He's probably the only director capable of getting away with that on a studio level nowadays. Considering he grew up on X-rated movies (rated X for violence, not just nudity), I wonder why he hasn't tried going all out and making a movie that's NC-17. Eli Roth tried it and even he got talked out of it.
shareMany of his films are most certainly bordering NC-17, some may have gotten an NC-17 if it weren’t for Tarantino’s mainstream popularity.
shareBecause the studios wiłl for the most part not agree to release a movie with an NC-17 rating, Showgirls being an exception. Why is that? They are not allowed to show it in many theatres and not allowed to advertise it with that rating. The same goes for video games. When Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was hacked with the Hot Coffee mod and the game was upped to an AO (Adults Only) rating, the stores pulled the game from the shelves. There is too much stigma in 18+ ratings in the US because they are thought of as pornographic.
shareI had to google exactly what NC17 involved , turns out (acc wiki) its "Adults only" , They gave up "x rated" due to porn stealing it .
There are only 90 NC 17 films! apparently . citation needed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NC-17_rated_films
This I find very strange in the UK there are thousands of "18" movies (new uk term for x)
I must be missing some kind of difference. I see most "adult" movies are "R"
Whats the difference?
Parents can take their kids to an R if they think they'll like it?
Yep, R is 17+ but kids can go if accompanied by an adult.
It’s bizarre that a young child could go see The Exorcist in cinemas.
I saw a post here from a guy working ticket office who said there was a guy always bringing his kids to see Saw movies .
In UK there is none of this "accompanied by an adult" thing since they too revised the certs , probly in the 80s.
18 means 18! and most(well many) movies are - not just 97 of them.
In practice these days I imagine the kids just stream whatever they want on their gizmos.
Cinemas will be affected though.
I wonder if many USA "R" movies end up as "15" in the UK due to lack of adults accompanying and keeping the sales up
In UK there is none of this "accompanied by an adult"
I wonder if many USA "R" movies end up as "15" in the UK due to lack of adults accompanying and keeping the sales up
Basically, the difference between NC-17 (formerly X) and R is that the former is an excuse to censor movies. The MPAA might get away with saying that they are not a censorship group as you can always choose to accept an NC-17. But here is the thing, accepting the NC-17 rating might effectively get the movie banned. Especially when one is an independent filmmaker who needs to advertise their movie. The MPAA have been accused of rating independent movies more unfairly with NC-17. You can see more in depth about that in the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated (2006).
This Film is Not Yet Rated - First 5 minutes
https://youtube.com/watch?v=itp4rBXjivc
This man who oversaw the MPAA ratings board said that he didn't want The Exorcist to be given an X because he did not want to "ban" the film.
By some miracle, mostly thanks to Dr. Aaron Stern, the man who oversaw the ratings board at the time, the film was rated R after its initial submission. Friedkin, Warner Bros. and everyone else involved were floored, the director says.
Stern personally called to share the news. “He says, ‘Mr. Friedkin, I’ve just seen The Exorcist, and I think it’s a great film. I’m going to give it an R … I’m not going to ask you to cut a frame.’ “
An X rating, as far as Friedkin was concerned, might as well have been a total ban, and apparently Stern agreed, he says.
“I think this movie should be widely seen … I don’t think the film should be banned,” Stern said, according to Friedkin.
Tarantino himself has spoken about how he doesn’t feel the need to include sex scenes in his films. He’s mentioned in interviews that he finds many sex scenes in modern movies to be unnecessary and that they rarely add much to the plot or characters. For him, a good film doesn’t need explicit sexual content to be effective.
That said, I have another thought on why he’s never gone NC-17. I suspect it’s difficult to maintain Tarantino’s signature intricate dialogue, stylized violence, and offbeat characters when they’re naked and making love. His storytelling thrives on tension, conflict, and energy, which might get lost in explicit sexual content.
Why would he want to? NC 17 almost always results in reduced box office due to limited audience
shareTarantino himself has spoken about how he doesn’t feel the need to include sex scenes in his films. He’s mentioned in interviews that he finds many sex scenes in modern movies to be unnecessary and that they rarely add much to the plot or characters. For him, a good film doesn’t need explicit sexual content to be effective.
---
That's the answer. He also noted that such scenes WERE always difficult to film on set(the egos of male and female actors) and didn't engage him personally.
His one "direct" sex scene is somewhat comical but certainly erotic:
Jackie Brown. Bikini-and-shorts hottie Bridget Fonda is alone with middle-aged ex-con Robert DeNiro in her shared apartment(shared with her criminal boyfriend Samuel L. Jackson). Idle chit chat leads to Bridget saying matter of factly: "Wanna fuck?"
They do-- we see the concusion with a title (30 seconds? later.) Standing up. From behind. Clothed. Climax. DeNiro opines: "That hit the spot."
I thought that was a pretty funny sex scene myself. QT style.