| ||||||||||||||
From director J.J. Abrams comes the next installment in the Star Trek saga, Star Trek Into Darkness. Watch it in theaters now and pre-order on Blu-ray, 3D Blu-ray, DVD, and the Exclusive Starfleet Phaser Gift Set. Shop Star Trek Into Darkness and more in the Star Trek Store. Learn more |
Frequently Bought Together
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Special Features
None.
Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
As it turns out, Kirby Dick's eye-opening documentary isn't rated. When he submitted it to the Motion Picture Association of America, they slapped it with an NC-17 (though he had always intended to release it unrated). This is fitting since he sheds much-needed light on the inner workings of a secretive organization that wields great power over the movies the public gets to see (since most mainstream media won't touch the dreaded NC-17). It's just as well since This Film Is Not Yet Rated focuses on the more controversial films of the past three decades. Aside from the stories of filmmakers who have tussled with the MPAA, Dick hires a private investigator to determine who sits on the board, since this information isn’t in the public domain. With her assistance, he solves the mystery. Directors include Darren Aronofsky (Requiem for a Dream), Mary Harron (American Psycho), and Kimberly Peirce (Boys Don't Cry). Though frequently humorous, This Film Is Not Yet Rated should be required viewing for serious film fans, because the MPAA doesn't just affect what gets seen--but what gets made. If it has a flaw, it's this: In his attempt to generate transparency, Dick (Twist of Faith) arguably crosses the line. It's one thing to identify the board members; it's another to divulge their vital statistics. Whether or not these "guardians of morality" are working for the common good, they're still entitled to a little privacy. That said, this is vital stuff for anyone concerned about First Amendment issues. --Kathleen C. Fennessy
Product Description
Studio: Magnolia Pict Hm Ent Release Date: 10/08/2009 Run time: 98 minutes Rating: Nr
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
33 of 36 people found the following review helpful
This expose of the Hollywood ratings system provides insight into how censoring yourself may prevent government intervention but can also contribute to a system that seems arbitrary and unfair to those film directors that don't make major studio films. Kirby's film "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" amusingly takes a look at the history of Hollywood policing itself and how it does it today. He also asks a number of hard questions about the standards that the MPAA employees and why the organization must operate with as much secrecy as the CIA.
Interviewing people such as actress Maria Bello ("The Cooler", the TV show "ER" and "A History of Violence"), cult film director John Waters ("Polyester")and others working outside the studio system as independent directors and producers, what's reflected is a system that is badly flawed, very subjective and does a disservice to viewers. What he discovered are people that have no qualifications beyond their opinions, have established a rudimentary system to "judge" films that has become meaningless in terms of what it truly tells the consumer, quibble over the sexual positions or even head movement in sex scenes and use their personal morality to make Hollywood's product seem acceptable.
We get a number of deleted scenes including a whole section on how the MPAA and Hollywood use lobbyists to stifle new technology that they deem a threat to their material. One expert discusses how copyright law has been impacted by the studios. Disney evidently protects their copyrights (even material that they have taken from the public domain such as the stories of Hans Christian Anderson's "The Little Mermaid" or classic fairy tales like "Beauty and the Beast" making public domain material somehow their own)vigorously often having a negative impact. Interestingly in the section on film piracy (and in the Q&A section in the extras)Kirby points out that the MPAA has a division devoted to this problem but has no problem with pirating product themselves (they copied Kirby's early version of the film without his consent violating his rights to the material).
Certainly we must have a stanard to help parents and adult viewers decide what they want to watch in theaters. Ironically, the ratings system has become more of a marketing tool (think of all those "Unrated" special editions that sell out)than a system designed to look out for the public's welfare.
Interviewing people such as actress Maria Bello ("The Cooler", the TV show "ER" and "A History of Violence"), cult film director John Waters ("Polyester")and others working outside the studio system as independent directors and producers, what's reflected is a system that is badly flawed, very subjective and does a disservice to viewers. What he discovered are people that have no qualifications beyond their opinions, have established a rudimentary system to "judge" films that has become meaningless in terms of what it truly tells the consumer, quibble over the sexual positions or even head movement in sex scenes and use their personal morality to make Hollywood's product seem acceptable.
We get a number of deleted scenes including a whole section on how the MPAA and Hollywood use lobbyists to stifle new technology that they deem a threat to their material. One expert discusses how copyright law has been impacted by the studios. Disney evidently protects their copyrights (even material that they have taken from the public domain such as the stories of Hans Christian Anderson's "The Little Mermaid" or classic fairy tales like "Beauty and the Beast" making public domain material somehow their own)vigorously often having a negative impact. Interestingly in the section on film piracy (and in the Q&A section in the extras)Kirby points out that the MPAA has a division devoted to this problem but has no problem with pirating product themselves (they copied Kirby's early version of the film without his consent violating his rights to the material).
Certainly we must have a stanard to help parents and adult viewers decide what they want to watch in theaters. Ironically, the ratings system has become more of a marketing tool (think of all those "Unrated" special editions that sell out)than a system designed to look out for the public's welfare.
14 of 15 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Fantastically Entertaining Documentary For the Movie Lover Includes Drama, Intrigue, Sex, Comedy, And Even A Chase Scene
April 1, 2007
There is nothing I enjoy more than a great film about Hollywood, the movies, and the foibles and follies inherent in this business known as "show." Therefore, I was curious to check out last year's high profile documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated." Director Kirby Dick has set his sights on the MPAA and, more specifically, its rating system. Just what qualifies a film as a PG, or a PG-13, or an R, or (heaven forbid) an NC-17? Well, there is no preordained criteria. As it turns out, a small group of anonymous parents employed by the MPAA make judgment calls about every film's tone and content. Fashioned as a watchdog group that supposedly represents the "average" parent, the member identities are kept secret to keep them free from pressure groups.
I went into "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" thinking it might be fun and informative, a passable entertainment. Knowing and loving films, I have long contended that the MPAA rating system has appeared somewhat arbitrary, inconsistent, and in need of reform. Standing in the way of serious-minded adult film, the MPAA is one of the few organizations to support outright censorship in the modern American world. However, they do so in cooperation with major studios and under a shroud of secrecy that is as extensive as it is surprising. This caustic look at a very flawed system, thus, met my expectations of being fun and informative. There are plenty of film clips, plenty of celebrity interviews--lots of entertainment for a film aficionado. But beyond that, the film stands as an investigative thriller (as we strive to uncover just who this anonymous group of film raters are) and a postmodern satire (as the documentary we are viewing is submitted to the MPAA to receive a rating--it's NC-17, by the way, according to the board).
"This Film Is Not Yet Rated," thus, turns out to be a wildly entertaining movie. As a patron who seeks out smaller and edgier entertainment, it has often bothered me that someone besides the film's creative team is dictating what I will eventually be able to see. The MPAA, however, contends that it is not a censorship group--filmmakers are free to release their film in NC-17 format. But, in fact, it is a form of censorship because to not comply has enormous repercussions from a business standpoint. Many theaters won't carry the film, advertising is limited, and even DVD sales are blocked by major players. If there is such a stigma on NC-17, who in their right mind would move ahead without making changes? Very few. Add to the equation that independent films have less clout with the board, sex is more controversial than brutality, homosexuality is judged on a different scale, and anything aberrant is frowned on--and the side by side decisions of the MPAA will often leave you perplexed.
Dick does a great job pointing out these inconsistencies--it's both amusing and somewhat sad. In a nicely realized montage, he includes comparisons between films that have received different ratings for the exact same content. Ultimately, the movie showcases much hypocrisy and many flaws within the system--and that's great. The next step is spearheading reform or proposing a new method. For until this happens, as one of the interviewees contends--at least this system is more helpful to parents than nothing. I highly recommend "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" to everyone, but it has even more to be savored by those who really love the cinema. KGHarris, 04/07.
I went into "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" thinking it might be fun and informative, a passable entertainment. Knowing and loving films, I have long contended that the MPAA rating system has appeared somewhat arbitrary, inconsistent, and in need of reform. Standing in the way of serious-minded adult film, the MPAA is one of the few organizations to support outright censorship in the modern American world. However, they do so in cooperation with major studios and under a shroud of secrecy that is as extensive as it is surprising. This caustic look at a very flawed system, thus, met my expectations of being fun and informative. There are plenty of film clips, plenty of celebrity interviews--lots of entertainment for a film aficionado. But beyond that, the film stands as an investigative thriller (as we strive to uncover just who this anonymous group of film raters are) and a postmodern satire (as the documentary we are viewing is submitted to the MPAA to receive a rating--it's NC-17, by the way, according to the board).
"This Film Is Not Yet Rated," thus, turns out to be a wildly entertaining movie. As a patron who seeks out smaller and edgier entertainment, it has often bothered me that someone besides the film's creative team is dictating what I will eventually be able to see. The MPAA, however, contends that it is not a censorship group--filmmakers are free to release their film in NC-17 format. But, in fact, it is a form of censorship because to not comply has enormous repercussions from a business standpoint. Many theaters won't carry the film, advertising is limited, and even DVD sales are blocked by major players. If there is such a stigma on NC-17, who in their right mind would move ahead without making changes? Very few. Add to the equation that independent films have less clout with the board, sex is more controversial than brutality, homosexuality is judged on a different scale, and anything aberrant is frowned on--and the side by side decisions of the MPAA will often leave you perplexed.
Dick does a great job pointing out these inconsistencies--it's both amusing and somewhat sad. In a nicely realized montage, he includes comparisons between films that have received different ratings for the exact same content. Ultimately, the movie showcases much hypocrisy and many flaws within the system--and that's great. The next step is spearheading reform or proposing a new method. For until this happens, as one of the interviewees contends--at least this system is more helpful to parents than nothing. I highly recommend "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" to everyone, but it has even more to be savored by those who really love the cinema. KGHarris, 04/07.
21 of 25 people found the following review helpful
****
In American-made films, violence is more acceptable than sex. Films depicting someone mowing down a line of men with bullets could receive a PG-13 as long as no blood is shown, but a film depicting a couple having sex in a frank and realistic way will most certainly receive an R, or depending on how graphic the depiction, an NC-17. These ratings are determined and administered by the Ratings Board of the Motion Picture Academy of America, a lobby group funded by the major film studios. The Ratings Board was created in the late 60s by Jack Valenti to stave off further government involvement in the content of films, to counter criticism and censorship and to provide filmmakers with more freedom. The idea was that you could include anything you want in your film, but the ratings would provide a guideline for parents and others about what the film contained, and help them decide whether they wanted to see it or not.
In Europe, the emphasis is reversed. Films with violence receive harsher ratings than films depicting sex, making it more difficult for children and teenagers to see it.
This is just one of the ideas pursued by director Kirby Dick is his new documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated".
When a filmmaker completes a film, they submit it to the Ratings Board and a secret panel of people watch the film and discuss the rating it should receive. Initially, this system was set-up to guarantee filmmakers artistic freedom. If a film was too adult, it would receive an NC-17 and provide a clear sign to people that the film was only suitable for adults. In reality, studios will not release an NC-17 film and insist the filmmaker make cuts to receive an R rating. Why won't they release an NC-17 film? Newspapers and television stations will not run ads for these films, multiplexes won't carry them, so it makes it impossible to make the kind of money they need to make to pay their overhead. A filmmaker can still release an NC-17 film, but they are relegated to independent studios and movie theaters, ensuring the film will have to generate a lot more word of mouth for a much smaller audience.
Worse, many cities and even some states don't have a lot of independent theaters and Wal-Mart and Blockbuster won't carry these films. How can the audience see it? They can't.
Therefore, a lot of pressure is placed on filmmakers to deliver films with a certain rating, many directors have a rating stipulated in their contract. How does this do anything but create censorship?
All of this might be a useful system, but the Ratings Board has proven to be less than consistent. Dick conducts a series of interviews with filmmakers who have been affected by an NC-17 rating. Matt Stone, part of the tam who created "South Park", talks about when he and Trey Parker created "Orgazmo" as an independent film. They received an NC-17 rating. When they tried to find out what they had to cut to receive an R, they were told the Board doesn't provide that type of information, it would be censorship. Then, when they made the "South Park" movie, they received an NC-17 rating and extensive notes about what was found offensive, providing them with a road map to an `R' rating.
Dick sets out to uncover who the secret members of this board are. He hires a private investigator, Cheryl Howell, and they stake out the headquarters of the MPAA. Stationed outside the garage, they write down license numbers of cars as they leave for lunch, do some investigation, and soon uncover the names of the people who are on the board. Using a series of archival interviews with Jack Valenti, Dick sets out to determine if the members are, as Valenti frequently states, just normal parents, trying to help other parents makes an informed decision.
And here we come to the major problem with "Not Yet Rated". Everything in the film is so heavily slanted to support the argument of the filmmaker, that it becomes one sided. Okay, okay, so Michael Moore's and Morgan Spurlock's films are not exactly unbiased, but they do try to present at least a partial opposing viewpoint. In Spurlock's recent television series of documentaries "30 Days", we all know he is very liberal, yet he presents interviews with people with different viewpoints, listening to them, giving them some thought, before continuing on his path and presenting the arguments he wants to present. There is nothing wrong with a documentary having a point of view. But in "Not Yet Rated", any opposing views are presented after we learn what they are talking about. Basically, Dick is catching them in lies, and making us laugh at it. It works, and I completely agree with the message he is presenting, but it would be nice to have seen something, anything that presented a viable counter message.
As he talks to filmmakers about their troubles with the MPAA, he gleefully presents the uncut footage the filmmakers are discussing. Director Wayne Kramer and actress Maria Bello talk about a scene cut from "The Cooler". John Waters talks about his film "A Dirty Shame". Atom Egoyan talks about "Where The Truth Lies". Kevin Smith talks about a scene in "Jersey Girl", showing Liv Tyler and Ben Affleck talking about sex. Director Kimberly Peirce talks about her film "Boys Don't Cry" and the objections of the Ratings Board.
"Not Yet Rated" is perhaps most effective when it compares similar clips of films that received different ratings. In one sequence, Dick shows clips of violent films rated more favorably than scenes depicting sexual encounters. In another, he explores how similar sexual acts between a man and a woman, depicted in similar ways, are rated more favorably than the same situations between same sex partners.
Towards the end of the film, Dick submits an early cut of the film to the Ratings Board. Not surprisingly, he receives an NC-17. He then documents as much of the appeals process as possible given no cameras were allowed into the actual hearing.
"This Film Is Not Yet Rated" does a very good job of walking the viewer through this Byzantine, strange process employed by the MPAA. He also does an excellent job of pointing out the various eccentricities of this system which frequently frustrates and maddens many in the filmmaking community.
In American-made films, violence is more acceptable than sex. Films depicting someone mowing down a line of men with bullets could receive a PG-13 as long as no blood is shown, but a film depicting a couple having sex in a frank and realistic way will most certainly receive an R, or depending on how graphic the depiction, an NC-17. These ratings are determined and administered by the Ratings Board of the Motion Picture Academy of America, a lobby group funded by the major film studios. The Ratings Board was created in the late 60s by Jack Valenti to stave off further government involvement in the content of films, to counter criticism and censorship and to provide filmmakers with more freedom. The idea was that you could include anything you want in your film, but the ratings would provide a guideline for parents and others about what the film contained, and help them decide whether they wanted to see it or not.
In Europe, the emphasis is reversed. Films with violence receive harsher ratings than films depicting sex, making it more difficult for children and teenagers to see it.
This is just one of the ideas pursued by director Kirby Dick is his new documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated".
When a filmmaker completes a film, they submit it to the Ratings Board and a secret panel of people watch the film and discuss the rating it should receive. Initially, this system was set-up to guarantee filmmakers artistic freedom. If a film was too adult, it would receive an NC-17 and provide a clear sign to people that the film was only suitable for adults. In reality, studios will not release an NC-17 film and insist the filmmaker make cuts to receive an R rating. Why won't they release an NC-17 film? Newspapers and television stations will not run ads for these films, multiplexes won't carry them, so it makes it impossible to make the kind of money they need to make to pay their overhead. A filmmaker can still release an NC-17 film, but they are relegated to independent studios and movie theaters, ensuring the film will have to generate a lot more word of mouth for a much smaller audience.
Worse, many cities and even some states don't have a lot of independent theaters and Wal-Mart and Blockbuster won't carry these films. How can the audience see it? They can't.
Therefore, a lot of pressure is placed on filmmakers to deliver films with a certain rating, many directors have a rating stipulated in their contract. How does this do anything but create censorship?
All of this might be a useful system, but the Ratings Board has proven to be less than consistent. Dick conducts a series of interviews with filmmakers who have been affected by an NC-17 rating. Matt Stone, part of the tam who created "South Park", talks about when he and Trey Parker created "Orgazmo" as an independent film. They received an NC-17 rating. When they tried to find out what they had to cut to receive an R, they were told the Board doesn't provide that type of information, it would be censorship. Then, when they made the "South Park" movie, they received an NC-17 rating and extensive notes about what was found offensive, providing them with a road map to an `R' rating.
Dick sets out to uncover who the secret members of this board are. He hires a private investigator, Cheryl Howell, and they stake out the headquarters of the MPAA. Stationed outside the garage, they write down license numbers of cars as they leave for lunch, do some investigation, and soon uncover the names of the people who are on the board. Using a series of archival interviews with Jack Valenti, Dick sets out to determine if the members are, as Valenti frequently states, just normal parents, trying to help other parents makes an informed decision.
And here we come to the major problem with "Not Yet Rated". Everything in the film is so heavily slanted to support the argument of the filmmaker, that it becomes one sided. Okay, okay, so Michael Moore's and Morgan Spurlock's films are not exactly unbiased, but they do try to present at least a partial opposing viewpoint. In Spurlock's recent television series of documentaries "30 Days", we all know he is very liberal, yet he presents interviews with people with different viewpoints, listening to them, giving them some thought, before continuing on his path and presenting the arguments he wants to present. There is nothing wrong with a documentary having a point of view. But in "Not Yet Rated", any opposing views are presented after we learn what they are talking about. Basically, Dick is catching them in lies, and making us laugh at it. It works, and I completely agree with the message he is presenting, but it would be nice to have seen something, anything that presented a viable counter message.
As he talks to filmmakers about their troubles with the MPAA, he gleefully presents the uncut footage the filmmakers are discussing. Director Wayne Kramer and actress Maria Bello talk about a scene cut from "The Cooler". John Waters talks about his film "A Dirty Shame". Atom Egoyan talks about "Where The Truth Lies". Kevin Smith talks about a scene in "Jersey Girl", showing Liv Tyler and Ben Affleck talking about sex. Director Kimberly Peirce talks about her film "Boys Don't Cry" and the objections of the Ratings Board.
"Not Yet Rated" is perhaps most effective when it compares similar clips of films that received different ratings. In one sequence, Dick shows clips of violent films rated more favorably than scenes depicting sexual encounters. In another, he explores how similar sexual acts between a man and a woman, depicted in similar ways, are rated more favorably than the same situations between same sex partners.
Towards the end of the film, Dick submits an early cut of the film to the Ratings Board. Not surprisingly, he receives an NC-17. He then documents as much of the appeals process as possible given no cameras were allowed into the actual hearing.
"This Film Is Not Yet Rated" does a very good job of walking the viewer through this Byzantine, strange process employed by the MPAA. He also does an excellent job of pointing out the various eccentricities of this system which frequently frustrates and maddens many in the filmmaking community.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
Private Investigator
The private investigator who exposed the MPAA was Becky Altringer and not Cheryl Howell. I'm not really sure how Cheryl's name is listed as the PI, except that she is Becky's... Read more
Published 7 days ago by Rebecca Altringer
3.0 out of 5 stars
Ok but not Great
Decent doc about the MPAA board and how they rate movies but we never find out exactly how they rate them the way they do because they are so private about it. Read more
Published 1 month ago by Kevin
4.0 out of 5 stars
awesome doc
Awesome documentary. Very informative. Although, I sense some cool details were edited for the same reason other indie movies are rated NC 17. Its still a great documentary. Read more
Published 10 months ago by winola
2.0 out of 5 stars
Right Idea, Wrong Focus
Ever since I saw "Titanic" in 1997 and wondered how in the world it was able to garner a PG-13 rating, I have been intrigued by the official film rating system. Read more
Published 11 months ago by Zachary Koenig
1.0 out of 5 stars
Could not watch the whole movie YES it was that bad
First of all, I could not make it through the whole movie, so maybe it improved after the first 45 minutes but I seriously doubt it. Read more
Published 11 months ago by Movies4me
5.0 out of 5 stars
Should be watched by all moviegoers
The film is reasonably well made. There are some problems with it overall but the underlying info is chilling. The segment right before the closing credits is truely enlightening.
Published 14 months ago by James Sexton
5.0 out of 5 stars
Accurate and impartial documentary making at its best
Accurate and impartial documentary making at its best
This documentary reveals one of the ambiguous and clandestine way which information (in this case, in the form of... Read more
This documentary reveals one of the ambiguous and clandestine way which information (in this case, in the form of... Read more
Published 14 months ago by Andrew W
5.0 out of 5 stars
Peeking behind the curtain...
What irked me more about this movie was the subject matter. The MPAA ratings turn out to be so subjective. Too subjective in my opinion. Read more
Published on February 6, 2011 by R. Smith
4.0 out of 5 stars
Great movie
I saw this movie in the theatre when it first came out. True, it's not in the same league with a Michael Moore movie, but Kirby Dick raises some really important issues concerning... Read more
Published on January 3, 2011 by Pug/bulldog
1.0 out of 5 stars
1 star will get neg vote w/out being read proves point
To me, the limited value of this documentary is that it shows how the current rating system is slightly subjective according to the mysterious board of reviewers, who are, oddly,... Read more
Published on December 20, 2010 by matt
