This Film Is Not Yet Rated (Documentary)

R

RockStar

New member
I was just watching Ebert & Roepert's 10 worst films of 2006 and they mentioned "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" while discussing The Hills Have Eyes. Roeper basically said that the movie illustrates how the MPAA will run away from sex but will allow bodies torn open and all sorts of violence.




Totally. But I've been noticing that teens, even as young as 13-14 are getting picky (well as picky as they can be) with the movies they go to see. I'm not saying it will reflect on the BO any time soon. But they don't go to see any crappy movie that comes out. They're starting to go online and check out the general feel and they'll either decide it's a must see or that they'll skip it. The internet is chaging the game, for better or worse, but it has become a major factor.



Exactly! The premise is deeply flawed so everything that comes from it is by default, flawed. It's so stupid.
 
The reason I harp on this so much is because it is a reality.

If you are over 21, most of the mainstream movies out there are NOT geared toward your sensibilities, life experience or maturity level 90% of the time. The only time this is not the case is during Oscar season.

This is ironic since the whole point of mainstream film making is to supposedly get the widest audience possible and this supposedly includes people of all ages among other things. But if we are going to be honest, Hollywood is just as elitist as any other industry and they cater to the one demographic who they know will make them profit (either at the box office or DVD rentals) and that is teens, unfortunately, because they will go see and rent utter crap, IMO.

For example, look at all the direct-to-DVD films like "American Pie: The Naked Mile". This is pure garbage for mostly under-age teen (13; 14) boys that unfortunately will make a profit because they take mommy and daddy's credit card and rent the film which in turn counts as a profit.... Even though these teen boys Hollywood loves so much don't even have jobs of their own to buy half the stuff marketed to them. It's ridiculous, IMO.

I don't mean to come off as an ageist snob, or even angry... But I just feel very strongly about who and what the mainstream industry has turned into and it is a shell of its former self, IMO if we compare it to just ten years ago when there really were good films for people of all ages like Twister, Jurassic Park and Independence Day and the like that really did cater to different audiences on different levels.



This is the other unfortunate side-effect of constantly catering to teens and audiences under 21.

This also has everything to do with this topic about the MPAA because the MPAA claims its raters are made up of everyday parents with young (below 13) children. The film exposes the fact most of the parents have kids in their 20s and some of the parents are even grand parents! The point being made is they no longer have "children" in the strictest sense, but are still making decisions about these movies based on the assumption they do. Again, it's hypocrisy in its truest form. They are rating movies as if a young child is going to see it... When a young child should never see something like Mr. and Mrs. Smith, but they rate the film in a way to sanitize it which of course effects the artistic integrity of the film considering the original version of M&MS is a hard R-rated action movie similar to True Lies and La Femme Nikita (in fact the director's cut has the R-rated action and sex scenes intact).



It's insulting (to me) because it once again shows America's hypocritical, puritanical and religious biases toward things like sex and violence... The latter being the "acceptable" one kids should be exposed to more than sex :rolleyes:

Also, the film really hit the MPAA between the eyes about its hypocrisy when Dick interviewed psychologists who HAVE conducted studies about the long terms effects on children and their exposure to violence vs. sex and there IS a link between a kid being more violent and watching mostly violent action movies... And they specifically made the same point I did about a lot of PG-13 action movies that show no consequences of violence (no blood; no people writhing in pain) which warp a kids sense of reality when they do decide to use violence as a way to solve a problem. They said it worse because a lot of kids are now going into the military not knowing that when you shoot someone... Or if they got shot... That it actually HURTS. I found this frightening, to be blunt... But then again, look at all the PG-13 action movies that show people getting shot left and right, but no one screaming in pain and there isn't even a drop of blood to be found.



If Monster's Ball had a sex scene between Billy Bob Thorton and another man (instead of Halle Barry), or Halle Barry having sex with another woman... The film would have gotten an NC-17. It is so obvious the MPAA (from my POV) has a homophobic agenda and this doesn't surprise me considering the two members of the clergy they also employ. This is what makes me sick in this is another example IMO, of where separation of church, state and ART should be completely separate and not influence one another. Did we all of a sudden go back to the Spanish Inquisition, or the Renaissance when I went to bed last night and woke up this morning?
 
I truly agree. The fact that censorship is not only wrong sucks, but it also caters to bad filmmaking, because like you said, everything gets “dumbed” down and real groundbreakers are filtered through money making formulas to make as much $$$ as possible. The art suffers and it shows.

You've made the point before but I do think that the obsession with what teens and early 20 somethings think and want is really stupid. They're not the only ones renting and going to movies. Plus most teens won't care for quality. not that I'm an expert on movie-making, etc, but when you watch lots of films you develop a sense of when something is bad. I know I make a big point of avoiding PG-13 movies when I know they were furiously edited to get that rating to be more marketable. It's sick, especially when the films needs the rougher scenes to work.

And don't even get me started on the foreign movie thing! Lots of excellent foreign movies (and some smaller American ones) are smart and very original. But first they don't get distributed, or they hide them until they make a bad Hollywood version which a lot of people will see and the original, still unseen, gets credited as "inspiration" or as the "source". It's insulting.

The movie is not that great but I can't imagine Monster's Ball as a PG-13 movie. It takes a lot of strength from producers and movie people to just let the chips fall were they may and not yield to what the MPAA sees as "acceptable"... It's even worse when "acceptable" changes, varies and it doesn't have an even playing field you can actually work with. The legal aspect makes perfect sense and it emphasizes the hypocrisy of the whole system.
 
The part about being no real set of standards is what shocked me the most... But the former MPAA rater they interviewed also said it is done this way on purpose, so the MPAA can't be sued over censorship because ironically if there were set standards... Then this would legally be considered censorship in the courts (First Amendment Rights) because these standards would be considered arbitrary and subject to review... So, by not having any real standards the MPAA has a loop hole for still censoring films, but not in the strict legal sense where any action can be taken against them in a court of law.

In fact, a lot of things like this are cited through out the film to where it is implied the MPAA operates under the guise of being a public service to "protect the moral decency" of the population and the arts... But at the same time no one elects these people (the CEOs or the raters), nor are their "policies" on rating films ever up for public viewing or legal review as in most so-called public offices are. The MPAA also uses the threat of government intervention, I.E. censorship as their underlying base of power if a film maker wants to question (go beyond the appeal process) their decision even though submission to the ratings board is entirely voluntary.

The most telling part of the documentary was when they found out who some of the members of the appeals board are if a film maker wants to appeal the initial rating in favor of a bigger rating: They are the presidents and vice presidets of various motion picture theater buying groups (Regal Cinemas; AMC Movies; etc.). This clearly shows the MPAA is there to serve the business of Hollywood and not the art. I think most adults have known this for some time, but when the film tells you this point blank it hits home even harder when you start to realize why films like Mr. and Mrs. Smith will get a PG-13 rating and a foreign film like I Capture the Castle gets an R. It's all about maintaining a monopoly and denying access to those films and film makers who aren't part of the big Hollywood studio and movie theater system. This is why half the films coming out are complete crap, rated PG-13 and for teens like we've been saying for years now... But this proves how these films are getting distributed compared to more adult fair like Boys Don't Cry and other more meaningful films.
 
I saw a lot of promotion for this on IFC but I haven't been able to see it.



Wow, that's terrible. I know I never understood how Mr. & Mrs. Smith could be rated PG-13 and I Capture the Castle was rated R. Mr. & Mrs. Smith is a celebration of sex & violence, while I Capture the Castle has one scene of a woman dancing in the rain with her breasts exposed in a totally non sexual manner. Talk about NOT making sense or even trying to be fair.
 
This is a disscusion for those of you who have (or will see) the documentary titled "This Film is Not Yet Rated" about the U.S. ratings board, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).

The documentary exposes the hypocrisy and almost clandestine nature the MPAA operates under on a day-to-day basis.

The film itself is about Director Kirby Dick wanting to shed some light on who the persons are who actually view and rate most theatrical (independent and mainstream) films as well as how the appeal process works if you receive a rating that is less than favorable for the U.S. mainstream market (NC-17; X; sometimes R). It chronicles the inception of the MPAA in 1968, headed by Jack Valenti, all the way to 2005, when Valenti retired. The film uses humor and a mystery-noir plot to draw the viewers in... Complete with hiring a Lesbian detective to find out the identities of the persons who are hired as professional raters (who sit and view movies all day and do such things as count the number of F-words; how many pelvic thrusts an actor/actress makes during a love scene; how long the depiction of an orgasm lasts; etc, etc.).

The film also touches on the hypocrisy of how American society is obsessed with violence and specifically its sanitized depiction of violence, I.E. PG-13 action movies, and bias toward nudity and sexual activity... Especially depictions of same sex love making in comparison to heterosexual expressions of love. They interviewed Boys Don't Cry director Kimberly Pierce and she was told the main reason they gave her film an NC-17 was of the depiction of Hillary Swank's character having sex with another girl (Chloe Sevigny) and that girl enjoying the orgasm she has having for more than 30 seconds. They also interviewed Jamie Babit, director of But I'm a Cheerleader, and said she had to cut out the scene where one of the characters, a teen girl, fully dressed, was masturbating. However, whenever a male character is depicted as masturbating... Even graphically like in American Beauty.... It is perfectly acceptable because the male character is portrayed as heterosexual.

Kirby manages to expose how the MPAA is the only organization in the entire U.S. where no one is allowed to know who is working there and why they voted the way they did on a particular film, one way or another. He even cites the eerie similarities to the CIA and how Covert Intelligence operates. He also manages to interview a few former MPAA raters and appeals board members who reveal even religious figures are apart of the ratings process; One Catholic priest; One Protestant Priest and are apart of the appeals process on a full-time basis.

......

What I found shocking and very disturbing is while this organization is just rating movies... And most unrated versions are available on DVD... The bigger role they play in U.S. society is that of an official censor because they have the power to deny the public access to any film they deem inappropriate by simply giving it an unfavorable rating such as the NC-17 which will limit it to small art house theaters and or direct-to-DVD. The more disturbing part about this, IMO, is the film cites ther are no real standards to why one film is rated one way and another film rated a different way (for better or worse) and it all comes down to personal opinion which is censorship in its purest form because it is not objective by default. Add in the religious influences and you can see where objectivity can be further lost and why this organization seems horribly archaic and almost from the Dark Ages compared to progressive societies in the 21st Century.

I figured this would be the perfect companion to a discussion that was started almost three years ago...

The Ratings System - Does it Work?

...Because this film is about the very ratings system we were discussing earlier.

:)
 
Back
Top