It all started Saturday night when we arrived at the Hamilton Multi-Plex to find that "O Brother, Where Art Thou" was sold out and the only movie with tickets available was "Requiem for a Dream," of which we knew only two things: one of us had a friend from home who said it was good — and that it was rated NC-17.
What followed was possibly the most intense two hours I have ever spent in a movie theater: a cross between "Snatch," "The Cell," "Kids" and the most upsetting parts of "Traffic." I left feeling drained, a bit disturbed — but not offended or angry — and convinced that the NC-17 rating was well-deserved.
It's not every day that one sees an NC-17 rated movie, so I got to thinking. Certainly the movie was graphically violent and sexual enough to necessitate that I be warned beforehand. But theoretically, all that the NC-17 rating is is a warning — it doesn't pass judgment on the artistic merit of the film, the filmmakers or the message being conveyed. I made the decision of my own free will to pay $5.50 to see it, knowing full well what I was getting myself into.
Sixteen months ago, New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani threatened to deny funding to the Brooklyn Museum of Art because of its "Sensation" exhibit, which featured an image of the Virgin Mary covered in feces. This pitted free speech advocates and social conservatives against each other, as was the case in the 1980s when the National Endowment for the Arts nearly lost its funding after sponsoring a show that featured sexually explicit photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe. Now this week, Giuliani and the Brooklyn Museum are again butting heads, this time over an exhibit that features "Yo Mama's Last Supper," an installation depicting a nude, black woman as Jesus Christ. The work, by Renee Cox, has prompted the mayor to consider convening a panel on decency in the arts.
In response to cases like these, my gut reaction has always been that in spite of the benefits which artists reap from public funding, perhaps the best thing to do would just be to divorce government from the arts entirely in order to prevent political agendas such as Mr. Giuliani's from interfering with the creative process. But after my experience with "Requiem," I've started to think that maybe such drastic measures aren't really necessary. Maybe all that's needed is a comparable ratings system in order to "Rudy-Proof" the art world.
"A" for art that is "A-ok," perfect for happy families and Mayor Giulianis alike. The classical masters (no nudes, of course) and impressionism could be A-rated.
"B" for art which is just "Bad." With such a rating in place, thankfully, no one will ever have to suffer through the horror of seeing bad or little-known art. Attorney General John Ashcroft seems like an excellent candidate to be our official arbiter of taste — have you heard those "Singing Senators" in concert? Wow.
"C" for art that might be "Challenging" to our beliefs. Mr. Mayor, have no fear. Just keep an eye out for C-rated shows, avoid them entirely, and you'll never have to consider whether the beliefs you hold so dear make any sense. Won't that be nice?
"D" for art that might be "Difficult" to understand. With this rating in place, we might be able to prevent the angry math and science faculty from waging an all-out war on the new Richard Serra sculpture down by the stadium. Just tell them it's D-rated and they'll put their griping to rest, confident that they never have to pay another second of attention to "The Hedgehog and the Fox" if they don't want to.
"O" for art that might be "Offensive" to those with delicate sensibilities. Robert Mapplethorpe, for instance, might warrant the big "O" for his photography. Better watch out, Rudy. These works are the NC-17 films of the art world.
Don't say you weren't warned. Dan Wachtell is a philosophy major from Rye, NY. He can be reached at wachtell@princeton.edu.
Read More
For the record, video cameras at CPUC meetings must not go
Alex Norbrook“The right to video record is essential as a tool of accountability. Video allows journalists, activists, and spectators to capture a moment beyond what is said — it can record how someone speaks, or how someone reacts to speech.”
“The right to video record is essential as a tool of accountability. Video allows journalists, activists, and spectators to capture a moment beyond what is said — it can record how someone speaks, or how someone reacts to speech.”
We need to keep breaking the glass ceiling of the ivory tower
Maria Luisa Vieira Parada“At Princeton, that means ensuring that there is upward career growth available for women. Women make up only 33 percent of tenured and tenure-track faculty, the people who could be potentially in line for higher administrative leadership at the University.”
“At Princeton, that means ensuring that there is upward career growth available for women. Women make up only 33 percent of tenured and tenure-track faculty, the people who could be potentially in line for higher administrative leadership at the University.”
Reactions: Guests respond to Eisgruber and Calhoun’s statements on protesting
Zeke DouglasRosenthal, Edward Yingling, and Wyatt BrowneGuests weigh in with their thoughts on free speech, institutional neutrality, and the role of the ‘Prince’ with respect to the University's statements on encampments.
Guests weigh in with their thoughts on free speech, institutional neutrality, and the role of the ‘Prince’ with respect to the University's statements on encampments.
