Aug 6 2008Smith Wins 'Zack and Miri Make a Porno' Rating Appeal by Breaking Silence with Unexpectedly Poignant Speech
Kevin Smith has won an appeal to lower the rating on his raunchy comedy Zack and Miri Make a Porno from NC-17 to an R, allowing anyone under 17 and comfortable with watching sex scenes with their mom or other guardian to do so. Speaking to the Associated Press, Smith explained that the problem wasn't so much the content as that the MPAA board can't discern between eroticism and comedy:
"They felt it was rather sexually graphic. My point is, it was comically graphic. All the sex in the movie with the exception of one scene is very cartoonish, very campy," Smith said. "It wasn't designed to titillate."The appeals board, a separate panel from the ratings board, viewed the movie Tuesday, and Smith presented his arguments. It was the third time Smith successfully talked his way down to a lower rating: His 1994 debut Clerks initially received an NC-17 rating that was reduced to an R on appeal, while his 2003 film Jersey Girl was reduced to PG-13 after first being rated R.
This should make the film far more commercially viable, and more importantly, now we know that since they couldn't tell Kevin Smith comedy from actual erotica, the ratings board members are probably having sex that relies heavily on dialogue and pop culture references, and likely includes an appearance by Jason Mewes.
Smith wins appeal for R rating on 'Porno' [USA Today]
Reader Comments
1. Eddy - August 6, 2008 12:39 PM
I hate that, how comedy is easier to sell than drama. A really good drama with just sort of casual nudity and a fairly adult, not so serious treatment of sex between consenting adults has to be a NC-17 film while a lame comedy with even more sexual content... well, I don't know. It seems really to me, from the NC-17 films I've seen in theatres, that a penis makes a NC-17 film while any female nudity is okay, and that seems pretty sexist to me.
/end rant
2. ANGRY BROOMSTICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - August 6, 2008 12:40 PM
great. Now the problem: how will the movie be managed to be shown in cinemas in move conservative, rural, southern areas where theatre-owners might object to the movie's title?
3. jeramey - August 6, 2008 12:59 PM
@2 i honestly doubt this will kick up enough dirt for conservative, rural, southern areas.
it has an R rating, thats usually enough.
unless of course the theater is owned by some radical baptist, evangelist, or pentecostal.
4. Anthony - August 6, 2008 1:01 PM
Eddy....
What NC-17 films have you seen in theaters??
And Dewey Cox, Forgetting Sarah Marshal and a few other recent comedies have many penis shots that got away with an R.
5. Caligula - August 6, 2008 1:02 PM
The fact that Smith's latest shock value shit sandwich is getting this much attention is sad.
6. Seth Rogan Sucks - August 6, 2008 1:26 PM
Seth Rogan is already more tiresome than Will Ferrell
7. Eddy - August 6, 2008 6:35 PM
I saw The Dreamers and Bad Education in theaters.
Both are that sort of artsy-euro thing, I guess, so they might not have argued the censors as hard. The Dreamers has a lot of nudity, but none of it is really all that strange, mostly just people lounging around naked (though it has some more realistic than usual sex scenes) and Bad Education deals with some more serious sexual issues rather than has a lot of graphic scenes.
8. vivian - August 7, 2008 3:05 AM
How sexit is,____ B l a c k w h i t e c o n n e c t DOTC o m _____has the full information
9. Heri - August 7, 2008 3:56 AM
What's your real name Miri?
don't forget ur address for ur appointment babe,cant' wait to touch your titties.
10. Racer X - August 7, 2008 10:54 AM
Clerks 2 was pretty weak, I hope this one is better.
/for the Fanboys
11. samus_luvs_ganon - August 11, 2008 9:37 PM
I saw this movie at a test screening. The sex scenes are neither funny or erotic...they fall somewhere into the category of gross and pathetic.
I'm not suprised they tried to rate it NC-17.
12. SEBAS - September 25, 2009 11:00 AM
olá pessoal..~
sou gay
mas gosto de ver porno
as mulheres sao minhas amigas
13. Kelly - October 9, 2009 12:53 AM
Eddy, you are an IDIOT! How can you say "a penis gets an NC-17 and that is sexist"? Are you a moron? There have been SEVERAL movies this year alone (and hundreds in the history of cinema) that showed penises and only got an R-rating. On the other hand, if a filmaker tries to show a VAGINA, then THAT gets an NC-17 rating. All we ever see of women are boobs (non-genital nudity). Occasionally, we see a flash of bush, but NEVER the actual female genitalia (labia/vagina). But men show pubic hair AND their entire genitalia (penis and testicles). How come penises can pass with an R-rating but not vaginas? There has never been a single R-rated film that showed a clear shot of a vagina. The MPAA allows penises to be shown in R-rated films but not a vagina; that is sexist. Its time that filmakers start putting vaginas in their movies too, and if the MPAA tries to rate it NC-17 file a lawsuit for sexually discriminatory rating policy! The genital nudity oof both genders should get the SAME rating!!