This Film Is Not Yet Rated

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 29 Aug 2006, 12:14

Documentary about the MPAA ratings system:

Trailer/Info page:

http://www3.ifctv.com/thisfilm/about.php

"This Film Is Not Yet Rated" is a documentary from Academy Award-nominated director Kirby Dick and producer Eddie Schmidt - a breakthrough investigation into the MPAA film ratings system and its profound effect on American culture.

The documentary asks whether Hollywood movies and independent films are rated equally for comparable content; whether sexual content in gay-themed movies is given harsher ratings penalties than their heterosexual counterparts; whether it makes sense that extreme violence is given an R rating while sexuality is banished to the cutting room floor; whether Hollywood studios receive detailed directions as to how to change an NC-17 film into an R, while independent film producers are left guessing; and finally, whether keeping the raters and the rating process secret leaves the MPAA entirely unaccountable for its decisions.

"This Film Is Not Yet Rated" was kept under wraps by the filmmakers during more than a year of research into the MPAA's rating practices. Director Kirby Dick ("Twist of Faith," "Derrida") interviews filmmakers, critics, attorneys, authors and educators. Ultimately, Dick tries to uncover Hollywood's best-kept secret - the identities of the ratings board members themselves.

Filmmakers who speak candidly in "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" include John Waters ("A Dirty Shame"), Kevin Smith ("Clerks"), Matt Stone ("South Park"), Kimberly Peirce ("Boys Don't Cry"), Atom Egoyan ("Where the Truth Lies"), Darren Aronofsky ("Requiem for a Dream"), Mary Harron ("American Psycho"), actress Maria Bello ("The Cooler") and distributor Bingham Ray (co-founder, October Films and former President, United Artists).

THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED
Director Kirby Dick and Producer Eddie Schmidt

http://www3.ifctv.com/thisfilm/info.php

[/quote]

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 29 Aug 2006, 16:30

Sounds really interesting... I'll definitely be keeping an eye out for this.
Good catch, mate

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 29 Aug 2006, 16:55

Seen this at the EIFF, with the director there for a Q&A.

(Yes yes I know you're all jealous of my vast superiority - just live with it).

I'd give this a 4/5. I wrote a review on the review thread somewhere.

The film ended up being rated NC-17 but was released unrated in a few independant theatres. Shame as I doubt it'll have the same impact of 9/11 and Supersize Me.

The MPAA are probably the most incompatant board of members I've ever seen (judging by the information in this documentary). The BBFC are a hell of a lot more professional.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 29 Aug 2006, 18:12

I think I heard on the radio the film is an 18 over here - because of a few clips from 18 films I think, but the guy being interviewed (on the "Front Row" programme) said most of the footage would get a 15 - something like that

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 29 Aug 2006, 21:48

Nah it's definitely 18 rated material.... but a bbfc 18 certificate is not as damaging as an NC-17.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 31 Aug 2006, 09:16

True.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 01 Sep 2006, 20:51

Unrated DVDs have made this film's subject matter redundant.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 01 Sep 2006, 21:30

No they haven't.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 02 Sep 2006, 07:22

The film also looks at why are smaller studios given less guidance than the big boys and treated differently, why is sex treated much more harshly than violence etc. That won't change just because of Unrated DVDs. And Unrated still has a stigma attatched to it as opposed to 18 over here.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 04 Sep 2006, 08:12

Pfft. So your Unrated DVDs aren't carried by family-friendly video chains like Blockbuster, big whoop. The Unrated cut gimmick is a roaring success, based on the volume of "unrated" DVDs which studios churn out.

MPAA rulings are getting ever more redundant by the day.

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 04 Sep 2006, 17:34

EvaUnit02 wrote:Unrated DVDs have made this film's subject matter redundant.

Wrong again. The double standards of the MPAA and their bias towards large media giants (as many of them are members and wealthy contributors to the MPAA) mean that the NC-17 label is a deathwish for the smaller independant labels.

Kevin Smith was so sure that Clerks II would be an NC-17. However it received an R rating instead, probably because of the studio he works for and a more commerical rating means bigger revenues for the MPAA.

Now imagine if a small independant label made a film similar to Clerks II. Would it have been as lucky? Aye right. An NC-17 rating would mean next to zero publicity, subsequently resulting in low DVD sales (despite being unrated) because no one would know about it.

What's exceptionally cheeky is if the rest of the world has to suffer due to the MPAA's uptightness. The Cooler, Scream, Desperados were all censored by the MPAA and released in a cut state worldwide.

'This Film is Not Yet Rated' was rated an NC-17 but released unrated in selected theatres. Word of mouth is the only strength this film has of generating interest.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 04 Sep 2006, 17:49

As a little postscript to that, almost all of Smith's films had initially received an NC-17, because he wasn't considered to have as much clout as he does now, and as Bisc has pointed out, the revenue. Clerks II probably contains the most reasons of all of his films to be an NC-17, yet came through immediately with an R rating.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 07 Sep 2006, 04:18

This does looks look very interesting and it's what I've known for years. Particularly in the case of:

"whether sexual content in gay-themed movies is given harsher ratings penalties than their heterosexual counterparts; whether it makes sense that extreme violence is given an R rating while sexuality is banished to the cutting room floor"

I'd really hate to be a parent in America and have to make an informed decision on whether a film is safe for my child to watch. How I'm supposed to decide when a PG-13 film in a slightly amended form is given an Unrated DVD I don't know.

By giving it no certificate period (how can this possibly be legal?) makes it impossible for me the viewer to have any idea if it's suitable.

Any news on a UK release date? I bet the MPAA were pissed when they found out.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 07 Sep 2006, 05:11

You can sign the petition, I have:

http://www3.ifctv.com/thisfilm/petition.php

And a proper trailer:

http://www.killermovies.com/t/thisfilmisnotyetrated/

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 08 Sep 2006, 00:26

Has anyone else signed the petition? My added comments:

I've thought for years the MPAA was a complete joke:

1. The already mentioned stance on violence vs. nudity. The director of "Broken English" put it well: "To me, there is something wrong with the system which tells us that exposure to acts of violence will leave young audiences untainted while exposure to acts of love will somehow corrupt them." In short extreme violence gets an R rating but pubic hair (how more tame can you get?) get an NC-17. What possible harm could pubic hair do to anyone? We all have it after a certain age.
2. The rating logo being so stupidly small. I often think I'm not supposed to find it.
3. The NC-17 rating is completely pointless. Why bother with a rating you effectively are unable to use?
4. I'd really hate to be a parent in America and have to make an informed decision on whether a film is safe for my child to watch. How I'm supposed to decide when a PG-13 film in a slightly amended form is given an Unrated DVD I don't know.

By giving it no certificate period (how can this possibly be legal?) makes it impossible for me the viewer to have any idea if it's suitable.

Thankfully I from the UK (while much more conservative by French, Spanish and Dutch standards) live with a classification board that at least is professional and crucially changes with the times. The BBFC is much more lenient than it ever has been before. I can live of a raft of uncut sexual films in the UK but either cut or NC-17'ed in the USA.

This wouldn't be so bad if it was not for the fact the MPAA approved cut often makes it's way worldwide so my censors are not even allowed to see the true director's cut. Take "The Cooler" for example. I've no doubt it would've passed uncut in Europe but we were denied the opportunity.

Basic Instinct cut in the USA but thankfully always uncut in the UK. It's since been released Unrated in the USA.

The NC-17 rating strongly needs to be changed to a rating that can actually be used.

On another note I can't wait to see this documentary. Like I said it says what I've thought for years anyway, that is except I didn't realise it was the MPAA who were a big reason behind why many Indie films really suffer to get released. It's a sad fact American movies are thought of as being dumb, stupid and play to the lowest common dominator. Shame when many films I'm sure (judged by the fact of the Indie films that do get through) really could change people's opinions of American films.

So you see this is not just an American issue where in a world where we live that the American Government/media truly does control.

I hope the American government finally does something about this!

p.s - It's very interesting to see many of the comments are from California, shame the rest of America isn't more liberal. Wake up middle America we no longer live in the 1900 century.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 08 Sep 2006, 06:30

bradavon wrote: 1. The already mentioned stance on violence vs. nudity. The director of "Broken English"

You talking about the Kiwi film, Broken English? That was utter tosh. Marton Csokas is a total block of wood, especially so when he acted in NZ films and television.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 08 Sep 2006, 17:32

What was cut from The Cooler?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 04 Nov 2006, 18:30

Maria Bello pubic hair or to be precise a clear shot of her pussy. The sad thing is if they'd submitted the uncut print to the rest of the world (namely Europe, including the UK) it's likely it would've passed uncut.

I saw this last night and this segment is one of the ones discussed. IF Maria Bello clearly has no problem with it then why should anyone else.

It's a decent documentary btw a definite recommendation. It would've been better if they'd spent more time comparing the MPAA to other censorship boards and yes it does go off course when they start discussing piracy but otherwise it's decent.

To not know the names of the people who you're appealing against is downright illegal, you'd think. To not also be told why your film got a rating (which the BBFC do tell you) as it would the mean censorship is downright wrong.

I couldn't believe it when the two members from the clergy were allowed to vote or when a film already agreed to be an R rating still got cut to be a "better" R rating, What! :shock:

The rape in Boy's Don't Cry I can't believe the MPAA want to cut completely, they also wanted two lesser cuts but to cut that entire scene you'd lose a BIG chunk of the meaning of the film. At least it was left uncut in Europe!

The whole MPAA board is a joke.

To have a rating such as the NC-17 which means financial nightmare because only a handful of cinemas, rental stores etc . . . will stock it is a complete joke. What's the point in a rating you can't use?

The BBFC maybe to tight at times but at least the UK (actual) rating system is very good, one of the best in the world IMO. The levels are perfect, especially now we have 12A.

I did have a big grin when they found out who the raters were

Will this documentary change anything? I doubt it and that's the sad fact.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 09 Jan 2007, 18:31

The DVD is out the 23rd of January:

http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/ ... rated.html

I'll be getting it. That is the actual cover art. I wondered.

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 09 Jan 2007, 22:14

It's a US DVD release so yup - they'll have to live with censored artwork. I mock them now but I'll be pwned if the UK release has the same art.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 09 Jan 2007, 22:16

It was "censored" on purpose dude, since this is a film about censorship

The UK DVD will have the same art I'd think.

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 09 Jan 2007, 22:19

grim_tales wrote:It was "censored" on purpose dude, since this is a film about censorship

No it was censored to protect the innocent eyes of the American public. I've seen the original uncensored artwork (for its theatrical release) - where some text is branded onto the woman's bare buttcheek.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 09 Jan 2007, 23:22

BiscLimpkit wrote:It's a US DVD release so yup - they'll have to live with censored artwork. I mock them now but I'll be pwned if the UK release has the same art.

I thought that but as Grim says it's deliberate. I suspect you're also right that it was convenient.

It's not as if the censorship is subtle.

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 10 Jan 2007, 18:05

Aye it's deliberately censored due to nudity... not because they were trying to be clever.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 11 Jan 2007, 00:50

BiscLimpkit wrote:Aye it's deliberately censored due to nudity... not because they were trying to be clever.

That's just a presumption made by you. You have no real proof either way to say that it was deliberate censorship or them being ironic.