Movie Thoughts: This Film is Not Yet Rated

[orangerful]

I didn't know much about this documentary when I Netflix'd it. The title intrigued me, so I ordered it. The documentary focuses on the R and NC-17 rating, the mysterious MPAA board, and what the ratings really mean to a studio.

The main gripe with American ratings, it seemed, was how arbitrary they are. Especially when it comes to violence vs. sexual content. Now, some of the scenes they showed in this documentary, I was fine with having an NC-17 rating. BUT when I found out that NC-17 pretty much guarantees your movie will get no advertising and won't run in many parts of the country, I thought that was a bit unfair. Sure, you made a movie that has a bit of sex in it, and sure the MPAA feels the only way to keep children out of the film is to slap it with an NC-17 (Kevin Smith pointed out that no one is ever just given an NC-17, they are always "slapped"), but is it fair that this means no studio will distribute it?

A large portion of the documentary (and my least favorite part) was director Kirby Dick hiring a private investigator and attempting to chase down the MPAA raters. The things they discovered were interesting, but I was more interested in hearing the interviews with filmmakers and finding out what some of their gripes were with the system.

In the end, my brain was buzzing with all kinds of thoughts. Damn those Puritans for making Americans such prudes when it comes to sex! Wait, why do I need to see someone taking it from behind in a movie? What if the filmmaker feels that is important, should they be told to cut it? But why is this board giving out arbitrary ratings and doing it in secret? Why don't parents take care of their damn kids anyway? "R" does not mean it's okay for a child to see a movie, it's mean RESTRICTED. (Yes, you could take a 16 year old to see the movie, but that doesn't mean you should take 8 year old Sally into see "Saw" because your lazy ass couldn't find a babysitter. Suck it up, that's what you get for having children. Your life is revoked.) If you're going to create a ratings system, shouldn't you support ALL of the ratings you've created? Stop making NC-17 a kiss of death! If the filmmaker gets an NC-17, distribute their movie! And what is the deal with violence against women? Even Kevin Smith said he was sick of that shit! Maria Bello pointed out that her film got an NC-17 because during the lovemaking scene, a bit of her public hair was visible, yet the week before she saw one of the 'Scary Movie' films where a woman is stabbed in the breast, her implant pops out and she's bleeding all over and then someone else gets a penis in their ear, and that is rated R! And clearly if you are a woman or you are gay, you are NOT allowed to have sex on screen. Straight guys? Go crazy and look happy while you do it! What is UP with that????

So, it wasn't really a very good documentary. But it was very interesting. And eye opening. Kirby Dick had a mission, which was to expose the MPAA raters, and I really could have cared less, but listening to other filmmakers talk about their problems with the system will make you think twice before judging a film by it's rating. Good conversation piece. Watch it so you can discuss it with others, but it's not really very high quality and it is very one-sided and it doesn't' really offer a solution to the problem.

btw - this film is rated NC-17...for a reason! You get to see all the scenes that caused other movies to receive their NC-17 ratings. Just so you can mentally prepare yourself.

Comments

[bittertwee.livejournal.com]

hmm.. well it sounds like this movie got you thinking, even if it wasn't that good. It sort of sounds like the director was going for the Michael Moore thing with his ambushes of MPAA raters.

Honestly, I have no idea what films are rated. It's nothing I pay any attention to. I suppose if I had kids it might come in handy. At least it makes parents lives a bit easier.. rather than hassling with your kids on a film by film basis, you can just issue a blanket rule- No R films before 16 (or whatever). Anyway, the fact that most films are seen on DVD these days makes the whole thing kind of moot. I bet a lot of kids see movies at home that they never would have been allowed to see in the theater, just because it's on in their living room and it's hard to keep a kid out of their own living room, especially if older bro or sis gets to watch.

Question- if women and gay men are not allowed to have sex onscreen, who are all the straight men shagging? Is there a third option I'm missing?

[orangerful.livejournal.com]

The women can have sex, but the focus needs to be one the guy having a good time, not so much the girl. At least, that was the theory put forth by several of the film makers. (Though, the most blatant thing they showed was that a movie with a gay girl masturbating with her clothes on got an NC-17, while American Beauty showed Kevin Spacey naked in the shower masturbating and only received an R. It's all clearly based on how uncomfortable it makes the raters, and when Kirby reveals the age, sex, gender, and background of the raters, you realize they are probably very easily made uncomfortable)

John Waters made a comment that kids today, with their "internets" have probably seen more hardcore porn than any other generation. haha. Kevin Smith talked about how surprised he was that just TALKING about sex could get him an NC-17.

Definitely took the Michael Moore approach. Gets you nice and riled up! But you still want to punch him in the face too.