Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Age restrictions on The Aristocrats?

This is topic Age restrictions on The Aristocrats? in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=001532

Posted by Dan Chilton (Member # 2288) on 10-24-2005, 01:50 AM:

I was wondering if any of you had screened THE ARISTOCRATS, and if so, did you or your theater impose an age restriction even though the film is not officially rated? We're starting it on Wednesday.

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 10-24-2005, 04:00 AM:

We treated it as NC-17, though nobody bothered to come see it much during its run anyways so it didn't really matter.

-Aaron

Posted by Rob Ferreira (Member # 3406) on 10-24-2005, 05:42 AM:

To me, I always looked at "Unrated" and "Not Rated" as two completely seperate things, although I guess technically they are not. Usually it seems as though when a movie is "Not Rated," It was never submitted for a rating AT ALL to the MPAA, CARA, etc. Whereas "Unrated" is like the 'extreme' version of an r-rated (or sometimes pg-13) rated film, like when there is an "unrated director's cut" released on DVD.
This movie is listed (on IMDB) as having both ratings, lol. [Cool]

I'd probably treat it as an NC-17 rating as well, since it is supposed to be pretty obscene. Then again, you could always watch the movie and then decide your policy based on your own opinion.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-24-2005, 08:30 AM:

For "unrated"/"not rated" films, one really should watch the film in question to determine the policy.

"Thirty-two Short Films About Glenn Gould" is my favorite example of an unrated/not rated film with essentially zero offensive content (save for a veiled drug reference).

"Aristocrats" is pretty rough, though, and I'd probably go with "no one under 17 admitted" if I were a theatre owner. I don't think that kids would really enjoy it, anyway.

Posted by Dan Chilton (Member # 2288) on 10-24-2005, 10:16 AM:

I'm pretty sure we're going to run it as a "hard R", as in we'll be carding anyone who doesn't look 17 or older.

EDIT: Make that NC-17... no one under 18

[ 10-24-2005, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: Dan Chilton ]

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 10-24-2005, 01:40 PM:

"No one under 18 admitted". There's no way I'd allow anyone younger than that if it were my theater. [Eek!]

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 10-24-2005, 06:24 PM:

Landmark in Minneapolis treated Aristocrats as no one under 18. FWIW

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-24-2005, 07:39 PM:

I'd like to see this documentary. But the only way it's probably going to play in Lawton is when it arrives on some DVD shelves. I know well enough to not try looking for it at Wal-Mart! Maybe Hastings Books and Video might carry it for rent. Maybe.

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 10-24-2005, 08:14 PM:

I think you would get complaints from customers if you did not warn about content (be that treating it as NC-17 or R or ... however your theatre chooses to inform customers ... ultimately you know your patrons better than any of us do). But, like Aaron said, I don't think this will be much of a problem movie of the "rowdy" / "trying to sneak in" variety.

I have seen the film, but didn't find it as "the most obscene film ever!!!" as it's being portrayed (I did quite enjoy it though) but I'm sure some people will. In my opinion, as long as they've been properly informed, people that would find it offensive [likely / hopefully???] will not see it, there are no surprises or secrets about what in the film is going to be offensive. All of the 'questionable' content is strictly verbal, nothing graphic at all.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 10-24-2005, 11:33 PM:

For Bobby, here is the clip of the South Park Cartman version of The Aristocrats (one of the many versions shown in the film):

Audio definitely NSFW:

http://www.cartmanthearistocrat.com/

Posted by Dan Chilton (Member # 2288) on 10-25-2005, 01:04 PM:

We do personal introductions before each of our films, so I think I'm going to go out and say, "If you're offended by hearing any of the following words repeated hundreds and hundreds of times, then you might want to leave." Then I'll pull a piece of paper out of my pocket and begin reciting the list of vulgarities in a monotone, matter of fact voice. We'll see what kind of reaction that will get! [thumbsup]

Posted by Ron L. Funderburg (Member # 3325) on 10-26-2005, 11:39 AM:

Many of the older films are classified as "not rated" those before the rating system was in place. The cable system we have treats "not rated" and "unrated" as blocked films and you have dial in your code. Recently "Captain Blood" was "not rated" as was "Casablanca" and I had to dial in my mandatory code set up by the cable company; however, "House of 1000 Corpses" somehow was available to my granddaughter channel surfing as a 2 year old will often do! Now that is some kind of system!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-26-2005, 05:54 PM:

Damn.

Apparently, Cartman the Aristocrat is "on vacation." I watched it, but I decided wanted to save a copy of it. Now I can't. Boo hoo.

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 11-01-2005, 08:12 PM:

In the UK it's officially rated "18" meaning that no-one under 18 can be admitted to watch it.

Not that any theatres are showing it.