Well, they're at it again. It's the WWF of the movie industry -- Jack Valenti vs. Roger Ebert, a k a the movie rating system vs. The Critics.
Valenti is the president of the Motion Picture Association of America, which oversees the rating board he created some 31 years ago (formally known as the Classification and Rating Administration). Ebert, of course, is the film critic who writes for the Chicago Sun-Times and appears weekly on the syndicated "Siskel & Ebert" TV program.And every now and then, an R-rated movie that should have been rated NC-17 comes along and rattles Ebert's cage, sending him on yet another tirade about how the rating system is "an embarrassment to the filmmaking community and serious lovers of film." (I agree that it's an embarrassment, but not for the same reason; my complaint is that so many movies that deserve Rs end up with PG-13s and take aim at youngsters. But that's another column.)
In this case, the movie is "Eyes Wide Shut," and Ebert's forum was Daily Variety on July 22. Once again, Ebert demands that Valenti add an A rating to the already overflowing alphabet soup. That's A, as in "adult" movies, and the rating would fall between R-rated movies (which kids can see with their parents or on their own once they reach 17) and NC-17 movies (which no one under 17 can see, period . . . well, in theory).
Actually, Ebert's "guest column" in Variety was a response to a "guest column" two days earlier by Valenti, in which Valenti defends his ratings baby and refers to The Critics as "whiners."
When you sift through all the hyperbole on both sides, however, it simply boils down to this: Valenti insists the ratings aren't broken and should therefore not be fixed. Ebert says he just wants the board to adopt an interim rating so that adult filmgoers can see all movies in their original, uncut form, just as directors intend them to be seen.
Most of us might ask, isn't that what the NC-17 is for? In fact, when a director has to edit a movie to get an R rating, it's often after it has already received an NC-17!
But Ebert argues that the NC-17 rating is not workable because it includes pornography and thus would taint "serious" movies that fall into that category. Yet, at the same time, he writes: "Even though hard-core porno is not rated NC-17, everyone acts as if it is, and therefore NC-17 is shunned for its proper purpose of indicating adult films."
Huh? If that's the case, maybe the solution is for "everyone" to simply stop "acting as if it is." If moviemakers, distributors and theater owners could agree to use the NC-17 as a way of keeping kids out of adult movies, Ebert's scarlet letter would be unnecessary.
In fact, has anyone stopped to think that "Eyes Wide Shut" might have been the perfect movie to legitimize the NC-17 rating? With its respected director, Stanley Kubrick, and a high-profile cast headed by superstar Tom Cruise, it would have said -- hey, here's a serious adult movie with big stars that is not in any way, shape or form for children. But it's also not pornography.
Success at the box office would open the door for other directors to let their films get NC-17s, instead of cutting them to Rs, and kids wouldn't be allowed to see them. Imagine, young teenagers being refused entry to "American Pie," "The General's Daughter" or the "South Park" movie. Not a bad idea.
In that same Variety column, Ebert also writes, "Why was it so important that this film ('Eyes Wide Shut'), which is adult in every atom of its being, be available for moviegoers under 17?"
Good question, but instead of addressing that question to Valenti, Ebert should be asking it of movie studio chiefs.
Of course, we all know the answer. It all comes down to money. Teens make up the biggest sector of the moviegoing populace. Keep them out and profits are reduced.
Never mind the A. Let's use what already exists, the NC-17.
Although, personally, I wish moviemakers would stop dueling with the ratings board and just make better movies.
Entertainment editor Chris Hicks may be reached by e-mail at hicks@desnews.com