Customer Reviews

This Film Is Not Yet Rated

5 star:		(26)
4 star:		(35)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

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.

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.

****
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.

It's great that someone has finally waded into sausage factory that is the ratings system. Awesome, gleeful muckraking. Good investigative reporting. Nice surprise at the number of directors who agreed to appear in the film.

The film raises several interesting questions.

If this is a bad system, what should replace it? A more transparent MPAA process? A government ratings board? No ratings at all?

The film pointed out several times that for the MPAA violence is okay, but sex isn't - but why is this? Does it have something to do with how well violent films do worldwide?

How does the diminishing importance of domestic theatrical release and big box retail chains like Walmart change things? Does the MPAA rating matter as much when people are getting their movies from Amazon and Netflix, and when international sales are bringing in a bigger percentage of the take?

Overall, a fantastic film.

I saw this film shortly after it came out, and loved it, despite various flaws. I forgot about reviewing it until reading the comments in the reviews for Ma Vie En Rose, a fine film that many were amazed to see receive an R-rating.

That rating makes perfect sense once one sees this movie. Whether we like to admit it or not, there's a lot of control in this country over what we experience from folks who haven't learned how to think properly---that is, with an open mind and wide range of cultural awarenesses. These are the kind of people who keep us permanently in one war or another; apparently the God they worship doesn't like nudity or anything sexual...but he just LOVES violence and war. How does that First Commandment go again?

We are encouraged (by those pulling the strings) to watch graphic, brutal killings day in and night out on TV and in movies, but we are so scared of a little sexuality, especially if it's of a sort that doesn't feature the missionary position and strong feelings of guilt afterwards. These are the kind of folks who quietly review our celluloid art (or lack thereof) and decide what we and our kids are allowed to watch. This film makes that clear, intelligently and with much wry wit.

If you've ever questioned a rating on a movie, see this film and find out why that rating was put there. Our national conscience comes to a large degree from the art we encounter, so control over that art is a big deal for those who stand to make trillions from selling guns and war, and from promoting their neanderthal concepts of what sexuality and religion are.

This doc does have some problems, such as the ineptness of the private investigators, Dick's occasionally immature attitude, and the very one-sided approach in general. But the topic, and the truths presented, outweigh the faults and make this film well worth seeing.

I thought this was a well-known movie, especially among film lovers. Apparently not, from the dearth of reviews here. All I can say is, if you love the art of cinema and wonder why we don't see more of it in this land, watch This Film Is Not Yet Rated to see who subtly shapes our cinematic landscape in ways you might never imagine.

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 twenty minutes in this film, so Kirby Dick took it 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 tackled here in This Film is Not Yet Rated. Keep in mind; I'm not saying there shouldn't be a rating system. I'm just saying there should not be one that partakes in an overall system that 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 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 into Kendall Square to see the version he intended? 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 is really sort of missing the point. 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.

This delightful documentary is witty and entertaining, dancing around many issues with the MPAA rating system without coming to any coherent thesis about The Problem or proposing a real Solution. Unlike Michael Moore's movies, which often set up a strawman "opposition" argument, this movie is unabashedly biased in favor of the filmmakers and makes no attempt to justify the current behavior of the MPAA.

Since one underlying theme of this movie is the MPAA's bias against sexuality and in favor of violence, there are many, many clips of sexual scenes which the MPAA found objectionable in other movies.

While "This Film ..." does make a strong point that this kind of sexuality is categorically NC-17 when so many horrific things are rated R or less, it really glosses over the reason why NC-17 is a "bad" thing; the close tie between ratings and distrobution in the American movie industry today, turning the MPAA rating s system into a de facto censorship board. This problem is mentioned once early on, then ignored in favor of internal problems with the ratings process. The investigation into the identities of the people involved was entertaining and illuminating, but it felt like a distraction from any discussion of this underlying problems.

I recommend this movie to anybody that is mature enough to watch it critically and think for themselves.

I'll be honest: I liked the movie. As an avid fan of cultural studies, I enjoyed the examination and analysis of the MPAA. The movie simply asks: Why do we let a handful of anonymous people determine what is and is not acceptable to show in a movie theater?

Along the way, the movie raises a number of intriguing questions - why do they bring in two priests to sit in on discussions? Why do they always choose the same two religions for those priests? Do the members of the MPAA live up to their promised qualifications? Is there anything concrete about the rating process?

Unfortunately, many of these questions remain unanswered. The film is a good polemic, it raises thought and discussion, but the director hits a rock wall in his attempts to provide answers.

There's plenty of interesting material here - the discussion of Team America: World Police's utterly ridiculous sex scene, the methods for getting edgy material past the MPAA (the hilarious finding that the MPAA doesn't care -how- you changed something, as long as you changed it), these are interesting.

The absolute highlight of the film, though, is the side-by-side comparison of R-rated heterosexual sex scenes with NC-17-rated homosexual sex scenes. The film presents a series of suspiciously similar scenes that only differ based on orientation - showing the way that the MPAA shuts down attempts to portray homosexuality equally to heterosexuality in mainstream film. The sequence, to me, is one of the best and most brutal cultural critiques ever put to film.

However, This Film Is Not Yet Rated lags after this scene - none of the material afterward lives up to the cultural exploration done in that scene.

As other reviews have noted, the film comes across as petty and sophomoric at times - the scenes with the private investigator made me uncomfortable than anything else. I feel that this can be forgiven given the film's general irreverent tone - it's clear from the comical title sequence that the documentary wishes to inform a little, entertain a little more than that, and mostly thumb its nose at the MPAA.

Overall, I can recommend it - but the whole does not live up to the sum of its parts.

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: **

Ever since WWII ended, america seems to have taken the torch of fascism and social control from the germans. we didn't defeat the nazis, we took their ways for ourselves.
the FCC and the MPAA are just two examples, and this film shows how the above statement is true.
as it turns out, the MPAA sounds like another cult of the rich and control-crazy trying to limit what the rest of us can see, hear, or do.
and they are successful....
more people should be aware of things just like this and that is why I THINK this documentary should be required watching for any high school or college english, art, history, psychology, sociology, & government class.