Review: 'This Film is Not Yet Rated' but it is a movie you must see
Posted Thursday, January 25, 2007 at 10:21 PM Central
by Tim Briscoe
G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17. If you're like most Americans, moreover a parent, you know exactly what each of these designations mean. But how did that movie you, or your children, are about to watch get labeled in one of those five categories?
The answer to that question is the entry point to the new movie This Film is Not Yet Rated. It's a very critical documentary from director Kirby Dick about the movie ratings system devised by Jack Valenti and the Motion Picture Association of America in 1968.
More to the point, the film is about the inequities and inconsistencies created by the group. Various filmmakers like John Waters, Matt Stone, and Kevin Smith (three guys well known for pushing the envelope of obscenity) share their experiences and frustrations about the board.
"Big deal," you may say. "What does a rating matter?" They matter much more than you would think. As the film points out, a film with a NC-17 can't get an TV or newspaper advertising. It won't be carried by Wal-Mart or Blockbuster. Most studios even require filmmakers to produce a film of a certain rating.
As interviews in the film with various experts and Hollywood analysts illustrate, the process might be fine if the process was transparent. It's anything but. The MPAA's ratings board operates in complete secrecy. That is unlike any ratings or decency board of its kind.
In the film, director Kirby Dick goes as far as to hire a private investigator to help unveil the shroud of secrecy. Watching this P.I. do her work was the most enjoyable part of the film for me. It was remarkable how much she actually uncovered about the undisclosed members of the board and a few of their practices.
Also, the film shows Dick as he actually goes about submitting This Film is Not Yet Rated to the MPAA, or at least a rough version of it. The rating returned was an NC-17. (The film couldn't carry this rating during its limited theatrical release nor does it on the DVD since it isn't the same version of the film shown to the MPAA. Just as its title implies, the film is still "Not Rated.")
A point the film hit upon, one that I wish it dealt more with, was the chilling effect the movie could have for the filmmakers who criticize the MPAA. I mean, Waters, Stone and Smith could easily be marked men in the eyes of the MPAA and receive even further scrutiny for their future films. (Speaking of Waters, Stone, and Smith, you must watch the deleted scenes on the DVD for some hilarious stories from these guys not included in the movie.)
The film so much makes the MPAA out to be the boogeyman that I feel a little scared just giving the movie praise. Seriously.
I do feel Dick goes a little too far in criticizing the MPAA. They simply can't be that evil. And they're not mistake-free just like the rest of us.
On the other hand, it is obvious the process is flawed and there is no reason for the paranoid cover-up on the part of the MPAA. Furthermore, it's obvious that you should watch this movie just to understand the ratings process and know that the ratings on the movies you see aren't always equal. Or even deserved.
