No Blood, No Sweat, No Sex: How Netflix Perpetuates Hollywood's Fear of Adult Film

Ana de Armas is about to star in Netflix's first original movie with an NC-17 rating, the US equivalent to a premiere not suitable for children under 18 in Spain, as the platform has just announced.

, the

Marilyn Monroe

this year, it will be part of a select group of films with what the industry considers a

the rating that considerably minimizes the chances of commercial success.

(1995) is so far the highest grossing NC-17 film with 20 million dollars (the same year

grossed 184 million in its country).

Other of the most famous NC-17 movies are David Cronenberg's

(1996),

(2000)

(2011) or

(2004).

What does a film have to be worthy of this dubious honor?

Sex, violence, drugs or swear words, the four horsemen of the apocalypse in the Hollywood of the big studios.

Not many more than 80 films have been released with the NC-17 rating since its formulation in 1990. It's not just that those over 18 are banned from entering, but this rating reduces the films' theatrical presence and chances of promotion: the biggest theater chains in the United States usually refuse to show them and the most conservative media do not advertise them.

In practice, opening with an NC-17 rating means resigning yourself to ostracism and invisibility on the billboard.

In order not to fall into this cursed sack, the distributors usually lower the tone and content of the films.

(1994),

(1999)

(1992)

(1994)

(1998), or

(2004), initially received an NC-17 rating and returned to the cutting room to accommodate the less restrictive R rating, movies that can be seen by minors up to 17 years of age as long as they are accompanied by an adult.

What would Quentin Tarantino be like if he didn't have to worry about censorship?

What's more: how many masterpieces of adult cinema have not been produced for fear of receiving this rating?

goodbye to the X

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America, the

that classifies American cinema by age) rated some very prestigious films as X for their sexual or violent content, including

(1971),

(1972)

o

(1969), the only X-rated production to win the Oscar for best picture.

At the same time, the porn cinema had taken over the letter X, to the point that most pornographic films were self-classified as X without going through the MPAA.

Some preferred to multiply the X (there were XX or XXX movies), which made them more attractive to the public that was looking for that type of cinema.

Michael Douglas and Sharon Stone in one of the many sexual scenes that take place in 'Basic Instinct' (1992). Sunset Boulevard (Corbis via Getty Images)

Already in the 1990s, the Hollywood industry found itself in a dilemma: certain films that had content that was not suitable for minors but had indisputable cultural relevance received a stigmatized rating.

Some distributors decided to release their projects without ratings when they got the X, as Miramax did with

Peter Greenaway's

In this case, Harvey Weinstein himself, then known only for owning Miramax, took advantage of the situation to promote it as a provocative and subversive film and ended up grossing $7.5 million in North America.

Weinstein himself repeated the play with

, the Pedro Almodóvar film that was released in the US in May 1990. The MPAA rated it X for several reasons, including the iconic shot of the toy going through the bathtub until it reached Victoria Abril's crotch.

Miramax decided to release it without ratings and it ended up grossing an estimated $4 million, but then the distributor took the MPAA to court.

The truth is that

was one of the titles that led to the creation of a new label, since although Weinstein lost the lawsuit, in his verdict the judge cited Almodóvar's film as one of the reasons why the integrity of the ratings system was questionable.

It was Anaïs fault

But it was another film that would definitely bring about the change:

(1990), by Philip Kaufman, a portrait of the love trio formed by Henry Miller and his wife June with the writer Anaïs Nin, which put the MPAA in a bind: Until then, all the non-pornographic films that had received the X despite their artistic validity belonged to independent distributors.

was from one of the big studios that not only ruled Hollywood but also formed and financed the MPAA itself: Universal.

The organization's then-president, Jack Valenti, created a new rating called NC-17 with the intention of de-stigmatizing adult films and giving them an official label that would legitimize them despite their unsuitable content.

Went wrong.

Although the industry received the rating with a rubbing of hands, certain sectors of American society were opposed from the beginning to accept as valid films that they considered morally reprehensible, whether they had the X or not.

Religious organizations and conservative groups criticized the new label, only a hundred theaters agreed to show the film, and many media outlets, especially in southern states, refused to promote it.

A failure entrenched the stigma

Producers and distributors went to great lengths to steer clear of NC-17: they could ask for a revision, which often went nowhere, or tweak the cut to fit the movies to an R rating. The road most traveled.

Titles such as

(1993)

and

(1993)

premiered with NC-17 for its high sexual content, although no one understood very well why

(1993) and

reached theaters with an R rating despite containing some scenes that have sexually awakened an entire generation .

Elizabeth Berkley taking off her clothes in 'Showgirls' (1995). Murray Close (Sygma via Getty Images)

But then one distributor decided to go all out, get an NC-17 rating, and base much of their film's appeal on it.

It was United Artists and the movie was

, the first big production (it cost between 40 and 45 million dollars) that was released with this cursed label.

“From the beginning we were aware of the possibility that this film would receive an NC-17.

Having seen the movie, I totally agree.

We accept it.

It's an adult movie.

And I sincerely hope that the stigma attached to the NC-17 rating can be lifted," MGM/UA president Frank Mancuso said in an interview.

And maybe if

hadn't been shunned by critics and initially hated and ridiculed by the public, it might have had that effect.

But Paul Verhoeven's film, which only in recent years has begun to be dissected with an analytical eye, was a commercial failure.

Despite starting as the NC-17 film with the most massive premiere (between 700 and 1,000 theaters) and ending up becoming the highest grossing, the 20 million it grossed did not even cover half of its budget.

It was the last nail in the coffin of adult cinema, followed by a change in the rating: until 1996, NC-17 meant that they could not show children under 17 years of age.

From that year the restriction rose to 18.

A century for adults

With the turn of the millennium, the debate around the grading system resurfaced.

The critic Roger Ebert, perhaps the most authoritative journalist in the industry, did not stop clamoring for a new system that would include an A rating, dedicated to adult films.

Ambiguous and questionable cases indicating some kind of arbitrariness and hypocrisy on the part of the MPAA also multiplied.

Why did the violence in

(2004) deserve a less restrictive rating than the sex in

(2003)?

Why

(2000), a film produced by a Disney affiliate that contained images of ejaculations, fellatio, and erect penises, was rated R while less explicit productions such as the Todd Solondz films were rated NC-17?

Darren Aronofsky refused to remake

on the grounds that removing any part of it would dilute his anti-drug message.

Released as NC-17, it grossed just over $3 million in the US.

Dreamers

, Bernardo Bertolucci's penultimate film, was a relative success in 2003 despite being rated NC-17.

Distributor Fox Searchlight Pictures was unable to retouch it because the Italian filmmaker had control over the final cut by contract, but as a small arthouse film it grossed $2.5 million.

The same distributor was able to force Kimberly Peirce to go back to

(1999)

to get the R, something that the director described as “devastating”.

Tom Cruise kisses Nicole Kidman in a scene from 'Eyes Wide Shut' (1999). Archive Photos (Getty Images)

Pedro Almodovar is used to being relegated to the NC-17 rating.

Movies like

(1984)

and

(1986) were already considered X at the time, and even so, many of them have managed to be successful at the box office.

This was the case of

, released in 2004 with a final collection of 5.2 million dollars.

The NC -

17 label inspired the 2006 documentary

.

Oscar nominee Kirby Dick directed this investigative documentary that highlighted certain disparities in MPAA decisions, between movies produced by major studios and independent production companies, between homosexual and heterosexual sexual scenes, between male and female sex, and between violence and sex.

Obviously,

was released without a rating.

shame in 2010

One of the most controversial cases in this history is that of

(2010), a film by Derek Cianfrance starring Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams.

The MPAA rated it NC-17, prompting a noisy campaign led by producer Weinstein and Gosling.

The key scene that led the organization to make that decision is one in which the protagonist performs

on his wife.

The same year

, which contains an oral sex scene of the same length, received an R.

Gosling criticized the rating calling it misogynistic.

“The MPAA fully supports scenes that portray women in settings of sexual torture and violence for the purpose of entertainment, but tries to force us to look away from a scene that shows a woman in a sexual setting that is both complicit and complex.” , he denounced in an interview.

The MPAA eventually revised the rating and gave it an R without editing.

Between 2011 and 2013, four cultural films were released with the NC-17 rating.

One of them was

(2010), which included pedophilia and necrophilia and was cut and censored.

In Spain, it was not so lucky: after a screening at the Sitges Festival, several associations asked both the Catalan event and the San Sebastián Fantastic and Horror Film Week to withdraw it from their programming, and the Ministry of Culture never reached the commercial circuits.

A judge cautiously prohibited the screening of

at the San Sebastian event, which caused the public to award it without having seen it as an allegation for freedom of expression.

It never came to theaters in our country.

Michael Fassbender, a sex addict in 'Shame' (2011). Cordon Press

Much softer is

(2011).

Starring Matthew McConaughey, the MPAA gave it the highest rating for its sexual and violent content, and specifically for a scene in which the character played by Gina Gershon simulates fellatio on a fried chicken leg.

Distributor LC Entertainment appealed, unsuccessfully, and decided to release it proudly displaying the rating, something that also did not have results at the box office.

Asked

if he should have remade the film to reach a wider audience, director William Friedkin said it wouldn't have worked and he wasn't interested in "destroying his movie to save it."

In the same interview he called the MPAA a “phony organization”: “They are an institution where the big studios regulate themselves.

They have no legal authority in any sense.”

Britain's

was a hit despite receiving an NC-17 rating.

An oppressive and gray portrait of a sex addict played by Michael Fassbender, Steve McQueen's film was distributed in the US by Fox Searchlight, which decided to celebrate the MPAA's decision and made a very strong commitment to the film in its promotion.

With the pedigree of critical acclaim and four awards at the Venice Film Festival,

became for some a new opportunity, after the ill-fated

, to prove that an NC-17 film could have commercial success and reputation.

But its tour in theaters was not spectacular: although it was seen in up to 95 theaters, it ended up grossing just under 4 million dollars.

Still from the French film 'La vida de Adèle' (2013).

Two years later,

(2013)

it also promised to be the salvation of adult cinema.

Winner of the Palme d'Or at Cannes, its NC-17 rating for sexual content did not prevent one of the major cinema chains, Cinemark, from screening it in a manner that bypassed its usual policy.

The iconic New York independent cinema IFC Center even allowed some minors to enter.

It was a cinematic event that no rating could outshine.

But absent from most theaters across the country and without heavy promotion, it grossed just over $2 million.

For adults (in your living room)

Nearly 10 years later, it's clear the NC-17 rating won't have the same consequences on

.

After all, she is not going to encounter the same obstacles as her sisters: a Netflix movie does not need to be advertised in all media and be in all theaters to reach the public.

Director Andrew Dominik isn't too concerned, though he has described the rating as "a sham".

According to him, it is a political decision taken to preserve the image of Marilyn Monroe, who appears in the film being raped.

“Any episode of

is so much more graphic than anything that happens in

,” says Dominik in the same interview.

With everything we see in some of the most successful cable series in recent years, including

and

, what is the point of an association continuing to put stamps on what can and cannot be done? watch in a movie theater?

Perhaps the future of the movies will go through its liberation and that, finally, it tells stories for adults.

You can follow ICON on