Grindhouse Is So Brilliantly Disgusting It Might Get NC-17
by Alex Billington
March 16, 2007
Source: NY Post
A report is going around today from NY Post's Page Six that is saying that the upcoming double-feature from Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez, Grindhouse, is so damn disgusting that they think it won't get anything below an NC-17 rating by the MPAA. Is this good news - oh hell yea!! The report claims (apparently from a screening somewhere) that it's so outrageous and contains so many despicable scenes, that there is no way the MPAA will give it an R when they finally watch it, unless the cut out most of the mentioned scenes. But wait, isn't that exactly what the Grindhouse is all about - exploitation and ultimate violence?!
Here's just one of the scenes described:
"There's a part where Jordan Ladd [daughter of Cheryl Ladd of 'Charlie's Angels'] is in a car with her boyfriend and giving him [oral sex] when she lovingly reaches to stroke his hair and discovers his neck is just a bloody stump - some maniac had just cut off his head while she was in the act."
You can read more of the scenes they describe over at Page Six. I've got to love this whole thing, but the buzz going around is stating that it's a bit worrisome that this might cause limitations if they don't make big cuts. SlashFilm has an interesting consideration about what The Weinstein Company, the distributors, may do. I'm incredibly excited for Grindhouse, no matter if it is NC-17 violence and sexuality, but I'm not sure if the rest of the world is ready for that.
I'm a bit confused as to why this is coming up so late and why the MPAA hasn't already screened it anyway. This upcoming weekend, 7 days away, I fly out to LA to see it myself and interview the entire cast. Let's hope that this whole issue has been settled by then. I wouldn't want my local theater, or any theater, not to play it because it was NC-17.
And an even more important question - do you think they could still sell it out if your local multiplex showed an NC-17 film?
I hope the movie earns a NC-17 rating simply for the fact that this may encourage the MPAA to give out the rating to more films and thereby forcing Cinema owners to show more diverse movies. In the past couple of years, I've seen a lot of R-rated movies that in my opinion should have gotten the NR status (Saw & Hostel come to mind). The few scenes cut to make the R-rating did not lessen the overall impression of the film. This is not to say I am a book burning conservative. However, establishing the correct rating can definitely communicate to movie goers that the content is overly graphic and be prepared. If anything, I think the seldom used rating may serve to attract more people than it shuns.
grendel on Mar 16, 2007
I might be in the minority on this, but I think an NC-17 rating would be a turn-off for me and possibly others. I am not someone who necessarily cannot handle violence and carnage on screen. I have actually been criticized by family and friends because I can view a violent film and be pretty comfortable about it. Knowing Tarantino and Rodriguez, however, I did have a sense that I would have to psyche myself up a great deal to sit through a two and a half or three hour film that would be ultraviolent. Now hearing that people can't imagine the MPAA giving it anything but NC-17, I'm feeling a bit uneasy. It is not as if it is two or three scenes of strong violence spaced out over a long film. The filmmakers plan two or three hours of nonstop terror, and as much as that gives me a thrill, I don't want to feel uncomfortable the whole movie either. I don't mean to say that I think Taratino or Rodriguez should snip once second of film from this movie. I would rather see a disturbing film of brilliance than one toned down but lacking some of the punch (isn't that why so many people get the unrated Requiem for a Dream DVD over the R-rated cut?) I will see Grindhouse. There is no question about that, even if it does get an NC-17 rating. The only dilemma I have if it does is this: am I good to handle it in the theater (the preferred viewing space for any film) or will I need to see it in a more comfortable atmosphere, like my home where I can pause if anything gets too heavy?
Charlie on Mar 16, 2007
I'm guessing everyone involved will see the great marketing potential in this and put out a barely R-rated version to the theaters, to maximize the theater counts which will show it. This will insure that it has a chance of hitting the box office charts, which looks good for all involved. Then when they release the DVD version, they'll put out the original NC-17 version, either as the only version or as a bonus alternate edition. This way the fans get what they want. This will ensure that everyone comes out happy - the theater owners who feel uncomfortable showing an NC-17 film and the movie watchers, who will get to see the original version on DVD, if they want. Not to mention the Weinsteins, who will profit from from all of this controversy surrounding the film. I can see the DVD ads now..."See the version too intense for theaters..." LOL
Michelle on Mar 16, 2007
As an addendum to the post above...I'm watching TNT and they just ran a promo for Grindhouse. At the end it had a R-rating tag box. Guess they solved the dilemma.
Michelle on Mar 16, 2007
Michelle-- if they had been given an R-Rating, then I imagine their website would be the first to reflect that, but their website still shows, "This film is not yet rated." So either someone jumped the gun with their marketing department or you saw wrong, with all due respect, I'm hoping for the latter.
Hurmoth on Mar 18, 2007
Hurmoth - I did not see wrong. I even rewound the Tivo to make sure before I posted. It indeed ended with a R-rating tag box. Don't know what that means in the end run, but it was most certainly there. * shrugs *
Michelle on Mar 19, 2007
New comments are no longer allowed on this post.
FOLLOW FS HERE
Follow Alex's main account on Twitter:
Add our posts to your Feedly › click here
Get all the news sent on Telegram
LATEST TO WATCH