Maybe it's me, but I do recall seeing NC-17 films in theaters, and adverts in papers and on television, as well as ads for films not yet rated. In fact isn't that why this film is titled "This film is not yet rated" because we have heard that phrase repeatedly on TV?

I think that when there is significant interest in a film it gets played, and the news outlets and the theaters make the exception. That does disadvantage smaller films, but aren't smaller films disadvantaged from the start? Is a small indie going to get play in Peoria if it has a G rating? If there is not interest in a film, there is not interest in a film, why would a distributor make space in his theater for a film people aren't going to see?

Do filmmakers actually think what makes their film die at the box office is the rating? Maybe a large swath of Americans weren't interested in the story in question, or the way the story was presented.

I find it funny to see filmmakers in one breath talk about art, and their ability to make money. If you're in it for the art, make the art, and if you're in it for the money make the money. Somehow, hundreds of movies are made every year with artistic merit that manage an R rating. Still other films are made with little or no artistic merit that go right to internet distribution and DVDs. Money is made, works are created, audiences are happy.

This whole MPAA thing strikes me more as sour grapes than anything else, like when the networks complain about the way Nielsen calculates ratings. Yes it makes for a nice whipping boy when your film fails, and yes they are an archaic and outdated organization, but to elevate them to the diabolic villains destroying the American Film Industry seems a little misplaced.

To reiterate the fact upon which Hollywood was built, Show Business is the Business of putting on Shows. You can make a profit selling anything, whether it is Barney videos or tasteful snuff films, it is just a question of how it is sold. If a product is not right for broad release, releasing it broadly will only cost you money and diffuse your profits. A joke is made that on the appeals board are V.P.'s from the Theater chains, that theoretically the filmmakers are looking to get the wide release in. Wouldn't these be the exact people to say, "Sure the film is dirty, but I can see it will have appeal, o.k. we'll bump you down to R and put you in our theaters"?

In the end, I agree the MPAA is probably not the best arbiter of taste, but that's for the industry itself to decide, not me. I would rather Ford didn't make SUV's, but that's why I drive an escort. Likewise when I want to watch a directors cut, or an art film I rent it and watch it at home. No one stops anyone from watching anything, if nothing else you can always get distribution for Troma if you really want your film seen, that you can't make a decent living on your art, well, welcome to being an artist, and don't quite your day job.

I never understand why people get so mad over any liberal position unapoligetically expressed in a movie. Turn on any cable news show and tell me that there isn't bullshit coming out of it? Yet people talk about filmmakers (Michael Moore, or Spike Lee for example) as if they are the devil because of their biased leftist slant. I understand this criticism does not aply to most Salon readers, but in the red state, downtown office where I work, even liberals attack liberal movies! It's obsurd!

And then we wonder why the Democratic party doesn't take a firm stance against the war! It's patheitc! Liberals are always going on about "You can't say that, it's biased!" Has it ever occured to anybody that It's impossible to not be biased? EVERYONE IS BIASED... yes you too.

I say if our culture has to endure Rush, Hanity, and O'Riley without a second thought, then when a liberal filmmaker wants to take a position, let him take it. If it's flaud, smart people will point the flaws out (as the were pointed out in the article by the way). They can still listen and enjoy even if they don't agree 100%. Let's not have a double standard when it comes to public debate, one standard is enough.

In my house growning up, there were real restrictions on violence, but pretty much none on sex (no, we didn't watch hard core porn) but flashes of nudity or sexual dialogue were not seen, by my parents as the devil's work. My mom took us to see the Art Carney movie "Harry and Tonto" when I was a kid. Great movie! Wonderful story! and...a woman flashes her brests. And I would have been none the wiser, had my mom's friends not told her how awful she was exposing us to naked breasts. I also heard plenty of bad language when I was a kid (most of it, not from the media but adults.) My childhood was not destroyed by this, the lasting effects are exactly zero, and I am still trying to find the evidence of its harm. Look, children are oversexualize today, but that is an active, rather than passive process. When department stores sell thongs for 8 year olds, and little girls are dressed up like 20 year old streetwalkers, we really aren't going to blame sex and sexual language in the movies are we?

As a 41 year old adult with no children, I am tired of how people feel the need to eliminate adult culture, by elimating those times, places and ideas that are not appropriate for children. Remember the controversy about people bringing their baby carriages into bars, when the owner posted a sign that they are not welcome and the up roar? Will parents be bringing their children to topless shows in Vegas and demand the showgirls cover up? Perhaps soon.