... Rated:
This Film is Not Yet Rated
By IFQ Critic Todd Konrad
For the past forty years, American cinema has been governed by the now familiar MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America). As a so-called improvement to the previous Production Code, the MPAA is marketed under the premise that it is a “voluntary” system for filmmakers to submit their films to in order to receive a rating (ranging from family friendly G to the most restrictive NC-17 which designates explicit sexual content). However, what was never revealed before was how this supposedly “voluntary” system was and to a greater extent tantamount to censorship. Documentary filmmaker Kirby Dick was brave enough however to dive headfirst into the absurd and secretive world of the MPAA with his work This Film is Not Yet Rated, ironically earning the film an NC-17 rating itself.
Dick’s overall strategy essentially boils down to shedding light both on the organization itself as well as the myriad of hypocrisies that it reinforces. One of the first points made is the stringent secrecy under which the MPAA functions. Its raters are touted to be average parents of school age children according to the group’s officials, including former figurehead and Washington lobbyist Jack Valenti. Yet the identities of these individuals are kept under wraps. Moreover, no other experts such as psychologists, film critics, etc. are allowed into the proceedings; individuals who could provide proper context and perspective on films under review are barred from participation.
Yet this is only the tip of the iceberg, as both Dick and the viewer discover. In addition to the lack of transparency in the initial review process, the director also discovers that no standard criteria exist for the raters to abide by. Therefore, films that easily straddle the fence between less and more restrictive ratings can often be placed into a category truly unrepresentative and as many filmmakers know getting an NC-17 is essentially the kiss of death. An NC-17 rating essentially entails box office failure as few theater owners are willing to screen a film sighted as containing explicit sexual content or films that do not submit to the ratings board altogether and are released without an official rating. A myriad of independent filmmakers including Atom Egoyan, Kimberly Peirce, John Waters, Kevin Smith and Wayne Kramer among others are interviewed giving testimony to the struggles they endured when projects they submitted for a rating were slapped with an NC-17.
Their experiences are united by the board’s vehement objections to the sexual content their films contained. For example, Kimberly Peirce talks about notes she received from the board concerning what designated her breakthrough film, Boys Don’t Cry, as an NC-17 film. She tells Dick that one of the comments she received was that a female character’s orgasm was lasting too long within a particular scene. Struck by the inane oddness of this particular gripe, Peirce then says that she realized that what the board was actually opposed to was the brazen display of a woman’s sexual pleasure whereas most Hollywood fare tends to focus on the man’s pleasure but practically ignores the woman.
In addition, Dick illustrates the bias against overt homosexuality through a clever montage in which similar scenes depicting the same sex acts are played side by side. However, the scene depicting a particular act engaged between two member of the same sex instantly earned an NC-17, whereas the very same act between a heterosexual couple more often than not skirted away with an R. Further adding to the extreme bias against honest, cinematic portrayals of sex is the MPAA’s policy of treating extreme violence with R ratings when certain scenes clearly belong to a far more restrictive category.
What Dick also notices is that the MPAA tends to align itself with the major studios in opposition to the independent film scene by either providing weaker ratings for studio fare than its respective independent counterparts; or giving the studio producers very specific notes as to what to change to guarantee a weaker rating whereas independent producers are provided with fairly vague suggestions as to what to cut. Aiding Dick in his investigation is his own team of real life detectives, a pair of lesbian private detectives aided by one of the women’s nieces. While an undeniable comedic element arises from their stakeouts and cloak and dagger exploits, it shows just how difficult it is for regular people to gain information about the organization.
A further strand is explored when at a certain point Dick submits his film to the MPAA for its own rating. Not surprisingly, the film ends up being slapped with an NC-17 which allows the filmmaker to experience for himself the same difficulties that his interview subjects faced when appealing to the board for a ratings change. By the film’s end, Dick does strike a blow by revealing the identities of the then-current ratings board as a way of shining some light into a system designed and maintained to be more secretive than the CIA.
The film’s real value has come in post script when the controversy over the film’s release and subject matter led to real change occurring within the MPAA itself. While spokespeople told the media that it was planning on adjusting its standards anyway, no one doubts the pressure the film placed on the MPAA to change its ways. For example, one new change allows filmmakers to cite scenes from other films akin to questionable ones in their own work when appealing which the film stated was not allowed before. In the end, This Film is Not Yet Rated lives up to the oft-stated aim of conscious filmmaking to bring about change. While the full extent of change may not have been earth shattering, it still shows that a little movie with a goal and the guts to pursue it to the end can indeed succeed.
For more information on this title, go to www.ifcfilms.com
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
