Review of This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2006) by Nick K — 12 Jun 2010

Interesting and it shows how the MPAA can be so inconsistent. To me it seems like the major problem is the NC-17 rating. According to the MPAA, " NC-17 does not mean â??obsceneâ?? or â??pornographicâ?? in the common or legal meaning of those words, and should not be construed as a negative judgment in any sense.

The rating simply signals that the content is appropriate only for an adult audience." However, the public, studios, theaters, and retails do not view NC-17 in this sense. To them NC-17 is a negative mark which is why films which receive that rating have almost no advertising budget, have a hard time being shown in theatres, and a hard time being sold/ rented (this film mentioned that Wal-Mart does not carry NC-17 titles and Blockbuster does not rent them).

This is probably due to these outlets not wanting to garnish a negative image of them. If people shopping Wal-Mart saw they had NC-17 titles, they might think "How can this store carry such an inappropriate movie" - even though it may not actually be "inappropriate.

" So, essentially, it is these other outlets which are doing the censoring. However, the MPAA knows this so in reality by rating a film NC-17, they are censoring it theory because it will have a difficult time being released.

If the MPAA really did care about film makers, they would educate the public on the real meaning of the NC-17 rating, explaining that it does not mean a pornographic film, and encourage/lobby retailers to reconsider stocking/showing NC-17 films.