This Film Is Not Yet Rated

by Greg Luther

As far as reviews go, this is a pretty tough one for me to write. As a critic I always try to be as objective as possible and review a film on its own merits, while keeping my personal feelings to a minimal influence. Certainly a review in and of itself is an expression of opinion, so naturally there will always be spill-over from a critic's individual tastes, but in a case where a film deals with a subject that conjures so much bile and venom (like say, the MPAA does for me), it becomes a tricky tightrope to walk. As such, the ultimate question for a reviewer to answer regarding a documentary like This Film is Not Yet Rated regardless of their stance on the issue is simply "How well does the film present its argument?" The answer it turns out is "extremely well". If director Kirby Dick is the preacher, I'm certainly the choir, but I can't imagine anyone walking away from this film without becoming very skeptical of the effectiveness of the current ratings system of the Motion Picture Association of America.

The film opens with a nice little twist on the familiar "green band" that precedes theatrical trailers that fooled me into reaching for my remote. It's a clever way to establish the film's playfully adversarial tone. From there we get a very brief glimpse at the history of the ratings system followed by an explanation of the ratings and a list of directors who have received the dreaded NC-17, which doubles as a "who's who" of Hollywood filmmakers. As the film explains, said rating serves to alert parents and protect children from everything from "senior citizen gangbangs to Pedro Almodovar foreign films", but as we soon see there is much more to both the application and implications of this particular rating. As most film fans are aware, all major theater chains in the US, Wal-mart, and Blockbuster Video refuse to carry movies with an NC-17 rating, which translates to very few people having an opportunity to see a film given this rating. We're introduced to many people who have experienced the rating in varying ways including Boys Don't Cry director Kimberly Peirce and Newsweek writer David Ansen, but the first interviewee that really perked my ears up was "South Park" creator Matt Stone. Apparently after receiving an NC-17 on the indie comedy, Orgazmo, the filmmakers asked what would need to be changed in order to lower the rating. The answer they received was that they would get no such specifics, because that would make the MPAA a censoring board. Flash forward a few years when the same problem arose with South Park: Bigger: Longer, and Uncut (a Paramount film), and this time a detailed list of the offending scenes was promptly provided.

The next step after we've heard the offenses of the MPAA ratings board is to find out a little more about them. That proves to be a little easier said than done however as the identities of the board members are kept strictly confidential, which gives the MPAA the distinction of being the only ratings board in the world without known members. The reason for this confidentiality according to longtime MPAA president Jack Valenti is to protect the raters from outside influence. In actuality ratings are often discussed with the studios. Seems like that would be the number one source of influence they are supposedly hiding from. So what does documentarian Kirby Dick do to learn more about this secret society? Why hire a private investigator of course. Even for a trained professional though, this investigation is no easy feat. The MPAA headquarters is locked up about as tight as Fort Knox, making it rather hard to find out anything about the people working inside. The detective work that follows is nothing short of remarkable to watch. When I sat down to watch a documentary about film ratings, I can't say that I was expecting to get spy exploits as fun to watch as the average Hollywood thriller, except in this case the added reality makes the big reveals (such as the fact that almost none of the raters have children between 5 and 17, despite what we are told) all the more exciting.

After the ratings board is dealt with, it's time to address the equally elusive appeals board. The documentary itself is submitted to the MPAA for a rating and (big surprise) it's slapped with an NC-17. Yes, the film that takes direct aim at the biases of the MPAA's ratings system is given its strictest rating, ensuring that most theaters in the country will not carry it. I myself was very excited to see the film when it was originally released, but was forced to wait until DVD because of the restrictive rating. In fact, I was even in Manhattan for a time while the film was in theaters, but even there it was only playing in one theater and it was not one that was easy for an out-of-towner such as myself to find. In an attempt to combat this (admittedly expected) rating Dick takes the film to the MPAA's appeals board and finds just as many contradictions and conflicts of interest. The appeals board is similarly confidential, and again the private investigator is employed to find their identities. The findings here are even more shocking, as the board turns out to be made up of high ranking representatives of various studios and theater chains, as well as two clergy members: one Episcopalian and one Catholic who both take active part in the discussions and get votes. That last tidbit absolutely floored me. Even with the deck stacked this much against the appealing party, they must make a case without using any precedent whatsoever (i.e. one cannot bring up any scene in a previously rated film).

I have to say, the subject matter for this documentary is right up my alley, but I was not expecting the film to be as enjoyable a viewing experience as it turned out to be. I found myself laughing out loud several times in the film (particularly during the animated ratings briefing with its outline of the way various uses of the word "fuck" would be rated), and like I mentioned earlier, the investigation scenes are quite entertaining to watch. What I really wasn't expecting though, was how many surprises the film had in store for me. I had read up quite a bit on the film before finally seeing it, so I thought I knew everything it had in store, but it turned out I'd underestimated just how much the current system stinks. For example you might not be surprised to hear that scenes of homosexual sex are rated tougher than heterosexual sex. While we may not agree with it, certainly there are many people in this country who would find one more offensive than the other. However, I bet you would be surprised to hear that the film But I'm a Cheerleader was given an NC-17 rating because of a scene featuring a teenage lesbian masturbating, which was similar to any number of scenes of heterosexual masturbation in R rated films. There are many more shocking facts to be found in this film (and I have pages of notes I could go through), but I think I've sold it enough. Highly recommended for anyone with an interest in film, especially those who plan to pursue a career in the industry.