Back to IndieWire

‘The Wolf Of Wall Street’ Got NC-17 Stamp Before Cuts Were Made To Secure An R Rating

'The Wolf Of Wall Street' Got NC-17 Stamp Before Cuts Were Made To Secure An R Rating

As we know by now with the MPAA: violence good, sex bad. And so today brings with it another tale of a movie that has made the ratings body just a bit too hot under the collar, but it also happens to be one of the biggest films of the year: “The Wolf Of Wall Street.”

THR reports that Martin Scorsese‘s upcoming epic—with the trade also confirming recent reports that it runs 2 hours and 59 minutes—was initially returned with an NC-17 rating thanks to “abundant, explicit sex (not to mention drugs).” Of course, no major studio movie is ever going to get released with an NC-17, so trims, cut and edits were made (though it’s not clear how extensive they were) to ensure the movie got an R rating, and it seems everyone is happy (or at least not making their concerns public).

That quite can’t be said for Evan Rachel Wood who heatedly took to Twitter this week to slam the MPAA for cuts made to her recent film, “Charlie Countryman.” It would appear that between its Sundance premiere and recent release, a scene in which she receives some oral pleasure from Shia LaBeouf wound up on the cutting room floor to appease the prudes at the ratings group. She criticized the MPAA for not blinking at the film’s explicit violence but balking once clothes came off.

“This is a symptom of a society that wants to shame women and put them down for enjoying sex, especially……when (gasp) the man isn’t getting off as well! Its hard for me to believe that had the roles been reversed it still would have been cut…, ” she wrote. You can read her full comments right here.

So, another day, another MPAA controversy. “The Wolf Of Wall Street” brings the business on Christmas Day.

This Article is related to: News and tagged , ,



After seeing the apparently edited version of Wolf, I’m still surprised it didn’t get an NC-17. I thought that’s why they invented the NC-17 rating?


I think we should introduce these:
Rated G-10 "for really scary bad guys, and a kinda sad ending"
Rated PG-16 "for heads exploding, but don't worry, no blowjobs."
Rated PG-30 "for having no robots in it"
Rated PG-50 "for scenes containing older English people doing something charming to save their town"
Rated PG-70 "for being how they used to make movies, you know, good ones, not this garbage that you see all over the place."


That is the fakiest fake money I've ever seen. Why do they still have to do this? Looks ridiculous.


filmmakers should step up and accept the NC-17 rating. this board's tyranny over the artistry of filmmakers is laughable at best. all it would take is a few big productions settling with the NC-17 to make a sea change in public opinion happen.

Brad Wesley

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire was originally rated R for "Woman not in kitchen" until Lionsgate sued.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *