|
This Film is Not Yet Rated
Directed by Kirby Dick
2006
Kirby Dick's 2006 documentary "This Film is Not Yet Rated" is an irreverent exposé of the Motion Picture Association of America's rating system and the secret group of men and women responsible for assigning those ratings.
Dick poses a couple of thought provoking questions: shouldn't a group that wields tremendous power within the movie industry and makes decisions that some would say have a profound affect on our culture be held accountable for their decisions? And shouldn't those decisions be based on fair and reasonable criteria? Notoriously, the board has run into controversy over the NC-17 rating (the commercial kiss of death for movies because they can't be advertised on TV or carried in big chains like Blockbuster when they come out on DVD), forcing filmmakers to make unwanted cuts in their films to get a more marketable rating. Dick's intention is to shed some light on the process: what's going on behind those closed doors?
In response to a growing amount of adult content showing up in movies in the 60s, the industry decided to self-regulate with the creation of the ratings system in 1966 (complete with ratings board and those familiar ratings that, apart from a few changes, are still in use today). It was the brainchild of MPAA President Jack Valenti who was imported from the Johnson administration. Over the years, Valenti has been the rating system's biggest cheerleader, touting it as a successful tool for parents. According to guidelines, the board should consist of parents of school age children who serve for a limited period of time. It does not include child experts because Valenti wanted the board to represent the average viewer. The names of the members, their occupations, and qualifications are not released for public consumption in order to protect the members from being pressured by filmmakers or studios in making their decisions.
Dick talks to several filmmakers who have run into ratings trouble as well as two former board members (who speak out despite the fact that current and former members are sworn to secrecy about what goes on behind the scenes). And he uncovers some fascinating information. For example, he finds that sexual content in gay-themed movies is given harsher ratings penalties than their heterosexual counterparts. Kimberly Peirce's "Boys Don't Cry" earned an NC-17 in part because of a sex scene between two women, even though, as Dick demonstrates in a split screen comparison, similar scenes involving heterosexual couples in other films resulted in less severe ratings. And Hollywood studios receive detailed directions as to how to change an NC-17 film into an R, while independent film producers are left in the dark. Matt Stone, of "South Park" fame, talks about facing the ratings board with an independent film and later with a studio film: the second time around, the board gave Stone detailed instructions on what cuts to make to receive an R rating on appeal. The evidence mounts that the board gives harsher ratings to films with edgy material as well as to films with independent financing, while going relatively easy on those with violent content or those from the studios.
In an attempt to shake things up, Dick hires a female private detective team to find out the secret identities of the ratings board. This leads to all sorts of fun as they dig through trash, stake out the MPAA and even follow one of the members into a Burger King to get her on tape. It's a successful tactic as we learn the identities of the board members and find out some important details about them, including the fact that most members do not have school age children and little is done to limit their terms of service.
All of this leads up to Dick's submission of "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" to the ratings board. Do I even need to tell you what it gets? What follows is an amusing series of phone calls as he attempts to wring a little information out of them. He asks what content is objectionable (they won't say); what they think about the film's message (no comment); and whether he might get a lesser rating on appeal (probably not).
Dick does lose the appeal and the battle, but for all intents and purposes, he won the war. Released (fittingly) without a rating, the film still managed to have an impact on the system. According to an article in Variety, new MPAA head, Dan Glickman, made several changes to the ratings process after getting input from filmmakers, parents groups and others; some changes included the removal of members after their children are older than eighteen, a formalized educational system for raters, and more transparency in the system as a whole. According to Glickman, "the documentary made it clear that we probably haven't done as much as we can to explain how it all works," while still claiming that the rating system is a, "gem, even if it needs some polishing."
No comments have been posted to this article.
Want to post a comment to this article? Click here.
|
