It opened in Boston back in 1980 and I remember it was NOT R rated. It had a sign saying no one under 17 would admitted into the theatre at all (basically it was an X rating). Everybody seems to have forgotten that.
shareI remember "Pretty Baby" being released that way too. I think it did have an R rating, officially, but there was a warning attached that said: "The Management Does Not Recommend this Picture for Children."
They Look Cold in their Overcoats!
Yeah--"Pretty Baby" DID have an R rating with the warning but "Cruising" (originally) didn't. It was an X--they just didn't say it:)
shareI had originally saw Cruising at a Beaumont, Texas movie theater (in a somewhat bad part of town) in 1980, but down south it was Rated-R - in the newspaper adverts - with a tag (much like 'Pretty Baby') saying: "For Mature Audiences Only!"
Although, I wouldn't be at all surprised that it was released as an X-rated film as I saw "Flesh Gorden" at this same shady theater (called the Lamar, which is no longer there) along with Galaxina....and they showed the X-rated version of Alice in Wonderland, too, so it is not impossible anything could be shown there.
They Look Cold in their Overcoats!
I saw "Flesh Gordon" too at a run-down revival theatre with "Kentucky Fried Movie" ages ago--but "Flesh" was R rated (most of the X stuff was cut out years ago). Never saw "Alice" but I remember that was released with an X and then cut down to an R. Maybe the same thing happened with "Cruising".
share[deleted]
No film -- in those days -- could be given a commercial release without an official MPAA rating. Today, sometimes a DVD or streaming edition of a film will advertise itself as being unrated, but that was not really viable back in the day.
Cruising got (after some editing) a 'R' rating by the MPAA. Now it is possible that a movie theater could have decided not to allow anyone under the age of 17 into see the film.
Technically -- at least today -- teenagers can watch a 'R' rated film if they have an adult with them. However, that may not have been the case in 1980 and (even then) the cinema could have just decided that they were only going to sell tickets to 17+ crowd.
Some of the confusion initially arose, because the MPAA could not copyright or restrict public use of 'X' or 'XXX'. Basically, anyone could put an 'X' label on anything (even if it did not actually get that from the MPAA) and it became associated with pornographic films.
Later on the MPAA created the NC-17 category, which it can restrict public usage to.
"No film -- in those days -- could be given a commercial release without an official MPAA rating."
Sorry but you're wrong. The original "Dawn of the Dead" was released unrated in 1979 and played first-run theatres. The same with "City of the Walking Dead", "Pieces" and (a few years later) "The Evil Dead". Through the early 1980s there were quite a few unrated horror films playing in theatres. Check IMDB if you don't believe me.
Zombies in shopping mall....that was an Independent horror film.
shareThat's not the point. You said that no movie in the early 1980s was released in a first run cinema without an MPAA rating. I just listed 4 or 5 that were. Whether or not they were independent films is not an issue.
shareI was referring to mainstream commercial (major studio) projects. In that sense - I assumed that everyone understood the dynamics of the business at that time - it does matter wether it's an Independent film.
An Independent film could indeed avoid the time/money/hassle of the MPAA. Although until the advent of film festivals and fan conventions their exhibition options were limited.
Most cinemas insisted on a classification, before exhibiting a film. Especially with regards to adult or objectionable content, images, words and the like .
Since the MPAA couldn't restrict usage of the letter 'x', it became the symbol used for pornographic films, and an up with explicit sexuality and or sex acts.
The film "Bolero," from 1985, starring Bo Derek was unrated in theaters. And it was released by MGM. I guess you are wrong.
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
"Bolero" was released by Cannon, an independent thanks to "Bolero's" troubles with CARA. Secondly, there was a cut version with an "R" rating. Thirdly, if you are a signatory with the MPAA, as United Artists was (and as MGM was when Cannon was theatrically attached to them), you released with a CARA rating or you didn't get to release it. You could scam the system by creating a fake subsidiary to release it, one that wasn't a signatory, or you could separate from the major studio, as Cannon did, but it wouldn't get released unrated under that major studio - and the MPAA would have knives out for you the next time around.
Now that rating could be "X," except that no major studio in their right mind would have accepted an "X" in 1980. It started to become box office death in the early '70s, thanks to the MPAA not trademarking it and letting porno directors have their way with it, and it was pretty much at death's door by the time "Inserts" crapped out at the box office. That, incidentally, was also a United Artists release and the last dying gasp of the major studio "X" rated picture.
Cruising was not released unrated, it was released everywhere in the USA and Canada "R" rated - Warner Bros. saw to that. Friedkin went through numerous cuts in order to achieve an "R" rating with the MPAA - Warners was not about to release an already controversial film (there was picketing during the filming by the NYC gay community) unrated.
In 2007 at the Cannes Film Festival Friedkin screened a restored version of Cruising, but it has yet to make it to DVD or blu ray, no idea why. Google "crusing on blu ray" to read the entire story. In part it reads, "But Friedkin debuted a brand-new, studio-restored version of 'Cruising' at Cannes, in a projected HD version from a freshly-minted high-definition master. The 103-minute cut features a never-before-seen opening sequence, more graphic scenes and other footage previously left on the cutting room floor".
OK--maybe just in Boston. I remember the first run cinema showing it declared it was unrated and they weren't letting anyone under 18 into the cinema. I was 17 and tried to get in and they wouldn't let me. However they let me into "The Fog" that was R rated.
shareNot sure if you still care about this old thread but just on the off-shot you do, there were nanny-state theater chains who did not approve of this being rated "R" and tried to impose their own ratings rules upon it. Yours may have been one of them. Compounding the situation is that what was in theaters wasn't actually what was rated "R." Friedkin played bait and switch games with CARA, showing them one cut and then putting out another - basically lending credence to the theaters who didn't want children under 17 to see it - and in March of 1980, it was found out that he didn't alter two scenes which were the main reasons he had been given the "X." CARA temporarily revoked the "R" rating and forced Friedkin to recut the picture again in order to get the rating back. He got even with them by recutting it in a way completely opposite to the way they had asked him to do so. Oh, and now there was graphic alternate-lifestyle-choice porn inserted into it as well. (Yech.)
So, although it technically was given an "R" rating twice (in January and June of 1980) and although two different cuts were in theaters with an "R" rating, neither version was what CARA had agreed to give an "R." These were the main reasons some theater chains ignored its rating.
Thanks for the info :)
shareSo LoneWolfAttack this might explain why the film was listed in Variety in Feb 1980 as 106 minutes. Variety basically wondered how the movie got an R and not an X and I wonder what those missing 4 minutes are.
It seems impossible to know based on what you said about Friedkin messing with CARA. Actually he wasn't the first. I went through many MPAA ratings bulletins. The small amount of films released with PG or R ratings that were not even submitted is quite interesting. It seems many just paid no mind in the early days of the ratings system and did what they wanted.
So LoneWolfAttack this might explain why the film was listed in Variety in Feb 1980 as 106 minutes. Variety basically wondered how the movie got an R and not an X and I wonder what those missing 4 minutes are.
It seems impossible to know based on what you said about Friedkin messing with CARA.
So you have interviewed everyone who has seen this film or knows of this film, eh? Secondly...WHO CARES?
What is your point?
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. - George W. Bush
If you don't care why are you responding? You're just a troll.
shareIf you don't care why are you responding? You're just a troll.
Your remark is beyond belief. When you get all upset over such a trivial little thing you show yourself as being a controlling jerk. And it was never meant as a "veiled put down" as you put it. Well maybe it is but only in your fevered little mind. You're still a troll.
shareGood try at a rebuttal and excuse. People who get called out for stupid posts generally don't like it too much, so I understand.
If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. - George W. Bush