The upcoming Fifty Shades of Grey movie is a major personal disappointment. I have zero intention on ever seeing the film. Frankly, there isn’t a monetary sum with less than four digits that could convince me to sit through two hours of softcore S&M porn, based on a novel that was hastily adapted from Twilight fan-fiction.
But as a fan of the cinema industry, I think it’s crucial to highlight how Universal Studios’ upcoming sexual drama is one of the biggest missed opportunities in cinema history. Not because I think it’s going to be a tasteless sexual fantasy, but because I doubt it will be tasteless or sexual enough.
You see, the Fifty Shades of Grey film is rated R by the Motion Picture Association of America for “strong sexual content including dialogue, some unusual behavior and graphic nudity.” While that may seem to cover what you’d expect in “Fifty Shades,” it’s far more important to note what the R rating prohibits the filmmakers from doing, namely: images of sexual penetration & erect male nudity.
In fact, it’s unclear just how much actual sex that audiences will be seeing on screen this Valentine’s Day. In a recent Guardian interview with star Jamie Dornan, who plays the story’s young, handsome and wealthy Christian Grey, he said, “You want to appeal to as wide an audience as possible without grossing them out. You don’t want to make something gratuitous, and ugly and graphic.”
I have not read Fifty Shades. But judging from the mark it has left on pop culture in the past few years, the three adjectives I’ve most heard connected to it would be “gratuitous,” “ugly” and “graphic.” The fourth would easily be “popular.” Outrageously so, with more than 100 million copies sold worldwide.
It’s a rare combination. Feminine sexuality is so rarely represented in the mass media, and especially in such staggering numbers. When the initial film adaptation was announced, and rumored to be aiming for an NC-17 rating, my ears perked up. Because for the first time in decades, the right combination of factors were lining up for something unprecedented: an NC-17 film that a lot of people would actually want to see.
You don’t often see NC-17 (No Child admitted Under 17) movies, and there’s a reason for that. Most major theater chains outright refuse to screen them, for moral reasons and the logistical challenge of enforcing the rating. IDs would have to be checked not just at the ticket counter, but in front of the auditorium as well.
As a result, the NC-17 rating is the closest thing in the U.S. to being banned from cinemas. Art house theaters will still show it, but not in wide enough numbers to recoup any major studio budget. It’s a cultural blockade and an obstacle created by a regulatory agency that prevents “offensive” content from reaching the mainstream.
The rules have stood in their place because there’s never been a film to challenge them. Every film that aims for an NC-17 rating creates a predicament: the more restrictive the rating, the smaller the audience that will potentially see it. No chain cinema has ever lost a significant sum turning down an NC-17 film.
That’s where Fifty Shades would have come in. It could have been the one picture to test a boundary that feels unnecessary, possibly transforming the entire cinema landscape. Would a multiplex ban on NC-17 stand with a potential smash hit to be offered? Fifty Shades of Grey would go down in film history as a moment that expanded creative freedom in the major studio system.
Instead, Universal will be delivering a censored film about bondage to a population that will inevitably walk away disappointed. But hey – guess there’s still two more books in the franchise. Maybe the success of Fifty Shades will give Universal the confidence to push more envelopes with a more risqué follow-up.
Follow Chris Berg on Twitter @Mushroomer25