This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2006)
Director: Kirby Dick
1975 saw the release of both
Jaws and
Rollerball. The former received a "PG" rating while the latter was rated "R."
At the time, I remember Norman Jewison, the director of
Rollerball, complaining about the "R" rating and it's effect on possible box office. He cited
Jaws and the fact that violence was somehow treated more leniently than sexual content.
"Caress a breast," Jewison groused, "and you get an 'R, stab that same breast and you get a 'PG'."
Not an inaccurate statement (then or now), but his point was somewhat diminished by the fact that the violence in
Rollerball is clearly more prevalent than that in
Jaws.
This was on my mind when watching
This Film is Not Yet Rated, a 2006 documentary directed by Kirby Dick. The film takes on the curious and VERY secretive cabal that is the MPAA ratings board.
Dick does a good job of demonstrating how arbitrary and inconsistent the methods used by the ratings board are when it comes to assigning a rating.
There was a
South Park episode called "The List" where the boys got entrenched in the process by which little girls derive various lists such as "cutest boy," "nicest teacher," "prettiest purse," etc. The methodology was comically shown to be incredibly political and bureaucratically immovable. ONCE a decision was made, however arbitrary or incorrect, it could not be changed.
My guess is that Trey Parker and Matt Stone were lampooning how MPAA ratings were arrived at since the two procedures seem somewhat similar.
The main complaint of filmmakers like Kevin Smith and John Waters is that an NC-17 rating is almost the kiss of box office death for a film because distributors are less likely to promote it. AND the major factor that seems to raise a film from a PG-13 rating to an NC-17 is sexual content. Furthermore, homosexual content is treated more severely by the board than similar heterosexual content.
Dick shows some film examples that indeed support his thesis. If he had spent more time developing these examples, his movie might have resonated more strongly with me.
HOWEVER, Dick spends an inordinate amount using the tired Michael Moore device of ambushing MPAA Ratings Board members, who try to maintain strict anonymity, on camera. While entertaining, a little of this goes a long way.
Dick also makes it personal by documenting the trouble he's having with the board getting the documentary itself rated.
Again, this illustrates the arbitrary nature of the process. But, it got to be as boring as watching that old 1960's clip of Lenny Bruce (a true victim of censorship) reading the transcripts of his obscenity trial in lieu of doing his act.
And there's a big difference between applying a rating to a movie and banning it. This is especially true in today's world of "unrated, director's cut" DVDs that anyone can rent at Blockbuster.
This Film Is Not Yet Rated shows that the current rating system is arbitrary, imperfect, and can affect a film's box office potential. BUT, the very fact that I was watching it proves that no one's voice was being silenced.
The filmmakers who were interviewed seemed like whiny teenagers who complain when their parents won't let them use the family car. Or the griping I hear from my kids when they want to get on MY computer (like right now).
It was hard to take John Waters as the "voice of reason" as he once made a film that ends with the hero eating dog shit fresh from a poodle's ass.
Maria Bello seemed overly dramatic when complaining about having to trim (no pun) a millisecond from a nude shot in
The Cooler that showed her pubic hair. Sure, it was silly for the board to parse things so finely. But, I saw an uncut version of
The Cooler, and the ending was a disappointment with or without Bello's muff scene intact (again, no pun).
Unfortunately, we live in a world where people need warnings on coffee cups to realize that the contents are hot and instructions on lawn mowers NOT to pick up them up while they're running. So, it's not surprising that movies would fall victim to the same sort of labeling restrictions.
As a father of four, I certainly would like SOME guidance.
Perhaps instead of ratings, maybe the MPAA could set up a website that just lists movie contents (20 utterances of "fuck," 3 killings, 2 breast shots, etc.) and let the viewers decide for themselves.
Of course, simply counting such things doesn't always demonstrate anything definitively. For instance, both
The Wizard of Oz and
Psycho show the same number of killings (two).
That old saying is true. I don't know what's obscene, but I know obscenity when I see it.
For what it's worth, I think that it's dollars not morals that drive the movie industry. I have no doubt that IF there were a market for it, the movie industry would produce and widely distribute films about puppies in blenders.
Dick and a lot of the people interviewed in
This Film Is Not Yet Rated seem to forget that it's called "show BUSINESS."
Read more!
