Home | Movies By Year | Movies from 2006
This Film Is Not Yet Rated
Buy This Film Is Not Yet Rated now from AmazonFirst, read the Wikipedia article. Then, scroll down to see what other TopShelfReviews readers thought about the movie. And once you've experienced the movie, tell everyone what you thought about it.
Wikipedia article
'This Film Is Not Yet Rated' is a 2006 American documentary film about the Motion Picture Association of America's rating system and its effect on American culture, directed by Kirby Dick and produced by Eddie Schmidt. It premiered at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival and received a limited theatrical release on September 1, 2006. IFC, the film's distributor, aired the film later that year. As it includes numerous clips from films rated NC-17 to illustrate content that had garnered the rating, the MPAA rated an early version of the film NC-17 due to "some graphic sexual content". Dick appealed this rating so he could chronicle both the rating and appeals process of the early version of the film in the final version, which, true to the title, is not rated.
The film discusses a number of alleged disparities in the ratings the MPAA gives films and the feedback it gives filmmakers based on whether the project is a studio or independent film, whether the questionable content is violent or sexual in nature, and whether sexual content is heterosexual or homosexual and centers on pleasure.
Themes and discussion
Much of the film's press coverage was devoted to Dick and his crew's use of private investigator Becky Altringer to unmask the identities of the ratings and appeals board members.
Other revelations in the film include:
* That many ratings board members either have children 18 and older or have no children at all (typically, the MPAA has suggested it hires only parents with children between the ages of 5 and 17)
* That the board seems to treat homosexual material much more harshly than heterosexual material (this assertion is supported by an MPAA spokespersons statement in 'USA Today' that "We don't create standards; we just follow them")
* That some sexual activities are frequently treated more harshly when it involves female orgasm or nontraditional sexual activities
* That NC-17 ratings often significantly reduce a film's chances of success at the box office and overall commercial success, because many movie theaters will not show NC-17 films, and, if they do, it is for very limited time periods
* That NC-17 ratings are also harmful to home media sales, as many brick and mortar retailers do not rent or sell NC-17 or unrated movies
* That harsher film ratings are particularly detrimental to smaller and independent filmmakers, who often do not have the financial and professional support of major distribution companies
* That the board's raters receive no training and are deliberately chosen because of their lack of expertise in media literacy or child development
* That senior raters have direct contact in the form of mandatory meetings with studio personnel after movie screenings
* That the MPAA's appeals board is just as secretive as the ratings board, its members being mostly movie theater chain and studio executives
* That the appeals board includes two members of the clergy, one Catholic priest (Father Dave) and one Protestant (James Wall), who may or may not have voting power
The film sparked some interest in the press when the MPAA rated it NC-17 for "some graphic sexual content". Then, when it premiered at Sundance, it was discovered that the rating process for an early version of the film and Dicks appeal of that rating were depicted in the finished film. As the additional footage changed the film significantly, the NC-17 could no longer be used for the finished film, which would need to be resubmitted to the MPAA to receive a rating of its own. It never was, however, so the film was released without a rating.
After Sundance, the film went on to draw crowds at many other festivals, including South by Southwest and the Seattle International Film Festival, and received a theatrical release in fall 2006.
Interviews
Those interviewed in the film include:
* Kimberly Peirce, Director of 'Boys Don't Cry'
* Jon Lewis, Author of 'Hollywood v. Hardcore' (and film professor at Oregon State University)
* David Ansen, Film Critic at 'Newsweek'
* Martin Garbus, First Amendment Attorney and Filmmakers Representative at Appeals
* Wayne Kramer, Director of 'The Cooler'
* Paul Dergarabedian, Box Office Analyst (Media by Numbers)
* Kevin Smith, Director of 'Clerks' and 'Jersey Girl'
* John Waters, Director of 'A Dirty Shame'
* Matt Stone, Producer of 'Orgazmo', 'South Park', and 'Team America: World Police'
* Richard Heffner, Former Rating Board Chairman
* Bingham Ray, Co-Founder of October Films (and former president of United Artists)
* Joel Federman, Author of 'Media Ratings'
* Jay Landers, Former MPAA Rater
* Stephen Farber, Former MPAA Rater
* Dottie Hamilton, PhD, Author of 'Hollywood's Silent Partner'
* Maria Bello, Actress in 'The Cooler'
* Mark Urman, Head of ThinkFilm (U.S. Theatrical)
* Allison Anders, Director of 'Gas Food Lodging'
* Mary Harron, Director of 'American Psycho'
* Jamie Babbit, Director of 'But I'm a Cheerleader'
* Darren Aronofsky, Director of 'Requiem for a Dream'
* Dr. Theresa Webb, Southern California Prevention Research Center at UCLA
* Michael Tucker, Co-Director of 'Gunner Palace'
* David L. Robb, Author of 'Operation Hollywood'
* Lawrence Lessig, Copyright Attorney and Author (and law professor at Stanford Law School)
* Atom Egoyan, Director of 'Where the Truth Lies'
* Michael McClellan, Appeals Board Member
* James Wall, Appeals Board Clergy Member since 1968
MPAA rating board
According to the investigation depicted in the film, the following people were, as of 2006, members of the MPAA rating board, also known as CARA (Classification and Rating Administration). (Included is the personal information the film revealed about them, such as their age, the age of their children, and how long they had been on the board. These details were significant in the context of the film's critique of the MPAA ratings process, as the MPAA had said (according to the film) that the review board was composed of average American parents, with children between the ages of 5 and 17, who serve on the board for fewer than seven years.):
* Head of the Board: Joan Graves (the only member of the board whose identity the MPAA had already made public)
* Anthony "Tony" Hey 61; age of children: 16, 28, 30
* Barry Freeman 45; elementary-school-aged children
* Arlene Bates 44; age of children: 15 and 23
* Matt Ioakimedes 46; age of children: 17 and 20 (had served as a rater for 9 years, as of 2005)
* Joan Worden 56; age of children: 18 (twins)
* Scott Young 51; age of children: 22 and 24 (next-door neighbor of Arlene Bates)
* Joann Yatabe 61; age of children: 22 and 25
* Howard Friedkin 47; no children? (aspiring screenwriter)
* Corri Jones age of children: 3 and 8
MPAA appeals board
According to the investigation depicted in the film, the following people were, as of 2006, members of the MPAA appeals board:
* Matt Brandt, President, Trans-Lux Theaters
* Pete Cole, film buyer, The Movie Experience
* Bruce Corwin, chairman and CEO, Metropolitan Theatres
* Alan Davy, film buyer, Regal Entertainment Group
* Mike Doban, president, Arcangelo Entertainment
* Harry Forbes, representative, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
* Steve Gilula, CEO, Fox Searchlight Pictures
* Frank Haffar, COO, Maya Cinemas
* John Lodigian, vice president of sales, Sony Pictures
* Michael McClellan, vice president and film buyer, Landmark Theatres
* Milton Moritz, CA/NV chapter president, North American Theatre Owners
* James Wall, United Methodist Church minister[http://wallwritings.me/about-wallwritings/ James Wall's blog] representative, National Council of Churches
* Len Westenberg, VP of operations, west coast division, Loews Cineplex Theatres
* Jonathan Wolf, Managing Director, American Film Market
Fair use
'This Film Is Not Yet Rated' incorporates clips from a number of films to illustrate its criticisms of the MPAA rating board. Dick had originally planned to license the clips from their owners, but discovered that studio licensing agreements would have prohibited him from using this material to criticize the entertainment industry. This prompted him, alongside prominent copyright attorney Michael C. Donaldson, to invoke the fair use doctrine, which permits limited use of copyrighted material to provide analysis and criticism of published works. The film's success using this tactic spurred interest in fair use, especially among documentary filmmakers.
MPAA infringements
Before Dick sent the film to the MPAA to receive a rating, he was assured that the tape he submitted would not be viewed for any purpose other than rating and that no copies would be made or distributed, but, on January 24, 2006, the MPAA admitted to making duplicates of the film contrary to Dick's wishes.[https://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/01/6036.ars MPAA admits to unauthorized movie copying] However, they contended that doing so did not constitute copyright infringement or a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and said the privacy of the raters themselves might have been violated by Dick in the course of making the film, but no complaint had been filed against him. Dick's lawyer, Michael Donaldson, requested that the MPAA destroy all copies of the film in their possession and notify him of who had seen the film and received copies.[http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060126/SCANNERS/60126015 MPAA accused of DVD piracy]
The DVD release of the film contains deleted scenes that show phone calls where Dick was assured by representatives of the MPAA that no copy would be made, as well as the one during which he found out that a copy had indeed been created.
Reception
On review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film has a "Certified Fresh" approval rating of 84% based on 118 reviews, and an average rating of 7.20; the critics consensus calls it: "A fascinating and entertaining film that will open many eyes to the often-questioned tactics of the MPAA and their ratings system." On Metacritic the film has a score of 75 based on reviews from 33 critics.
At Sundance, the film received a standing ovation and a wave of favorable coverage by major publications. The magazines 'Rolling Stone' ("terrific...indispensable"), 'Entertainment Weekly' ("irresistible"), and 'USA Today' ("rated R for raves"), as well as journalists such as Roger Ebert ("devastating") and 'Film Comment's Gavin Smith ("incisive") praised the film for its novel techniques and unprecedented revelations that dispute longstanding MPAA statements about the ratings system.
Some critics disliked the film. David Poland of 'Movie City News' wrote: "Even though it speaks to a subject I think is very importantthe failures of the rating system and, specifically the NC-17the tough, smart research just isn't in the film." 'Boxoffice', a magazine dedicated to the financial side of movie exhibition, wrote that 'This Film Is Not Yet Rated' only made a passing mention to the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO), which was a co-founder of the ratings system (the focus of the film was on the MPAA). In its two-part essay, 'Boxoffice' also called the documentary "willfully distorted."
Accolades
See also
* MPAA film rating system
References
Buy This Film Is Not Yet Rated now from Amazon
<-- Return to movies from 2006