The MPAA Get's Reviewed

This Film Is Not Yet Rated

Title: This Film Is Not Yet Rated
Director: Kirby Dick
Rated: NC-17

What is the MPAA? The MPAA stands for the Motion Picture Association of America. What is the purpose of the MPAA? To inform parents of content in movies that would potentially be objectionable if viewed by children. Is the MPAA self-owned or sponsored by companies? The MPAA is an independent, self operated company that deals outside of Hollywood to rate films. All of this, is brought under the light in Academy Award winning documentary film maker Kirby Dick's new movie "This Film Is Not Yet Rated." For years the MPAA has been a staple of the movie industry. Whether you love or hate the ratings system of the MPAA, for better or worse the ratings are as basic a feature of the movie as the director.

People depend on the ratings to inform them about potentially objectionable content in a movie they want to see. If you know me, then you know that while I love the idea behind a ratings system, I have found myself questioning some of the choices of the MPAA. Why does one movie get a PG-13 when another movie gets an R, when it turns out the R rated film is much tamer then the PG-13 rated film? Why is a film with mild sex like "The Dreamers" and "Kids" given NC-17 ratings, while graphic movies like "Hannible" and "The Passion of the Christ" receives R ratings? I personally remember finding it strange that "The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" got a PG-13, while "Kingdom of Heaven" got an R rating with the same amount of violence, with the only difference being that the blood in "Kingdom of Heaven" was red while "Lord of the Rings" blood was black.

These are some of the questions I have, so I was looking forward to seeing "This Film Is Not Yet Rated," a documentary that promised to study the MPAA with great zeal. And what zeal there is. The movie opens with an explanation of the MPAA, how it was created, and what it does. They explain how the ratings work, and then they explain the impact the ratings have on films. G's are for children's films, PG's are for family films, PG-13's are for teenagers, R's are for adults but kids can see them if a parent is with them, and NC-17's means no kids regardless of whether or not parents are there or not. Then the movie goes on to talk to Kimberly Pierce, the director of "Boy's Don't Cry." She admits with sadness that her movie, which she worked so hard to make, got an NC-17.

Kimberly expresses frustration with the rating as getting an NC-17 means her film will not be advertised on TV, in newspapers, or on most internet sites. When she asks what she could change to make her movie an R, she is told to cut a sex scene and a rape scene. She reluctantly agrees to trim the sex scene, but without the rape scene there would be no movie. Even more puzzling is that the main character gets beaten almost to death several times in the movie, yet the MPAA has no problems with the violence in the film. Kirby Dick wonders whether or not the MPAA is more strict on sex then they are with violence. A study with films that got NC-17 ratings show that out of all the movies to receive an NC-17 rating, only one of them had no sex in it what-so-ever (Kevin Smith's "Clerks," which was appealed and lowered to an R without any changes made to the film).

When Kirby tries to get into the MPAA to ask them some questions about how they rate their films, even more disturbing news comes up: No one from the MPAA building speaks to anyone. As it turns out, the MPAA is the most secret organization in the world, second only to the C.I.A. Even more disturbing is the fact that when attempting to talk to people who rate films, Kirby discovers that you never actually know who rates your films. Determined to get to the bottom of the MPAA, Kirby hires Becky Altringer, a private detective to help him find the names of people who rate movies. As the investigation goes on, film makers tell their stories of horror in dealing with the MPAA. Kevin Smith says he was shocked that his film got an NC-17, but was lucky enough to have one of the lawyers defending O.J. Simpson appeal the rating to an R.

Matt Parker expresses a very interesting story where his movie "Orgazmo" gets an NC-17, but the MPAA refuses to give him notes on how to get the movie lowered to an R. When his next film, "South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut" gets an NC-17, the film is sent back with notes on how to get the film lowered to an R. The difference between his two films: "Orgazmo" was an independently produced film, while "South Park" was a studio produced film. Does the MPAA help out studios more then they do independent film makers? Further interviews suggest that they do, as every independent film maker gets no notes on how to lower any ratings they don't want to lower ratings, while studios get notes on how to lower high ratings they don't want.

One independent film maker decides to make a comedy about a teenage girl who is sent to a homosexuality center after her parents find out she is a lesbian. The film makers thought they were making a funny teen comedy and expected a PG-13 rating. The movie gets an NC-17, with no reason as to why. When they found out the reason for the rating, everyone is a little puzzled. The reason for the NC-17 is that a fully clothed girl is shown masturbating. But if masturbating is NC-17 rating material, then why is masturbating so frequent in the R rated "American Pie?" An even bigger question ends up being if masturbating is NC-17 rated material, then why is masturbating shown in the "American Pie" PREVIEWS?!?!
You know, those commercials for the films that are approved for all ages by the MPAA. Those previews that are going to be seen in front of PG-13 rated films? All of this just scratches the surface of the fun debates that go back in forth about the rating system. As the search to find out the identities of the raters of the MPAA grows more and more hopeless, Kirby continues to question the system. The MPAA claims that their system is not a necessity, but if your film has no rating on it, then people don't go to see it. If this is the case, then is the MPAA considered a monopoly? Once Kirby gets all the interviews he feels he can get, he calls the MPAA to get his film rated.

In an ironic twist of events, "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" receives an NC-17 for "Some Sexual Content." When Kirby inquires about an appeal to get the rating lowered (seeing as how the MPAA refuses to give him advice on what to cut to get the R rating), he is shocked to discover that one of the rules is that he can not make comparisons of his film to other films. With no way to make an argument and no way to know who's rating his film, Kirby Dick accepts the NC-17 while his investigation comes to a close. "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" is a mixed bag. On one hand, as entertainment, the film is WILDLY entertaining! Using various interviews, stollen notes from the MPAA trash, and satire, "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" attacks the MPAA with great zeal and passion.
By the end of the movie, you will most likely feel that the system is, more or less, broken. The problem comes in with some of the agreements the people make. They claim that the MPAA does not care about artistic freedom, and thus are putting a limit on their art. This is not true. While the MPAA is a flawed system, one that definitely needs to be fixed, movies as art are still free in many cases. The intent of the MPAA, as one catholic priest points out, is that film makers are free to make the movies they want, it's just that if they go too far down a certain road they will be cutting off some of the audience, and that they need to know that they are doing that. This is a valid point. I think we need to admit that the MPAA is not here to promote or care about the art of film making.

Why should they? That's not their job. Their job is to rate the movies based on objectionable CONTENT! By making this look like a sin, the film makers have completely missed the point of the MPAA. So while its frustrating that the MPAA doesnt really consider why certain scenes are filmed for in an artistic sense, we shouldnt expect them to. The film makers make it sound like the MPAA system should be destroyed so that the artists can run free with their art, but they dont really think as to why this would not be a good idea. If the MPAA was torn down and there was no rating system, then no one would go to the movies anymore. Its as simple as that. People like to be warned about what it is they are seeing, and even though lots of movies have been rated inappropriately recently, they are still a warning of some sort.

As much as people hate the DMV, we all realize that even though the system doesnt work as well as it should, there needs to be a system of some sorts at the end of the day or else everything would fall apart. So while the film makers in this movie can complain about how their art is being censored (in a way) by the NC-17 rating, ultimately they are responsible for what they put in their films, and if their movie is slapped with an NC-17, then its their own darn fault. [Editors Note: Just for the record, having seen the R rated version of "The Cooler" and the uncut scene of the sex scene from the NC-17 rated version, I think I can calmly and sanely tell the director that the two seconds of pubic hair that had to be cut to achieve the R rating was not a fatal blow to the story, characters, or your art.]

However, even though some of the requests these guys make are pretty unreasonable, some of the points they make are good. The fact that you can have tons of violence, language, and crude humor and never get an NC-17 is an absolute joke, and its discouraging to see sex scenes that show women getting abused get R ratings, while sex scenes showing that show love as something truly beautiful get NC-17's. As Kevin Smith points out, the thing that he would get tough on with harsh ratings in movies is abusement to women, yet that stuff just slides, appearing frequently in PG-13 rated movies, and even in many PG rated films. One director wonders why action movies that glorify violence get PG-13 ratings (like "Fast and The Furious" and "Stealth"), while movies that show violence as horrible get R ratings (like "Saving Private Ryan" and "Mystic River"). That same director suggests that the mentality should be reversed, as movies that show violence as something fun can be more harmful to kids and teenagers then movies that show violence as terrible.
After seeing some comparisons, we find ourselves agreeing with this man. The big issue that is worthy of digging deeper into is why the raters names are never revealed. Why is this? The MPAA claims that they dont want people to try and persuade their raters to give films lower ratings, but when the MPAA GIVES the studios notes on how to get their films lower ratings, this argument doesnt hold a lot of water. Its even more puzzling that during appeals to get ratings lowered you cant compare the content of your film to another films content. This makes making an argument for your film almost impossible, and its inexcusable that the MPAA is allowed to get away with this.

When the movie is finished, chances are "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" will come off just as flawed as the MPAA itself is. As entertainment, this is one of the best films Ive seen all year. Its a comedy, drama, crime investigation, and revenge film all rolled into one. Kirby Dick uses a lot of bully techniques that Michael Moore likes to use, and some of the results are absolutely hilarious, especially when comparison clips show how biased the MPAA is when it comes to ratings. The interviews of various directors are all very interesting and deep, and while I think some of them may be missing the point of the ratings system to a certain extent too, it is interesting to hear stories of their dealings with the MPAA and what a headache it all was to basically be editing your film to be judged several times with raters whose faces they never see.

As an argument, the film has some flaws. While some of the argument this film makes are well thought out, the fact that it misses the point on several key issues they brought up makes them look extremely ignorant at times. The fact that no one in the film offers a real good solution is also troublesome, making it feel like these guys can pick apart flaws in the system, but they cant actually come up with any solutions to the flaws they pick at. There is one way where an NC-17 rating wouldnt hurt a movie, and that one thing is if there was an NC-17 rated film that made money. But every time a studio edits a big profile release down to an R ("Team America: World Police," "South Park," and "Clerks II"), they are cutting off a chance to break the NC-17 curse that has plagued movies for years.

I think one of the points that the movie fails to realize is that most NC-17 rated films are low-budget films that no one wants to see. But if you released a NC-17 rated movie that people actually wanted to SEE...well then, I guess the rating wouldnt be a big issue anymore! As entertainment I can easily recommend this movie. As a documentary I cant recommend it quite as much, but it will still start a lively conversation. Now all we got to see is if people will see this movie or not.

Entertainment Value: ****
Documentary Value: **

Currently Listening To: Frankie Valli & The Four Seaons - Anthology