MovieChat Forums > This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2006) Discussion > Here's my review, very shocking document...

Here's my review, very shocking documentary..

posted 14 years ago by FatmanReviewing
23 replies | jump to latest

http://fatman-reviewing.blogspot.com/2010/06/this-film-is-not-yet-rated-2006.html

Just as 2009's "Food, Inc." exposed the inner workings of America's corporate controlled food industry, "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" exposes the terrifying inner workings of the MPAA and how American medias (of all sorts, not just theatrical) are being controlled by a small group of people and corporations.

Something to be appreciated with this documentary is that, just like "Food, Inc." (I compare the two because they have similar agendas for different mediums) it takes a headstrong approach to a problem that not too many people think about. The rating system for our media has been around for over sixty years now and it's simply become so normal that nobody questions the way it works or how it's possibly very flawed. "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" also doesn't shy away from using frowned upon tactics in order to get the answers it wants the audience to see for themselves. While some may consider this trickery a bit unfair, I believe most should see it as a means to the end. A majority of people don't know what really goes in to the rating systems or how much controversy there is behind the progress; but they should. The amount of sexism and unjust actions were kept in secret before this documentary's release and for good reason. The documentary also briefly touches down on topics beyond the rating system and into territory such as piracy, the contradictions of MPAA policy, and how the rating appeal process filmmakers have to go through is shockingly unjust.

The direction of the film is a little bit choppy every now and then, and if you're not into documentaries you might find it overall a tad boring; especially if you're not familiar with the film industry. There's plenty of shocking interviews and humorous transitions to keep most entertained, I believe. Personally I found it extremely intriguing, very educational and quite disturbing at times. And after some research I discovered that the film doesn't lose it's educational value either, even after being almost six years old. All the information is still up-to-date and spot on. Also, if you're highly conservative I suggest staying clear of the film because there is an abundance of adult-themed, R-NC-17 rated clips from films ranging between 1970 and the 2000s; in order to help the filmmakers get their point across. Though I would also recommend trying to stomach these scenes because they aren't put in the documentary for lewd purposes; simply to make comparisons on unfair judgments made by the MPAA.

Overall this is a documentary I highly suggest seeing simply to update personal knowledge about a system that affects more than some may realize. Rather you're a conspiracy theorist or someone who simply enjoys learning about the inner workings of life, this is an important documentary to the world of film and to Americans in general. There's always a good chance you could walk away from the experience with a refreshed frame of mind or even an updated one. And again, like "Food, Inc.", even if you don't get anything from it, at least you learned something new.

"I haven’t seen this film but its going to be rubbish." - TiggerPromfit

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] FatmanReviewing 14 years ago

That causes me to lose credibility? I do find it terrifying, as I did with Food, Inc. It's terrifying in the way that most people have no idea how it's done or the impact it has on American media. Plenty of critics described the film as disturbing, terrifying, etc. Go back into your corner little boy.

"I haven’t seen this film but its going to be rubbish." - TiggerPromfit

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] remerkwehttam 14 years ago

I would encourage you to watch this documentary, which you obviously have not done--stating the viewpoint that you did. Regardless of whether a movie is child appropriate or not (note, there are many different ages of child), receiving an NC-17 rating seriously limits the ability to release a movie theatrically. The MPAA's rating system is so inconsistent, NOT transparent (the only secret movie rating system in the WORLD) and lies about so many other "facts" it states to the public. Such as the length of terms raters serve (supposedly a max of 7 years, but obviously not true) and saying that all the raters are "average parents" even though some of them aren't even parents. And who's to say what an "average parent" is supposed to be? Especially with the secrecy aspect of the MPAA's rater group. There is really truly no easy way to accurately represent the American parental demographic and it is impossible without any transparency.

Why don't we have an actual set of guidelines stating what types and amounts of specific, possibly objectionable, content mark a limit for a certain level of rating? Why have a rating that seriously limits a movies theatrical release, even to adults? Oh, and I won't even mention how disturbing it is that the MPAA favors violence over sexuality. Like one of the interviewees said in this documentary, that the usage of violent death without blood has desensitized many to the effects of what happens when someone is shot and in the long run created a society with a military drive. Why include violence if you are not going to represent it for what it truly is?

The MPAA is honestly corrupt. I'm going to cite a piece from this movie, say for example your movie is rating NC-17. Now, naturally you may want to appeal this rating. So, you request an appeals meeting to review the rating of your movie that you submitted. Now, this is NOT a secret board and it should be known to the person appealing their movie for re-rating who exactly is making this decision, but it is not. And worst of all! You CANNOT cite previous ratings of movies by the MPAA as grounds for a change in the rating of your movie! HOW does that make sense? For example one might argue: "In movie X there is a scene where you see a brief glimpse of the actress' breast and it was rated PG-13. In my movie there is a very similar shot. Why is that shot in my movie then a basis for the R rating it was given?" That seems like a perfectly logical way to contend reasons that were stated for your movie getting a higher rating, but is isn't allowed.

So, yes, it is terrifying.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ThatPeskyGhostWriter 14 years ago

Let's not get lost in the diction, I think FatmanReviewing, has a solid point. There's huge implications in what this film presents. We could take the easy route and undermine the voice of artists and brush it off as problems unworthy of attention. However, moving past that, it is alarming to see how society can be molded through something as "rating panels."

I said what I meant and I meant what I said...An elephant's faithful--one hundred percent!

[–] almighty_cinder 14 years ago

Before you try and pull that "not seeing it" crap, I saw it on Cinemax or IFC a few years ago.

NC-17 limits a film's commercial value. If these so-called artists actually were only concerned with their art, they wouldn't give a damn how much their movie makes. The studio gave them money to make their movie, and they made it. Their part is over. How much it makes is the studio's problem now.

Violence over sex? The last time I checked, movie violence is fake. Unless you're watching an illegal snuff film, everything you see is either a condom full of fake blood attached to a small explosive, a manaquin full of fake blood, or red scribbles on a computer, no matter how realistic it looks. Kate Winslett's boobs and ass when she's raping the teenager in her Nazi movie? Not a manaquin the last time I checked.

Also, you saw the movie in the same mindset that Kirby was in when he filmed it: knowing full well how you would react to what you'd see. Honestly, I didn't even see it as a documentary, it was just an angry rant. Take Penn & Teller's Showtime show with a title I can't post here. No matter how biased they are about each episodes subject, they still show the viewpoint of the other side. Kirby never did. He showed his viewpoint, and lots and lots of filmmakers and actors that shared his viewpoint. Afterall, if he showed someone else's view it might undermine his.

Going back to what I said about NC-17s, it would've been interesting to hear from Matthew Barney, an actual artist that shows his movies for one week in arthouses, never releases them on DVD, and the only other place you can see them after their innitial week is in the Gugenheim. He does not submit his movies to the MPAA because he fully doesn't care if the general public can see them at their local multiplex, because that's not what art is about. The director of the gay spoof movie clearly didn't have that mindset. He may have told Kirby that he was angry about the NC-17 for art reasons, but he wasn't. He clearly thought he made a movie that could make him as much money as American Pie made, and was pissy because he knew that only arthouse theatres would carry it.

One of the main things that bothered me in the movie were the inaruracies. When comparing the masturbathion scenes in But I'm a Cheerleader and American Pie, he tried to make the arguement that Natasha Leone's masturbation scene was graded harder that Jason Biggs's pie scene because they're afraid of female pleasure... which would'ver been all well and good if they had showed the correct scene. In the theatrical (R rated) cut of American Pie, the pie scen is shown with Biggs standing up facing the wall, pants fully up, with his belt loose. He vaguely moves around. He turns around when his dad comes in and still holds the pie in front of himself. In the unrated cut (that the MPAA did give an NC-17 to) he is laying on the table, face down, with the pie under him. He pants are around his ankles with his shirt covering his butt. Naturally, they compared Natasha's scene with the second scene. I don't know if that was due to shoddy research or if it was done intentionally to mislead the viewer.

Another scene had the arguement with 'real' violence and PG-13 violence, which was such a moronic discussion to being with I shouldn't even have to point anything out to begin with, but still. How they can think that a soldier getting eviscerated should be graded less harshly than Tom Arnold dodging bullets from behind a street light is beyond me, but whatever. The main problem was that the scenes from Saving Private Ryan and True Lies... despite both being rated R. If he wanted to show PG-13 violence, the least he could've done is show, oh, I don't know, a PG-13 movie?

The biggest issue in it was the scene from The Cooler, which is mentioned constantly on this message board as well. It did not get an NC-17 solely because of Maria Bello's pubic hair, it got it because William H. Macy's MOUTH made direct contact with it. That changes it from simply nudity to sexual contact. Very rarely do Cinemax softcore movies even show that. They just show the head in the general area, and the camera angle makes it look like they're closes that they actually are. The fact that Bello bitched about it was just plain ridiculous.

Anyway, that's enough for now.

................
"Fine. You want to eat? Let's see if you can eat... PIZZA!!!"

[–] SeanMarshall 14 years ago

If these so-called artists actually were only concerned with their art, they wouldn't give a damn how much their movie makes.

Tell that to Michaelango, Di Vinci, et al. Not everyone wants to be a starving artist, some filmmakers actually want to pay the bills. In addition, how previous films are received can effect budgets for future films. The Fountain wouldn’t have been made.

Apart from how much money their movie makes, there is also the issue of viewers. Some filmmakers would actually prefer to have more rather than less people view their films.

Lastly, not all filmmakers consider what they make as ‘art’. I’d be surprised if Kevin Smith considers himself an artist. Last I heard he doesn’t even think he has much of a cinematic-style.

Violence over sex? The last time I checked, movie violence is fake. Unless you're watching an illegal snuff film, everything you see is either a condom full of fake blood attached to a small explosive, a manaquin full of fake blood, or red scribbles on a computer, no matter how realistic it looks. Kate Winslett's boobs and ass when she's raping the teenager in her Nazi movie? Not a manaquin the last time I checked.

Sigh. Mix that analogy up much? Either the film is simulating something or it isn’t. By your logic sex in film would be perfectly okay if they CGIed it! By the way, can you name a film where a manaquin rapes someone and the film has a PG rating?

[–] almighty_cinder 14 years ago

"Sigh. Mix that analogy up much? Either the film is simulating something or it isn’t. By your logic sex in film would be perfectly okay if they CGIed it! By the way, can you name a film where a manaquin rapes someone and the film has a PG rating?"

Your CGI arguement is only going to go right back in my favor, case in point Robert Zemeckis's Beowulf. If that movie was live action it would've been an R, no question. However, since it was CGI it got a PG-13. For the purpose of ratings, Real > Prop > CGI.

And the mention of Winslet was a joke that you clearly don't understand: She was real. It was her. Her breasts were not a rubber mold like the three boobed chick from Total Recall. Not was she a cartoon. It shouldn't be that hard of a concept to understand.

................
"Fine. You want to eat? Let's see if you can eat... PIZZA!!!"

[–] profilplus 13 years ago

You are a huge idiot. First, let me ANNAHILATE, EXTERMINATE, DESTROY that argument that sexe is censored because you can't fake it:

The Team America sex scene was censored... those were puppets, remember?

They are not rating movie to let mommy and daddy chose what their children watch, they are killing off movie that they find disturbing. A NC 17 movie can't get global distribution, this leads to director not making enough money to keep being a filmmaker, unless they start making movie the MPAA likes.

My opinion is that if the rating didnt hurt the distribution, I would have no problem with it. I would not even care if they rated NC 17 a winnie the pooh movie because he wears not pants, it would only be a suggestion. By hurting the distribution potential of a movie, they truly are hurting the expression of the american cinema. And if you don't get that, you are a sheep. I would suggest everyone to stop debating with that guy, I feel this thread is gonna be 33 pages of back-and-forth arguing and everybody's gonna lose a tremendous amount of time.

[–] almighty_cinder 13 years ago

"this leads to director not making enough money to keep being a filmmaker"

Right, and this is the MPAA's fault?

Also, your arguement about NC-17 being only a suggestion is invalid. The only reason it's even legal to make movies with bad content is because it's regulated by the MPAA. Before the MPAA, it was fully illegal to even swear in a movie. Do you know how much fighting they had to do to get the line "Frankly my dear I don't give a damn" in Gone With the Wind? And that was only "damn"! If we did not have a group rating the movies, the government would do it for them and they would not simply give 'suggestions' about content, they would edit it out themselves and release it the way THEY feel it should be released.

................
"Fine. You want to eat? Let's see if you can eat... PIZZA!!!"

[–] remerkwehttam 13 years ago

But, why is it a secret group of people? As this film clearly exposes, the group of parent raters is mostly made up of people with kids in their 20s and some didn't even have kids at all! We are the ONLY country in the world with a secret group rating the movies. An NC-17 movie rating is a bad thing. Those movies are geared at a specific audience. It's unfortunate that if they get that rating from the MPAA, they really can't do much with their film.

[–] luisdanielblandon 13 years ago

The MPAA being the reason we got more freedoms in film is only the truth because thats how it panned out. You look at a movie like Deep Throat and the controversy surrounding that and you don't see an MPAA white knight protecting their rights, you see a bunch of regular ass people fighting for themselves. I wouldn't watch the film in a theatre (not into sticky seats) but the point of the matter is NOTHING should have a stigma like the NC-17 rating attached to it!

Also to the OP, I don't know if you only saw this documentary and never did any homework after this, but the ability to cite precedent has been in use by the MPAA since 2007 (in part because of this documentary).

[–] chopperchic06 11 years ago

You have a very strange perspective, and a very odd view of women and what is natural.

[–] iddhipada 13 years ago

> NC-17 limits a film's commercial value. If these so-called artists actually were only concerned with their art, they wouldn't give a damn how much their movie makes. The studio gave them money to make their movie, and they made it. Their part is over. How much it makes is the studio's problem now.

That statement is a bit misdirected. To make money, studios force film makers to nip and tuck their vision and drop the NC-17 rating. Yes, they made their money. No, continuing distribution does not concern only the studios. If you make a masterpiece, get paid, then watch it sent out to the public as a washed-out corporate prize, wouldn't you be offended?

At risk of sounding like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, the only way for a director or writer to get on film what they truly intended (if it's in the realms of "NC-17") is to produce independently. Often, that's not satisfactory enough, because the "so-called artists" want their work seen by as many people as possible (within their target audiences). It's a catch-22 situation: either chop up your work or no one sees it.

[–] kidjay83 12 years ago

" He does not submit his movies to the MPAA because he fully doesn't care if the general public can see them at their local multiplex, because that's not what art is about" Finally someone who get's it excellent point my hat's off to you sir.

In Europe an actor is an artist. In Hollywood, if he isn't working, he's a bum.

[–] Sundance-A-Kid 10 years ago

NC-17 limits a film's commercial value. If these so-called artists actually were only concerned with their art, they wouldn't give a damn how much their movie makes. The studio gave them money to make their movie, and they made it. Their part is over. How much it makes is the studio's problem now.

This shows a complete lack of knowledge of how the industry works. The point was that independent films have a far greater task in getting favourable ratings as the MPAA serves the studios so their films don't face this problem as much. And if they do this is of great concern to the filmmaker regardless. In order to continue being an 'artist', so to speak, then it is tantamount that his/her films do well as any future money will come based on previous box office figures. What the documentary shows is that these ratings are sometimes very inconsistent - particularly for independent cinema - where it is even more important that the films get some kind of return as they don't have the safety of the financially powerful studio system to swallow up any losses. The point being made was not about films that have obvious NC-17 ratings but those independent films that probably didn't deserve it. Then that studio films with very similar and sometimes more extreme scenes were passed as R-rated. It was the favouritism that was being highlighted in this case.

More generally though, the independent films issue aside, there is a system of ratings in the US that is inextricably linked to box office, success and therefore exposure and this can directly harm the future of a film and therefore the future of a potential 'artist'. It is not the studio's problem, actually - it's the filmmakers problem. The studio will not rise or fall on one film's rating, but a filmmaker's career might. The studio can decide that the filmmakers future is limited because their film didn't succeed. They care about a million here and there that is lost by the NC-17 rating and this reflects back on the filmmaker (and probably the exec who greenlit the project, but you can just hire another one).

Anyone who believes it is possible to make films without financial incentive is naive concerning what it takes to be an 'artist' in the film industry.

[–] Misanthwopical_Bweed 13 years ago

what is terrifiying is the secrecy

this is like kafka-eaque
secret tribunals deciding your fate

and you have no rebuttal

and it is censorship

"The US was founded by a group of slaveowners who told us all men are created equal."

[–] bureau203 13 years ago

If you're terrified that the movie industry rates movies, you need to get out more.

"I've seen things that would make you want to write a book on how to puke."

[–] ExcessiveMilkDrinker 13 years ago

If you think that's what people are referring to as "terrifying", then you either didn't watch this documentary, or completely misunderstood every single point made in it. I hope for your sake it's the prior, in which case you shouldn't be commenting on this film until you see it.

The problem isn't that they rate movies. The problem is that they can hugely affect the distribution opportunities of movies they dislike by giving them an NC-17 rating, which is based on no specific criteria at all, so that they can impose their "moral code" at will on all Hollywood movies, and with a system in which past examples cannot be used for comparison. This basically forces filmmakers to cut any material the MPAA doesn't like from their films, or else just release their film to a couple arthouse theatres, generate no revenue, and endanger their career. Not to mention that the raters operate secretly to avoid accountability, and contradict most of their own guidelines.

There's also the bias towards studio films over independent films. One filmmaker said that when he submitted a film independently, the MPAA gave zero feedback on what he had to cut to get an R rating and said he simply had to submit a re-cut version and hope it would be good enough, leaving him at risk of also cutting shots he didn't need to cut. However later on he submitted a film through a studio, and they told him exactly which shots he had to cut to get an R rating.

It's also funny how their "moral values" come down so hard on homosexuality and movies that show loving, sexual relationships, yet movies that glorify brutal violence get away relatively easy. I wonder which would be more harmful for teenagers to see...

[–] Uber_Soldat 13 years ago

The filmmaker and the interviewees are just as biased and pro-censorship as the MPAA, even though they're trying to come off like they're against the whole system altogether.

The idea put forward by the movie is that explicit gay anal sex is perfectly fine for PG-13 movies, but a movie should be branded with an NC-17 if a woman gets slapped or the movie is pro-military.

They're not really against censorship, they're just against censorship by their political opponents. They're not against our culture being controlled, they just feel like people with their values should be the MPAA controlling it.

[–] gregforttmags 12 years ago

The documentary kinda of shoots itself in the foot a bit by suggesting media violence motivates stuff like Columbine and other horrible spree killings and the MPAA has been a lesser evil compared to earlier US Conservative attempts to hamstring Hollywood. However this documentary is great at highlighting the hypocrisy of the MPAA (the aversion to homesexuality but the toleration of women being maimed or raped), the MPAA institution itself being in a secure compound guarded by intimidating bouncers, the MPAA members kept unknown to the public, the MPAA being heavily influenced by big business and relgious pressure groups, and the genuinely disconcerting influence the US Military has had on Hollywood (the creators behind Independence Day had a big falling out with the US Military when they featured Area 51).

[–] almighty_cinder 11 years ago

The military being involved in movie productions usually is limited to loaning the production their planes, tanks and helicopters. Unless a filmmaker wants to buy a 40 year old derelict tank and only show it from a distance because of how crappy it looks, they need to cooperate with the military. Independence Day had jets featured very prominently and using a bunch of 1960's scrap heap jets would not have worked out well at all. They NEEDED military assistance, but (and this is just a guess, I'm not aware of the backstory) neglected to inform the military of the entire plot of the movie, that something the government is adamant about not existing was a major plot point.

For a recent example of a filmmaker doing this right, Transformers used the Hoover Dam as a secret military facility. It has nowhere near the stigma that Area 51 has, so the military would've taken no issue with it being featured. Due to this, the later two Transformer movies also feature military vehicles used prominently.

................
"Fine. You want to eat? Let's see if you can eat... PIZZA!!!"