Review of This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2006) by Paul Z — 14 Nov 2008

This Film Is Not Yet Rated is a must for any film buff, and also for any parent. It's not a presentation of a single argument but rather a collage of different opinions competently juxtaposed by director Kirby Dick, who bravely showcases clips from unjustly rated movies which ostensibly earned them their harsh ratings, or not-so-harsh ratings. Each interviewed filmmaker, for instance, among ones such as Kevin Smith, Darren Aronofsky, Kimberly Pierce, Wayne Kramer and John Waters, seems to have a vastly differing take on the American film ratings system, and whether or not you agree with one or the other, it's interesting to note which ones escaped an NC-17 rating and which ones did not.

Dick's daring delve into the least accessible facet of the film industry, the ratings board of the Motion Picture Association of America affords pioneering disclosure that the board seems as if regard homosexual material much more severely than heterosexual material, a claim strengthened by an MPAA spokesperson's declaration that "We don't create standards. We just follow them," or that the board's raters have nor are given any training and are calculatingly chosen due to their lack of knowledge in media literacy or child development, or that senior raters have exchanges in the custom of mandatory meetings with studio personnel following screenings, and that the MPAA's appeals board is just as guarded as the ratings board, its members by and large being movie theater chain and studio executives. And just when we thought there would be a social wrong in which religion is not involved, we see that included on the appeals board are a Catholic clergyman and an Episcopalian clergyman, one of whom could possibly have the privilege to vote on the appeals board's decisions.

The most exciting portions of the film are the interviewees, mostly because it's always interesting to hear them speak about their actual experiences and the effect they've had on their careers. It appears that any kind of non-missionary sex is not approved of, like oral sex, threesomes, gay stuff, female masturbation, or even just the showcasing of a woman's orgasm. Evidently, you're better off if your film is certified by a major studio. That's why a fleeting look at Maria Bello's bare vagina merited Kramer's excellent independent film The Cooler an NC-17, while Sharon Stone doing loads more in the $50 million Columbia TriStar film Basic Instinct was only enough to obtain an R.

Most film connoisseurs already know this, but it is verified as fact here that the NC-17 is just deployed as hostility to sex on screen, while ultraviolence pervades even PG-13-rated movies. If truth be told, you could stab a pregnant woman, kill a child on screen and decapitate 5 innocent bystanders and feel confident that you'll get an R. If there's no blood, you can rest assured you'll get a PG-13. All other countries with ratings systems have precisely the reverse approach.

It is said by someone on the side of the raters in this uproarious, upsetting composition that if a lot of people want to see it, no rating can hurt it. If few people want to see it, then no rating will help it. Not true. There have been many films released to doubly whetted appetites due to reports of ratings disputes. By the end, we have realized that the MPAA is a bunch of bullies who, when confronted by someone about hearsay, shout, "I didn't do nothing'!" However, it goes deeper than that when we learn that some of the biggest media companies and movie distribution studios puppeteer them, one being Disney of course. They do not want independent films to do well. If you can presume why, you're right. If you can't, don't ask. If you still want to see this movie, by all means see it.

Though the ratings board made me furious and frankly always has, at some point, I was wondering how the MPAA's opponents expected the ratings system should be run, by also, by the end, it is well understood that it's publicly declared to just be an optional industry system that nobody is obligated to abide. Alas, the reality of the movie industry is utterly removed from these false assertions. The rating ranked to a film on the whole shapes who sees it in a theater, and what kind of marketing and publicity for the movie will be agreed to by TV and newspapers. An NC-17 in essence assures that no more than the trivial shaving of the public nearby art house cinemas will ever sit in a theater to see the film as it was intended, and that there will be practically no way to advertise the film.