This Film Is Not Yet Rated

Kirby Dick is certainly preaching to the quire when I viewed his documentary that attempts to skewer the MPAA. It's certainly not a bold attack but it obviously has its merits. Kirby makes the assertion that the MPAA has several double standards. Primarily with regards to violent content versus sexual content and nudity, heterosexual content versus homosexual content, and content in big business Hollywood versus independent films. These are key points in Dick's anti-MPAA film and I was glad to see a film point this out and gain some mainstream attention for doing so. But these contentions were only contemplated for about fourty minutes in this film, so Kirby Dick took the rest of his movie in another direction. He wanted to find out who exactly these "raters" are...and I really just didn't care.

The MPAA and any centralization of power that has control of our freedom of speech should be abolished and that is an issue for the most part not directly tackled here in This Film is Not Yet Rated. Keep in mind; I'm not saying there shouldn't be a rating system. I am saying there should not be one that partakes in an overall system which deters films that typically get NC-17 ratings from being made at all. Currently, the incentive to make a film like The Dreamers as opposed to a film like Rambo 4 just isn't there and the incentives should ideally be the same. Why shouldn't I be able to go to the theatre up the street to watch an un-butchered Todd Solondz film rather than drive all the way into Kendall Square to see the version he intended? And what about the people who don't live near a major city? It may not be a top priority for a lot people but it is for me, as it is both impeding on the spirit of the first amendment as well as preventing me from enjoying what is likely to be a very thoughtful and pure film untouched by corporatism.

Dick's motives are there to express the same sentiments but by hiring a private investigator to stalk these raters he is really sort of missing the point, or just not prioritizing I suppose. Not to mention those scenes were not nearly as entertaining or as interesting as the interviews with filmmakers and insights about the MPAA as a whole. The filmmakers we see here include Darren Aronofsky, whose film Requiem for a Dream needed to be cut down for sexual content to get an R-rating, and with that rating the ability to make more money. That R-rated version saw very limited release on video and Aronofsky's film was released unrated in theatres and therefore it had a limited release. It was one of the best films of 2000 and had it been released with a profit-worthy adult rating it would've likely been a success. Other filmmakers that suffered similar issues with the MPAA and appeared in this film include Wayne Kramer (The Cooler), Atom Egoyan (Where the Truth Lies), Matt Stone (Team America, South Park), Kevin Smith (Clerks), Mary Harron (American Psycho), John Waters (Pink Flamingos) and many others.

All in all though, it almost seemed as if there was more to say about these filmmakers scenarios. Why didn't Dick focus on that? Why didn't he aggressively interview some people at the MPAA? Why didn't he challenge the other side more? Even in the ironic scene where Dick finds out his film that challenges the ineffective existence of an NC-17 rating actually gets that very rating, he really seems far too docile. I was outraged while watching that part but Dick is certainly more reserved. It did cap off the documentary and prove Dick's point quite efficiently though. If Dick went off on the Hollywood film industry's favoring of money over taste and constructed his arguments beyond the MPAA instead of the private investigator scenes, this would've worked great. But he didn't do that. He didn't even point out the issues between films outside of NC-17 and R-ratings. I've seen some films get PG-13 ratings that are designed for kids and in no way deserve anything higher than PG, which I think is even more crucial considering the audience is children. Then of course there is that struggle for films to tone down their R-rated content to get a PG-13 and reap the benefits of a wider audience which really just exposes how art is not a priority. What about those films?

All I can say is thank goodness for DVDs if things continue to breakdown. I know I spent a lot of time ripping this film but that is only because I care so much about this subject. Kirby Dick put together an overall flawed but funny, and at times witty little film, that contains a premise of great meaning to motion picture as an art.

I can't stand to see an item double dipping but in an industry like this filmmakers have good reason to do so. The dreaded NC-17 Rating is a stamp of death in the movie industry. It limits your ability to market and showcase a film. So why does the company deem violence as an R-Rating but realistic sexual behavior as NC-17. There is no clear set of standards or training process. There is no transparency or accountability. The worst part is that the system is set up to favor the major studios. Independent films, which already have an uphill marketing battle, are given the shaft. The sad fact: Only six companies control more than 95% of the U.S. film business. The MPAA is a group of unknown and unelected "parents" who get to decide a film's box office fate. It's the only rating system in America which doesn't disclose who the members are. Members of the MPAA are forced to sign confidentiality agreements which force them into silence.

You get to see some frustrated filmmakers share their thoughts on their films and the experience with the MPAA and in the meantime Kirby hires a private investigator to help find out who exactly the secret raters are. According to former head of the MPAA Jack Valenti they are ordinary American families, people with children between the ages of 5-17 who are selected the represent the average cinemagoer. But who is to say these people are an accurate representation of the American public? The MPAA of course, who appear to refuse to acknowledge the fact that the American public is as diverse and mixed as a bag of mixed vegetables. Kirby discovers that according to the MPAA their view of the average American is a religious republican with good moral standards, yet these are the same people openly giving R-ratings to films with intense violence yet slamming films with realistic depictions of sex with an NC-17 rating; films that especially seem to display gay relationships, threesomes and other "abnormal" depictions of sexual encounter. Is this wrong? Certainly some graphic sex should be considered offensive (rape?) but condemning a film that has a loving sexual relationship as part of the narrative, that doesn't sound right. The American constitution grants the people to freedom of expression and of speech, it's quite apparent that the MPAA feels that these basic rights do not transfer to filmmakers, or at least filmmakers that don't have a major studio backing them or otherwise known as: influence. One of my favorite quotes from this film comes from a Clergyman who is part of the appeals panel at the MPAA, he states "We want to give the artist the freedom to make the film they want to make, but we don't want to make it totally free." This statement sums up the MPAA in a nutshell. After watching this I'm more curious to watch the original insight of an artist then a botch-up reprint.

This documentary will challenge your thoughts on censorship and ratings, ultimately it should be the parent or person of age that makes the decision what films they want to see, and they should have these films available to them to see. In a deeply cheeky move, Kirby submits this film to the MPAA for rating, not surprisingly the film receives an NC-17 blow to the face but he deliberately stamp it unrated anyway. "This Film is Not Yet Rated" is a scathing look at the MPAA that should not be missed.

for me,this film was mildly entertaining at best.it has a lot of
information,but how accurate it is,is any body's guess.the filmmakers
have their view on things,and so the film probably reflects their
views.i'm sure a lot of what they show and say is accurate to a
point,but i think some things you have to take with a grain of
salt,like most things.i think you sort of have to come to your own
conclusions.this is just my opinion,of course.anyway,the film basically
deals with trying to find out the identities of the M.P.A.A.the people
who make up the Motion Picture Association of America.these are the
people who give ratings to films.i found it interesting how the
filmmakers went about trying to uncover their names but i also think
that maybe the M.P.A.A. has has some good reasons for wanting the
identities of its members kept secret.i mean, they may hand down a
rating for a film which could negatively affect its box office and
critical performance.that could mean lost revenue.you can imagine a
filmmaker being angry over receiving an N-17(the kiss of death)instead
of an R.so maybe thee identities of the people on the ratings board are
kept secret to protect them.i don't really know,i'm just
speculating.the other thing is that the ratings board is not part of
the government.they are an independent body,and they are not elected,so
in my view,they shouldn't have to reveal their identities.doing so
might give them a better relationship with filmmakers though,or it
might not..there is some other stuff in the movie,as well,but i found a
lot of the stuff dry and not that interesting.i agreed with some things
the filmmakers said and i disagreed with some things as well.anyway,i
think the film is an OK way to waste 90 minutes or so,but i didn't find
it profound or earth shattering.but again,that's just my personal
opinion.the film might be more interesting if you watch it with a group
of people.at the very least,it could provide some lively discussion,and
get people thinking.anyway,like i said,theses are just my views.i
should mention there is a lot of nudity and foul language in the
movie,so this might not be to your taste.there is some violence,but i
felt it wasn't that graphic.in my opinion,This Film is Not Yet Rated is
a 2/5