingly instructed Philomena co-star Steve Coogan to “persuade” CARA to lower the film’s rating to a PG-13.[cviii] Coogan then represented the film in person at the appeal and convinced the board to issue the film a PG-13.[cix]

According to the MPA, among the more than 30,000 films rated, only 0.6% of appeals have been successful.[cx] Most rating appeals come and go with minimal attention. But three, in particular, did not.

Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!

In 1990, Pedro Almodóvar was hot off of the breakout international success of his film Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown.

His follow-up film, Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!, was a comedy about an escaped mental patient who falls in love with a porn star.[cxi] The film culminates with a sex scene, one that was not especially graphic, but notable in that it “focuse[d] primarily on [the female lead]’s sexual fulfillment.”[cxii]  

1990 was the year Senator Jesse Helms demanded that artists who received federal funding sign a so-called “anti-obscenity pledge,”[cxiii] and Burger King was boycotted by Christian groups as a “leading sponsor of network TV sex … profanity and anti-Christian bigotry.”[cxiv]

In response, artists were more inclined than ever to challenge censorship, and CARA was more inclined than ever to crack down on objectionable content to avoid the public’s wrath. Again, sex scenes that emphasized female pleasure were apparently more controversial.[cxv] Thus, CARA rated the film X.[cxvi]

The X rating originated in 1968 as the functional equivalent of an NC-17.[cxvii] No minors were allowed to watch an X-rated film, even if accompanied by an adult.[cxviii] When it was first created, the X connoted daring cinema like A Clockwork Orange.[cxix] However, after the X-rated erotic film Deep Throat used the rating as part of its marketing strategy,[cxx] pornographic films began co-opting the X, even without receiving an actual X rating from CARA. The MPA had registered all of its other ratings with the US Copyright Office, but it inexplicably did not register its X rating.[cxxi] Thus, in the mid-1970s, almost every major pornography distributor used the X rating label, and so in the mind of the public, “rated X” meant pornography.[cxxii] By 1990, the X-rating stigma was so intense that many theater chains refused to screen X-rated films, and many newspapers had blanket rules prohibiting advertising X-rated films.[cxxiii] 

 Almodóvar set out to appeal the rating, both within CARA and, via editorials and interviews, with the public.[cxxiv] In a series of interviews, he compared the rating system to conditions he had experienced in Spain under dictator Francisco Franco and referred to levying X ratings as a “fascist technique.”[cxxv]

 Almodóvar hired famed civil rights attorney William Kunstler to make his appeal case.[cxxvi] Kunstler had previously represented the “Chicago 7” during the “Trial of the Chicago 7.”[cxxvii] Despite an “impassioned plea,” Almodóvar lost his appeal after the CARA appellate board voted six-to-six, falling short of the two-thirds majority needed.[cxxviii]

 Almodóvar refused to cut the scene from the film, which left open one option: to sue.[cxxix]

Almodóvar, represented by Kunstler, sued the MPA in New York state court, arguing that CARA’s decision violated a state law prohibiting private or public administrative bodies from “arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable” action.[cxxx] His goal: to see the court overturn CARA’s decision and provide the film with an R rating instead.[cxxxi]

Kunstler attacked CARA’s image, characterizing it as a ‘voluntary’ system that did not constitute censorship, arguing that “[CARA] say[s] this is just advice for parents, but the theaters enforce it. It’s not like the TV Guide.”[cxxxii]

Unlike CARA’s private appeal hearings, this hearing took place in a packed public courtroom.[cxxxiii] A-list filmmakers saw the suit as a long-awaited opportunity to voice their frustrations with the rating system.[cxxxiv] Oscar-nominated director Mark Rydell said, “We are laughed at throughout the world for our puritanism. …What we did to Almodóvar is shameful.”[cxxxv]

As Friedman advises: when disputing a rating, use context and precedent.[cxxxvi] Kunstler cleverly referred to precedent. To demonstrate the “arbitrary and capricious” nature of CARA’s X rating for Tie Me Up!, Kunstler provided the court with a tape of even more explicit sex scenes from R rated MPA signatory films like Fatal Attraction (Paramount), 9 ½ Weeks (MGM) and Body Heat (Warner Bros.).[cxxxvii]

Presiding Judge Charles E. Ramos held in favor of the MPA, stating that there was no evidence that the X rating here was “without a rational basis or arbitrary and capricious” in light of its own internal standards, and determined that a court could not require CARA to issue a new rating without raising First Amendment concerns.[cxxxviii] At the same time, he criticized the MPA for “having acquiesced in the use of the ‘X’ rating by the pornography industry”[cxxxix] and suggested that it bore an affirmative responsibility to undo that stigma.[cxl]

His decision assailed CARA’s standards as unscientific, emphasizing the absence of psychiatrists or childcare professionals on the board, and claimed the system created “an illusion of concern for children, imposing censorship, yet all the while facilitating the marketing of exploitive and violent films with an industry seal of approval.”[cxli]

Years later, Ramos compared his experience with the MPA to his experience with big pharma and big tobacco, saying “There’s a kind of incestuous relationship. … [I]t’s typical to find that these regulators are joined at the hip with the people they’re supposed to be regulating. Judges say as an expression about this kind of thing, “they all go to the same men’s room.”[cxlii] 

Ramos’ opinion made headlines across the country. The Washington Post wrote, “Smash the Ratings System!”[cxliii] Within days of the decision, many A-list directors aired their long-simmering frustration towards the MPA through a petition demanding that the rating system be changed.[cxliv] Although the MPA initially denied that the X rating had any pornographic connotations,[cxlv] by September 1990, MPA Chairman Jack Valenti said, “We've received justifiable criticism. … [I]t's no one's fault, but the X rating has a patina, a complexion which, frankly, we never intended it to have.”[cxlvi] They subsequently retired the X rating, replacing it with a new rating: NC-17.[cxlvii]

Why did the film lose its appeal? Kunstler and Almodóvar could not fight the anti-sex cultural mood at the time. But the process exposed CARA as a censorship body and generated extensive publicity for the film. Thus, while Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down! lost the appeal, it arguably won the war.  

Gunner Palace

By 2005, the “moral majority” were not dictating cultural standards. Instead, the Iraq War and notions of patriotism were at the fore.[cxlviii] Bush had just been re-elected.[cxlix] The Dixie Chicks became pariahs after criticizing the war.[cl]

Michael Moore’s documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 had just lost an appeal of its R rating.[cli] During his appeal, Moore had argued that if teenagers were old enough to be recruited to fight in Iraq, then they were old enough to see what fighting in Iraq was like.[clii] Moore’s film, however, was explicitly anti-war and anti-Bush.[cliii]  

And then came Gunner Palace. Documentary filmmakers Michael Tucker and Petra Epperlein shot the film while embedded with a real group of soldiers in Iraq over the course of two months, resulting in an unvarnished, first-hand look at the war.[cliv] Unlike Fahrenheit 9/11, Gunner Palace showcased the life of the soldiers without explicitly being anti-Bush.[clv]

The film featured more than 40 uses of the f-word.[clvi] CARA gave the film an R rating.[clvii] The filmmakers decided to appeal the film’s rating, relying on Moore’s same argument: teens considering a military career should first be able to see what the realities of combat were.[clviii]

The filmmakers appealed to the public while simultaneously appealing to the MPA. The film was screened for both the House and Senate,[clix] and the filmmakers emphasized that if the film was rated R, it could not be shown in schools where recruiters were actively appearing.[clx]

Allowed only two representatives, the Gunner Palace team opted not to hire an attorney.[clxi] Instead, Tucker personally appeared at the film’s appeal alongside an executive from the film’s distributor.[clxii] Otherwise, they followed the same strategies that Friedman advocates.

 First, they emphasized context. Yes, there were multiple f-words, but “taken in context of the subject, soldiers at war, the language is not gratuitous.”[clxiii] They explained how many of the expletives were uttered when soldiers were caught in explosions or other dangerous situations.[clxiv] Their language was an authentic reaction to those moments, which could not be showcased by editing out that language.[clxv]  

 Second, although filmmakers were not allowed to cite precedent in appeal hearings at the time of their appeal, they did mention that former MPA Chairman Jack Valenti had just advocated for airing the R-rated Saving Private Ryan unedited on ABC, saying “there is some language in the movie. … But this is not just another movie. ... It cries out to be seen by every young boy and girl … so they can understand what sacrifice, duty, honor, service and valor truly mean.”[clxvi]

 Finally, they turned to the cultural winds and played the patriotism card. Tucker told the board, “How dare you try and censor this! People died while we were filming.”[clxvii] He reminded them, “As Americans, one way we can support the troops is by listening to what they have to say.”[clxviii] He asked the board to “honor and respect their experience and sacrifice by ensuring that young Americans could see their experience on-screen.”[clxix]

According to Tucker, when they finished speaking, some members of the board were crying.[clxx] CARA overturned the R rating.[clxxi]

According to Tucker, “We won because we were passionate and made good arguments.”[clxxii] Tucker convinced the board to consider the words in the context of the film as a whole. Further, his appeal to patriotism benefitted from the national mood towards the Iraq war. If the national mood worked against leniency in Almodóvar’s case, it did the opposite here. By 2010, when the mood towards the war had changed again, another war documentary “The Tillman Story” attempted to put forward the same arguments and was unsuccessful in appealing its R-rating.[clxxiii]

Blue Valentine

 In 2007, Kirby Dick released This Film Is Not Yet Rated, a documentary which attempted to expose the MPA’s hypocrisy. The film showcased certain absurdities in the rating and appeal process, such as the presence of clergy at appeal hearings[clxxiv] and forbidding filmmakers from citing precedent.[clxxv] The film generated a sea of controversy, and in the aftermath, CARA announced certain reforms, including allowing films to cite precedent.[clxxvi]

The storm of outrage that ensued when CARA announced its rating generated much-needed publicity[clxxxiii] for a film competing for Oscar consideration against the likes of The King’s Speech and The Social Network.[clxxxiv]

But the publicity alone wouldn’t be enough; if the NC-17 rating was not overturned, it would be devastating to the film’s awards prospects. Only one NC-17 film to date has received an Oscar nomination— Henry and June, which received a single nomination for Best Cinematography.[clxxxv]

So, the filmmakers appealed the NC-17 rating— both within CARA and in the court of public opinion.[clxxxvi] Gosling called the MPA “misogynistic” and said that the NC-17-rating in this case was “an issue that [was] bigger than this film.”[clxxxvii] Director Derek Cianfrance said the appeal was “a chance to stand for something” and argued the scene could not be removed without “undermining the point of his movie.”[clxxxviii] A Twitter campaign was started, garnering thousands of tweets in favor of overturning the rating.[clxxxix] Harvey Weinstein, whose The Weinstein Company was distributing the film, decided to ask parents directly what they thought.[cxc] He screened the film for parents across the country and had each parent fill out surveys afterward identifying what rating they would give the film.[cxci] Eighty percent of the viewers said the film should be rated R, not NC-17.[cxcii]

Friedman, who spearheaded the appeal, recognized the importance of choosing the right person to advocate on the film’s behalf at the appeal.[cxciii] He chose the film’s distributor, Harvey Weinstein, then at the height of his powers.[cxciv] In Friedman’s own words, “The people in the arbitration…They’re all film industry people. At the time, Weinstein was a large figure in the industry, the creator of independent film…Whatever he says was going to carry a lot of weight.”[cxcv]

Always adamant that emphasizing context is key, while the board focused on a single scene, Friedman focused on the film beyond the scene in question.[cxcvi] Friedman argued that, in a film about a crumbling relationship, the sex scene “was a spontaneous scene of intimacy between the couple that was shown as a flashback and juxtaposed with an awkward and, ultimately, unsuccessful attempt by the husband to reignite the romance in their relationship during its waning moments.”[cxcvii]

In addition, he emphasized that the scene was not “gratuitous” in that it did not feature any nudity and was not “presented in a titillating or erotic manner.”[cxcviii]

Finally, the appellants cited precedent. First, they pointed to many R-rated films that featured men receiving oral sex.[cxcix] This touched on a long-running criticism of ratings bias against films showcasing female pleasure Friedman also cited comparable R-rated films that featured women receiving oral sex, such as Basic Instinct, which received an R rating despite featuring “a similar scene, but with substantial nudity.”[cc]

The appeal was successful.[cci] Friedman had everything going for him: a compelling witness, a national mood that was becoming more willing to embrace female sexuality, strong precedent, and a film that was not scandalous beyond the scene at issue.

Where is the MPA Now and How has It Changed?

As many films begin to rely less on theatrical releases as the main source of revenue for a film in favor of streaming and VOD,[ccii] it’s possible that the financial impact of an R rating may be blunted. However, as long as the major studios remain MPA members, they must continue submitting their films to CARA. And for studios releasing big-budget blockbusters, getting a PG-13 instead of an R rating remains as crucial as ever. Even the streamers Netflix,[cciii]  Amazon[cciv] and AppleTV+[ccv] submit their films for rating.

For reasons that are still unclear, fewer films are appealing their ratings.[ccvi] Maybe ratings matter less. Maybe CARA is more lenient. Maybe the filmmakers who would make the kinds of films that would have once gotten NC-17s are now making those stories into TV series outside of CARA’s jurisdiction. Alternatively, as McMahon says, perhaps raters have just become more effective at giving filmmakers constructive notes that allow them to reach a lower rating without compromising a film’s integrity.[ccvii]

But criticisms remain. CARA plans to conduct a new survey in 2022,[ccviii] but the process of determining parents’ opinions remains unscientific. Additionally, even if CARA believes their role is to take their cues from parents and not vice versa, the MPA’s dominant role in the industry in shaping and gatekeeping content suggests the opposite. For many years, the MPA has dictated cinematic culture. Each of the appeals discussed has demonstrated how the board’s standards have shifted over the years. But have they shifted enough?

End notes

[i] Provincial Classification Boards and Authorities, MPA-Canada.org, https://www.mpacanada.org/film-ratings (last visited Feb 28, 2022).

[ii] G Is For Golden: The MPAA Ratings at 50, Motion Picture Ass’n of America (Nov. 2018), https://www.motionpictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/G-is-for-Golden.pdf.

[iii] Anne Thompson et. al, MPAA Turns 50: Here Are 12 of the Biggest Ratings Controversies, From ‘Basic Instinct’ to ‘Blue Valentine,’ Indiewire (Oct. 29, 2018).

https://www.indiewire.com/2018/10/mpaa-ratings-controversies-50-anniversary-1202016148/.

[iv] Roger Ebert, How do the ratings rate?, RogerEbert.com, ( Sept. 14, 2006), https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/this-film-is-not-yet-rated-2006.

[v] Todd Cunningham, PG-13 vs. R Movies: How Each Rating Stacks Up at the Box Office, TheWrap (Mar. 4, 2015), https://www.thewrap.com/pg-13-vs-r-movies-how-each-rating-stacks-up-at-the-box-office/.

[vi] Who we are, Motion Picture Ass’n, https://www.motionpictures.org/who-we-are/ (last visited Feb 28, 2022).

 [vii] Motion Picture Assn: Summary, OpenSecrets, https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/motion-picture-assn/summary?id=D000027729 (last visited Feb 28, 2022).

[viii] CLASSIFICATION AND RATING RULES, Motion Picture Ass’n (July 24, 2020), https://www.filmratings.com/Content/Downloads/rating_rules.pdf

[ix] Id.

[x] Market Share for Each Distributor in 2019, The Numbers, https://www.the-numbers.com/market/2019/distributors, (last visited Mar. 23, 2022).

[xi] About, NATO, https://www.natoonline.org/about/ (last visited Feb. 28, 2022).

[xii] Sarah Whitten, As AMC seeks to add more theaters to its portfolio, insiders warn that the market already has too many screens, CNBC (June 8, 2021), https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/08/movie-theater-industry-has-too-many-screens-former-regal-cfo-says.html.

[xiii] Response of The National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO), NATO (Nov. 2, 2000), https://www.natoonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/NATO_FTC_Response.pdf.

[xiv] Elizabeth Blair, Bullying Movie is Released With No Rating, NPR (Mar. 30, 2012), https://www.npr.org/2012/03/30/149668761/bullying-movie-is-released-with-no-rating.

[xv] CLASSIFICATION AND RATING RULES, Motion Picture Ass’n (July 24, 2020), https://www.filmratings.com/Content/Downloads/rating_rules.pdf.

[xvi] Id.  

[xvii] Id.

[xviii] David Ng, Famously secretive, MPAA pulls back the curtain on ratings - a little bit, Los Angeles Times (Oct. 29, 2018), https://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-mpaa-ratings-20181029-story.html.

[xix] Interview with Kelly McMahon, CARA Chairwoman (2022) (on file with journal).

[xx] CLASSIFICATION AND RATING RULES, Motion Picture Ass’n (July 24, 2020), https://www.filmratings.com/Content/Downloads/rating_rules.pdf.

[xxi] Id.

[xxii] CLASSIFICATION AND RATING RULES, Motion Picture Ass’n (July 24, 2020), https://www.filmratings.com/Content/Downloads/rating_rules.pdf.

[xxiii] Id.

[xxiv] Interview with Kelly McMahon, CARA Chairwoman (2022) (on file with journal).

[xxv] Id.

[xxvi] Id.

[xxvii] CLASSIFICATION AND RATING RULES, Motion Picture Ass’n (July 24, 2020), https://www.filmratings.com/Content/Downloads/rating_rules.pdf.

[xxviii] Id.

[xxix] The Road to El Dorado: Parents Guide, IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0138749/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg (last visited Mar. 23, 2022).

[xxx] Id.

[xxxi] Star Wars: Parents Guide, IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg (last visited Mar. 23, 2022).

[xxxii] Tarzan: Parents Guide, IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120855/parentalguide (last visited Mar. 23, 2022).

[xxxiii] Id.

[xxxiv] Interview with Kelly McMahon, CARA Chairwoman (2022) (on file with journal).

[xxxv] Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones: Parents Guide, IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0121765/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg (last visited Mar. 23, 2022).

[xxxvi] Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace: Parents Guide, IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120915/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg (last visited Mar. 23, 2022).

[xxxvii] Id.

[xxxviii] CLASSIFICATION AND RATING RULES, Motion Picture Ass’n (July 24, 2020), https://www.filmratings.com/Content/Downloads/rating_rules.pdf.

[xxxix] School of Rock: Parents Guide, IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0332379/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg (last visited Mar. 23, 2022).

[xl] Id.

[xli] Todd Cunningham, PG-13 vs. R Movies: How Each Rating Stacks Up at the Box Office, TheWrap (Mar. 4, 2015), https://www.thewrap.com/pg-13-vs-r-movies-how-each-rating-stacks-up-at-the-box-office/.

[xlii] CLASSIFICATION AND RATING RULES, Motion Picture Ass’n (July 24, 2020), https://www.filmratings.com/Content/Downloads/rating_rules.pdf.

[xliii] The Social Network: Parents Guide, IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1285016/parentalguide (last visited Mar. 23, 2022).

[xliv] The Martian: Parents Guide, IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3659388/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg (last visited Mar. 23, 2022).

[xlv] J. Edgar: Parents Guide, IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1616195/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg, (last visit Mar. 23, 2022).

[xlvi] Mr. Deeds: Parents Guide, IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0280590/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg (last visited Mar. 23, 2022).

[xlvii] Pamela McClintock, So How Many Thrusts Get You an NC-17 Rating?, The Hollywood Reporter ( Feb. 12, 2015), https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/how-thrusts-get-you-an-772118/.

[xlviii] Titanic: Parents Guide, IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120338/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg, (last visited Mar. 23, 2022).

[xlix] Lost in Translation: Parents Guide, IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335266/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg (last visited Mar. 23, 2022).

[l] Cecilia Kang, The violent 'Taken' movies are rated PG-13. Do ratings make sense anymore?, The Washington Post (Oct. 20, 2014), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/10/20/why-the-pg-13-movie-rating-has-grown-increasingly-meaningless/.

[li] CLASSIFICATION AND RATING RULES, Motion Picture Ass’n (July 24, 2020), https://www.filmratings.com/Content/Downloads/rating_rules.pdf.

[lii]G Is For Golden: The MPAA Ratings at 50, Motion Picture Ass’n of America (Nov. 2018), https://www.motionpictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/G-is-for-Golden.pdf.

[liii] Ana Swanson, In movie ratings, sex is more risqué than violence, The Washington Post (Jan 20, 2015),  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/20/in-movie-ratings-sex-is-more-risque-than-violence/.

[liv] Vera Drake: Parents Guide, IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0383694/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg (last visited Mar. 23 2022).

[lv] CLASSIFICATION AND RATING RULES, Motion Picture Ass’n (July 24, 2020), https://www.filmratings.com/Content/Downloads/rating_rules.pdf.

[lvi]G Is For Golden: The MPAA Ratings at 50, Motion Picture Ass’n of America (Nov. 2018), https://www.motionpictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/G-is-for-Golden.pdf.

[lvii] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/how-thrusts-get-you-an-772118/

[lviii] ADVERTISING ADMINISTRATION RULES, Motion Pictures Ass’n (Oct. 8, 2019), https://www.filmratings.com/Content/Downloads/advertising_handbook.pdf.

[lix] Jake Coyle, 'Shame' poses intriguing test for NC-17 rating, Today (Nov. 23, 2011, 8:07 AM), https://www.today.com/news/shame-poses-intriguing-test-nc-17-rating-wbna45416827.

[lx] Dan Cox, MPAA: 'Orgazmo' stays NC-17, Variety (Oct. 8, 1998), https://variety.com/1998/film/news/mpaa-orgazmo-stays-nc-17-1117481204/.

[lxi] Jake Coyle, 'Shame' poses intriguing test for NC-17 rating Today (Nov. 23, 2011, 8:07 AM), https://www.today.com/news/shame-poses-intriguing-test-nc-17-rating-wbna45416827.

[lxii] Top Lifetime Grosses by MPAA Rating: NC-17, IMDb, https://www.boxofficemojo.com/chart/mpaa_title_lifetime_gross/?by_mpaa=NC-17 (Mar. 23, 2020).

[lxiii] Sara Israelsen-Hartley, Y. Study finds R-rating lowers movie profits, Deseret News (Oct. 28, 2010), https://www.deseret.com/2010/10/28/20149527/y-study-finds-r-rating-lowers-movie-profits.

[lxiv] Domestic Box Office for 2018, IMDb, https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/2018/ (last visited Mar. 23, 2022).

[lxv] John Young, ‘Bully’ controversy: Student urges MPAA to change documentary’s R rating?, CNN, (Mar. 8, 2012), https://www.cnn.com/2012/03/08/showbiz/movies/bully-rating-controversy-ew/index.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9CBully%2C%E2%80%9D%20a%20look%20at,film%20without%20an%20adult%20guardian.

[lxvi] Movie Ratings Board invites scrutiny, Today (Jan. 24, 2006), https://www.today.com/popculture/movie-ratings-board-invites-scrutiny-wbna11012423.

[lxvii] G.B.F.: Parents Guide, IMDb,  https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2429074/parentalguide (Mar. 23, 2022).

[lxviii] Rich Juzwiak, G.B.F. Was Rated R for Being Gay, Gawker (Dec. 18, 2013), https://www.gawker.com/g-b-f-was-rated-r-for-being-gay-1485807841.

[lxix]Boys Don’t Cry: Parents Guide, IMDb,  https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0171804/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg (Mar. 23, 2022).

[lxx] This film is not yet rated  (IFC Films 2006).

[lxxi] Tricia Tongco, The Sexist Reason These Movies Recieved an NC-17 Rating, attn: (May 14, 2016), https://archive.attn.com/stories/8183/sexist-reason-why-some-movies-are-rated-nc-17.

[lxxii] See Interview with Kelly McMahon, supra note 24.

[lxxiii] Id.

[lxxiv] Id.

[lxxv] Id.

[lxxvi] Miramax Films Corp. v. Motion Picture Ass'n of Am., Inc., 560 N.Y.S.2d 730, 733-35 (Sup. Ct. 1990).

[lxxvii] See Interview with Kelly McMahon, supra note 24.

[lxxviii] Id.

[lxxix] Id.

[lxxx] Interview with Alan R. Friedman (2022) (on file with journal).

[lxxxi] Alan R. Friedman, The Art of Appealing MPAA Film Ratings, Entertainment Law & Finance (Feb. 2011), https://katten.com/files/48494_friedman_entlawfin_artofappealing.pdf.

[lxxxii] Paula Bernstein, How The MPAA Really Works And How to Get The Rating You Want, Indiewire (July 2, 2014), https://www.indiewire.com/2014/07/how-the-mpaa-really-works-and-how-to-get-the-rating-you-want-24671/.

[lxxxiii] See Interview with Alan R. Friedman, supra note 75.

[lxxxiv] Id.

[lxxxv] Motion Pictures Ass’n; https://www.filmratings.com/Content/Downloads/rating_rules.pdf (last modified Jul. 24, 2020)

[lxxxvi] See Interview with Kelly McMahon, supra note 24.

[lxxxvii] CLASSIFICATION AND RATING RULES, Motion Picture Ass’n (July 24, 2020), https://www.filmratings.com/Content/Downloads/rating_rules.pdf.

[lxxxviii] Id.

[lxxxix] Id.

[xc] Id.

[xci] See Interview with Alan R. Friedman, supra note 75.

[xcii] CLASSIFICATION AND RATING RULES, Motion Picture Ass’n (July 24, 2020), https://www.filmratings.com/Content/Downloads/rating_rules.pdf.

[xciii] Id.

[xciv] See Interview with Alan R. Friedman, supra note 75.

[xcv] Alan R. Friedman, The Art of Appealing MPAA Film Ratings, Entertainment Law & Finance (Feb. 2011), https://katten.com/files/48494_friedman_entlawfin_artofappealing.pdf.

[xcvi] See Interview with Alan R. Friedman, supra note 75.

[xcvii] Id.

[xcviii] CLASSIFICATION AND RATING RULES, Motion Picture Ass’n (July 24, 2020), https://www.filmratings.com/Content/Downloads/rating_rules.pdf.

[xcix] CLASSIFICATION AND RATING RULES, Motion Picture Ass’n (July 24, 2020), https://www.filmratings.com/Content/Downloads/rating_rules.pdf.

[c] See Interview with Alan R. Friedman, supra note 75.

[ci] See Interview with Alan R. Friedman, supra note 75.

[cii] Id.

[ciii] Nicole Sperling, Revised R has a parental guide, The Hollywood Reporter (Mar. 15, 2007), https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/revised-r-has-a-parental-132065/

[civ] CLASSIFICATION AND RATING RULES, Motion Picture Ass’n (July 24, 2020), https://www.filmratings.com/Content/Downloads/rating_rules.pdf.

[cv] Id.

[cvi] Id.

[cvii] Id.

[cviii] Ben Child, Philomena: Steve Coogan's 002 enlisted by Judi Dench's M in R-rating argument, The Guardian (Nov. 13, 2013), https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/nov/13/philomena-judi-dench-steve-coogan-rating.

[cix] Pamela McClintock, 'Philomena' Wins Appeal to Overturn R Rating for Two F-bombs, The Hollywood Reporter (Nov. 13, 2013), https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/philomena-wins-appeal-overturn-r-655740/.

[cx] G Is For Golden: The MPAA Ratings at 50, Motion Picture Ass’n (Nov. 2018), https://www.motionpictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/G-is-for-Golden.pdf.

[cxi] Almodovar Loses Appeal of X Rating, Los Angeles Times, (Apr. 24, 1990), https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-04-24-ca-459-story.html.

[cxii] G Is For Golden: The MPAA Ratings at 50, Motion Picture Ass’n (Nov. 2018), https://www.motionpictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/G-is-for-Golden.pdf.

[cxiii] Stephen J Newman, Take a Stand for Art, The Harvard Crimson (July 17, 1990), https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1990/7/17/take-a-stand-for-art-pbsbince/?utm_source=thecrimson&utm_medium=web_primary&utm_campaign=recommend_sidebar.

[cxiv] Howard Rosenberg, Burger King Bows to TV Watchdogs Advertising: The hamburger chain attempts to pull itself out of the frying pan with an ad trumpeting the corporation’s devotion to `traditional American values.,’ Los Angeles Times (Nov. 14, 1990), https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-11-14-ca-4125-story.html  

[cxv] Tricia Tongco, The Sexist Reason These Movies Recieved an NC-17 Rating, attn: (May 14, 2016), https://archive.attn.com/stories/8183/sexist-reason-why-some-movies-are-rated-nc-17.

[cxvi] Steve Weinstein, Pedro Almodovar: Living under the ‘X’ : Celebrated Spanish director finds ‘hypocrisy’ in MPAA system as Miramax releases his ‘tie me up!’ Uncut and unrated, Los Angeles Times (May 6, 1990), https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-05-06-ca-302-story.html.

[cxvii] Jason Bailey, A Brief History of the X Rating, Vulture (Dec. 16, 2018), https://www.vulture.com/2018/12/a-brief-history-of-the-x-rating.html.

[cxviii] Miramax Films Corp. v. Motion Picture Ass'n of Am., Inc., 560 N.Y.S.2d 730, 733 (Sup. Ct. 1990).

[cxix] G Is For Golden: The MPAA Ratings at 50, Motion Picture Ass’n (Nov. 2018), https://www.motionpictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/G-is-for-Golden.pdf.

[cxx] ‘Deep Throat’ Litigation Sparks Press, Grosses, 71.3 The Independent Film Journal 4, 4 -15 (1973) (discussing the impact of an X-rating on Deep Throat’s box office grosses).

[cxxi] Kevin S. Sandler, The Naked Truth: Why Hollywood doesn’t make X-rated movies (2007).

[cxxii] Id.

[cxxiii] David J. Fox, X Film Rating Dropped and Replaced by NC-17 : Movies: Designation would bar children under 17. Move expected to clear the way for strong adult themes., Los Angeles Times (Sept. 27, 1990), https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-09-27-mn-1406-story.html.

[cxxiv] United Press International, Almodovar Appeals X Given to His New Film, New York Times  (Apr. 23, 1990), https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/23/movies/almodovar-appeals-x-given-to-his-new-film.html.

[cxxv] Steve Weinstein, Pedro Almodovar: Living under the ‘X’ : Celebrated Spanish director finds ‘hypocrisy’ in MPAA system as Miramax releases his ‘tie me up!’ Uncut and unrated, Los Angeles Times (May 6, 1990), https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-05-06-ca-302-story.html.

[cxxvi] United Press International, Almodovar Loses Appeal of X Rating, Los Angeles Times, (Apr. 24, 1990), https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-04-24-ca-459-story.html.

[cxxvii] James Traub, William Kunstler: legal beagle, 14 In these times 4, 4-5 (1990) (discussing Kunstler’s legal career).

 [cxxviii] United Press International,  Almodovar Loses Appeal of X Rating, Los Angeles Times, (Apr. 24, 1990), https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-04-24-ca-459-story.html.

[cxxix] Susan Spillman, ‘Tie Me’ X Rating upheld, USA Today, (Apr. 25, 1990), http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/tie-me-x-rating-upheld/docview/306314421/se-2?accountid=14749.

[cxxx] Andrew L. Yarrow, Almodovar Film's X Rating Is Challenged in Lawsuit, New York Times, (May 24, 1990), https://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/24/movies/almodovar-film-s-x-rating-is-challenged-in-lawsuit.html.

[cxxxi] Id.

[cxxxii] Richard Huff, Shackles on 'Tie Me Up?': Kunstler calls X rating arbitrary, 339 Variety 10 (June 27, 1990), http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/film-shackles-on-tie-me-up-kunstler-calls-x/docview/1286060681/se-2?accountid=14749.

[cxxxiii] Glenn Collins, Judge to Rule in July on X Rating for 'Tie Me Up!', The New York Times (June 22, 1990), https://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/22/movies/judge-to-rule-in-july-on-x-rating-for-tie-me-up.html.

[cxxxiv] John Horn, U.S. fillmmakers want industry to dump outdated rating system, The Daily Journal (Jul. 20, 1990), https://www.newspapers.com/image/280954364/.

[cxxxv] Sean Mitchell, The X Rating Gets Its Day in Court, Los Angeles Times (July 21, 1990), https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-06-21-ca-535-story.html.

[cxxxvi] See Interview with Alan R. Friedman, supra note 75.

[cxxxvii] Sean Mitchell, The X Rating Gets Its Day in Court, Los Angeles Times (July 21, 1990), https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-06-21-ca-535-story.html.

[cxxxviii] Miramax Films Corp. v. Motion Picture Ass'n of Am., Inc., 560 N.Y.S.2d 730, 734 (Sup. Ct. 1990).

[cxxxix] Id. At 735.

[cxl] Id.

[cxli] Id.

[cxlii] Interview with Charles Ramos (2022) (on file with journal).

[cxliii] Hal Hinson, SMASH THE RATINGS SYSTEM!, The Washington Post (Apr. 29, 1990), https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/style/1990/04/29/smash-the-ratings-system/5b4d8522-462d-4afc-8cb7-fddf002e7fb7/.

[cxliv] David Fox, ‘A' for Adult Battles ‘X' for Film's Survival, Los Angeles Times, (July 24, 1990) http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/adult-battles-x-films-survival/docview/1467286893/se-2?accountid=14749.

[cxlv] Almodóvar Appeals X Given to His New Film, The New York Times, (Apr. 23, 1990) https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/23/movies/almodovar-appeals-x-given-to-his-new-film.html.

[cxlvi] Jay Carr, HOLLYWOOD DROPS 'X' RATING, Boston Globe (Sept. 27, 1990), http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/hollywood-drops-x-rating/docview/294548267/se-2?accountid=14749.

[cxlvii] Id.

[cxlviii] Cynthia Lucia, Richard Porton, Editorial: Michael Moore’s Summer Blockbuster, 29 cineaste, 1 (2004) (discussing the impact of Fahrenheit 9/11 and its relationship to the broader national mood).

[cxlix] Anonymous, Oscar-Bound Hollywood Liberals Face Billboard Blitz, 61 Human events 90, 90 (2005) (discussing Hollywood reaction to Bush’s re-election).

[cl] Nick Romano, Dixie Chicks reflect on getting blacklisted 17 years ago: 'Imagine what she would say now', Entertainment Weekly (Mar. 16, 2020), https://ew.com/music/dixie-chicks-blacklisted-ellen-degeneres/.

[cli] R rating upheld for ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’, Today (June 22, 2004), https://www.today.com/popculture/r-rating-upheld-fahrenheit-9-11-wbna5271238.

[clii] 'Fahrenheit' Rating Debated, CBS (June 15, 2004, 10:57 AM), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fahrenheit-rating-debated/.

[cliii] Robin Abcarian, Starry night for Michael Moore: The West Coast premiere of 'Fahrenheit 9/11' draws a big (and famous) crowd, Los Angeles Times (Jun. 10, 2004), http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/starry-night-michael-moore-2/docview/2173756000/se-2?accountid=14749.

[cliv] 'Gunner Palace' Wins Rating Board Appeal, MPAA Grants Pg-13 Rating; Review Board Cites Film's Content, Context in its Removal of R Rating, U.S. Newswire (Feb. 24, 2005), http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/wire-feeds/gunner-palace-wins-rating-board-appeal-mpaa/docview/451165173/se-2?accountid=14749.

 [clv] Judith Egerton, MOVIE REVIEW; Documentary offers soldier's view, Courier Journal (Mar. 25, 2005), http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/headline-movie-review-documentary-offers-soldiers/docview/241247565/se-2?accountid=14749.

[clvi] Interview with Michael Tucker (2022) (on file with journal).

[clvii] 'Gunner Palace' Wins Rating Board Appeal, MPAA Grants Pg-13 Rating; Review Board Cites Film's Content, Context in its Removal of R Rating, U.S. Newswire (Feb. 24, 2005), http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/wire-feeds/gunner-palace-wins-rating-board-appeal-mpaa/docview/451165173/se-2?accountid=14749.

[clviii] See Interview with Michael Tucker (2022) (on file with journal).

[clix] William Booth, Raw Language of War Will Fall on PG-13 Ears, The Washington Post (Feb. 25, 2005), http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/raw-language-war-will-fall-on-pg-13-ears/docview/409833935/se-2?accountid=14749.

[clx] See Interview with Michael Tucker, supra note 135.

[clxi] Id.

[clxii] Id.

[clxiii] Palm Pictures Appeals MPAA Rating of Gunner Palace, U.S. Newswire (Jan. 12, 2005), http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/wire-feeds/palm-pictures-appeals-mpaa-rating-gunner-palace/docview/450866572/se-2?accountid=14749.

[clxiv] See Interview with Michael Tucker, supra note 135.

[clxv] Id.

[clxvi] Michael Tucker, War May Be Hell... ...But Fighting the MPAA Over an 'R' Rating is F*@#in' Lethal, Documentary.org (Feb. 28, 2006), https://www.documentary.org/feature/war-may-be-hell-fighting-mpaa-over-r-rating-fin-lethal.

[clxvii] See Interview with Michael Tucker, supra note 135.

[clxviii] Palm Pictures Appeals MPAA Rating of Gunner Palace, U.S. Newswire (Jan. 12, 2005), http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/wire-feeds/palm-pictures-appeals-mpaa-rating-gunner-palace/docview/450866572/se-2?accountid=14749.

[clxix] Id.

[clxx] See Interview with Michael Tucker, supra note 135.

[clxxi] Id.

[clxxii] Id.

[clxxiii]Alex Ben Block, ‘The Tillman Story’ documentary loses MPAA rating appeal, The Philadelphia Inquirer (Aug. 14, 2010), https://www.inquirer.com/philly/entertainment/20100814__The_Tillman_Story__documentary_loses_MPAA_rating_appeal.html.

[clxxiv] J. Hoberman, This Film is Not Yet Rated, The Village Voice (Aug. 30, 2006), http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/this-film-is-not-yet-rated/docview/232262011/se-2?accountid=14749.

[clxxv] Id.

[clxxvi] Reforms for Movie Ratings, The New York Times (Jan. 19, 2007), http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/reforms-movie-ratings/docview/433495223/se-2?accountid=14749.

[clxxvii] Isabel Hylton, 10 Best LGBT+ Characters in TV Shows, NetworthPick (Feb 16, 2022), https://networthpick.com/2022/02/21/10-best-lgbt-characters-in-tv-shows/.

[clxxviii] Steven Zeitchik, Two films, two sex scenes, two different ratings, Los Angeles Times (Dec. 4, 2010), https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-dec-04-la-et-sex-movies-20101204-story.html#:~:text=Those%20behind%20%E2%80%9CBlack%20Swan%2C%E2%80%9D,17%20because%20there's%20no%20nudity.

[clxxix] Black Swan, IMDb, https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl2286388737/ (last visited Mar. 23, 2022).

[clxxx] Alan R. Friedman, The Art of Appealing MPAA Film Ratings, Entertainment Law & Finance (Feb. 2011), https://katten.com/files/48494_friedman_entlawfin_artofappealing.pdf.

[clxxxi] Alan R. Friedman, The Art of Appealing MPAA Film Ratings, Entertainment Law & Finance (Feb. 2011), https://katten.com/files/48494_friedman_entlawfin_artofappealing.pdf.

[clxxxii] Id.

[clxxxiii] Gwynne Watkins, NC-17 Flashback: Inside 'Blue Valentine's' Fight for an R Rating, Yahoo! (Feb. 13, 2015), https://www.yahoo.com/news/nc-17-flashback-inside-blue-valentines-fight-110841240267.html

[clxxxiv] David Germain, Early Oscar buzz for 'King's Speech,' 'Social Network', Today (Nov. 11, 2010), https://www.today.com/popculture/early-oscar-buzz-kings-speech-social-network-1C9494974.

[clxxxv] Dave Karger, MPAA gives 'Blue Valentine' an NC-17, Entertainment Weekly (Oct. 8, 2010, 12:00 PM), https://ew.com/article/2010/10/08/mpaa-blue-valentine-nc-17/.

[clxxxvi] Mike Fleming Jr. , Weinstein Company To Fight 'Blue Valentine' NC-17 Appeal In November, Deadline (Oct. 14, 2010), https://deadline.com/2010/10/weinstein-company-to-fight-blue-valentine-nc-17-appeal-in-november-75540/.

[clxxxvii] Irin Carmon, Ryan Gosling Questions "Patriarchy-Dominant Society”, Jezebel (Nov. 19, 2010), https://jezebel.com/ryan-gosling-questions-patriarchy-dominant-society-5694506.

[clxxxviii] Steven Zeitchek, ‘Blue Valentine’ wins an ‘R’ rating on appeal, Los Angeles Times (Dec. 9, 2010), https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-dec-09-la-et-valentine-rating-20101209-story.html.

[clxxxix] Id.

[cxc] Id.

[cxci] Id.

[cxcii] Id.

[cxciii] See Interview with Alan R. Friedman, supra note 75.

[cxciv] See Interview with Alan R. Friedman, supra note 75.

[cxcv] See Interview with Alan R. Friedman, supra note 75.

[cxcvi] Id.

[cxcvii] Alan R. Friedman, The Art of Appealing MPAA Film Ratings, Entertainment Law & Finance (Feb. 2011), https://katten.com/files/48494_friedman_entlawfin_artofappealing.pdf.

[cxcviii] Id.

[cxcix] See Interview with Alan R. Friedman, supra note 75.

[cc] Alan R. Friedman, The Art of Appealing MPAA Film Ratings, Entertainment Law & Finance (Feb. 2011), https://katten.com/files/48494_friedman_entlawfin_artofappealing.pdf.

[cci] Steven Zeitchek, ‘Blue Valentine’ wins an ‘R’ rating on appeal, Los Angeles Times (Dec. 9, 2010), https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-dec-09-la-et-valentine-rating-20101209-story.html.

[ccii] Pamela Mcclintock, Skipping Theaters? Hollywood Studios Weigh Risks of PVOD, The Hollywood Reporter (Oct. 23, 2020), https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/skipping-theaters-hollywood-studios-weigh-risks-of-pvod-4080618/.

[cciii] James Hibberd, Netflix’s Marilyn Monroe Movie Gets Rare NC-17 Rating for Sexual Content, The Hollywood Reporter (Mar. 24, 2022), https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/netflix-marilyn-monroe-blonde-nc17-1235118236/.

 [cciv] Being the Ricardos: Parents Guide, IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4995540/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg (last visited Mar. 23, 2022).

[ccv] CODA: Parents Guide, IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10366460/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg (last visited Mar. 23, 2022).

[ccvi] Dade Hayes, Movie Rating Appeals Getting More Rare, According To MPAA Report Marking System’s 50th Anniversary, Deadline (Oct. 29, 2018), https://deadline.com/2018/10/mpaa-50th-anniversary-ratings-system-appeals-more-rare-1202491191/.

[ccvii] See Interview with Kelly McMahon, supra note 24.

[ccviii] Id.

About the writer…