"This Film Is Not Yet Rated" Talkback (Spoilers)

[Beyond Batman]

I just saw this movie during the week on the IFC channel called "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" which came out in 2006.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/

It's a documentary on Kirby Dick's exposé about the American movie ratings board (MPAA).

Has anyone seen this movie?

[HG Revolution]

I've seen it.

Right after it came out the MPAA said they would be going under major revisions. I haven't noticed anything, though.

[Silly McGooses]

I enjoyed it, but there is a stronger indictment of the MPAA waiting to be made.

I just went on the MPAA website. Look at the subtitle for the Batman Begins screencap on their main page. Nice research.

http://mpaa.org/

[Movie06]

I just went on the MPAA website. Look at the subtitle for the Batman Begins screencap on their main page. Nice research.

http://mpaa.org/

XD

What did they do? Lose count of the Batman films?

[DrTooth]

I want to see it. I really do. I think it was hillarious that the snotheaded ratings police gave it an NC-17.

I remember someone once whining about how PG films are like PG-13 etc., etc. and I just don't see it. TMNT could have been released as a G film, for example.

[Mikintosh]

I saw it, and wasn't too impressed. It was pretty one-sided, and seemed to be taking its cause way too seriously (I'm sure this matters a lot to the directors they interview, but what does the Average Joe care?). I also thought the NC-17 rating was perfectly justified as they totally went overkill in the film clips they used to demonstrate their point; I wanted to eject the disc multiple times through but I hate not finishing a movie once I start it.

[Hanshotfirst113]

I saw it, and wasn't too impressed. It was pretty one-sided, and seemed to be taking its cause way too seriously (I'm sure this matters a lot to the directors they interview, but what does the Average Joe care?). I also thought the NC-17 rating was perfectly justified as they totally went overkill in the film clips they used to demonstrate their point; I wanted to eject the disc multiple times through but I hate not finishing a movie once I start it.

That's a little harsh. I actually watched the film because I presented a report on the MPAA. Sure the film is about as unbiased as a Michael Moore movie, but I thought that it made some valid points. Still I think that their essential point (that big companies shaft the little guys) is something that anyone who leaves their house has already had experience much with anyways. Plus, the system has been used for so long that it's not going to change. I then proceeded to make an idiot of myself while I took a stance similar to the film. Ah, to be young and naive. Still, I thought that it made a lot of interesting points about the idiotic hypocrisies of the MPAA, and my whole classroom was unable to adequately explain why violence is OK to show to children, but sex is not :p.

[HG Revolution]

I actually watched the film because I presented a report on the MPAA.

LOL, same here.

That report managed to bump my Social Studies grade up from a B- to an A.

[tucsoncoyote]

Well I can say this. The MPAA is indeed flawed.. even after they changed the old rating of X to NC-17 (Heck Siskel and Ebert at one time pointed out why this rating ended up the way it was.) But believe me Any movie that gets an NC-17 rating today, is still being "Branded" more like an "X" move than "NC-17".

But then I would also like to point out that these type of movies don't only reflect the MPAA. Other companies have been affected by such movies..Remember "Supersize me?" Well since then, McDonalds and the Rest of the fast food places have tried to change their habits.. But have they really changed? No not in the least.

The Same goes for the MPAA. They've not changed since This movie, and it's starting to make me wonder if they ever will. In short, "This Film has not been Rated" is nothing more than an MPAA Version of.. "Supersize me"...

But sooner or later I figure, somoene will finally say to the MPAA.. Enough is enough.. either fix the problem, or face some lawsuit or something..(It's funny that Jack Thompson blasts the ESRB and he's able to make them look bad, but it will probably take someone who has something happen in order to make things change.. (One problem though is what has been pointed out in this thread.. The Big Companies don't care what the little guy (Even the Consumer) thinks.. All they're in it for is of course, the money.)

But I think that maybe it's time for folks to get together and rally to get the MPAA to change.. After all, if you can change the mind of a bunch of executives at an animation company, and if you can change the mind of a bunch of Executives at a television company to bring back a show, then surely there has to be a way to change the MPAA way of thinking.. After all that's probably the way to go. But until some sort of action is taken? Nothing will be done to change the MPAA.

That about sums it up.

:coyote:

[Discloner]

I want to see it. I really do. I think it was hillarious that the snotheaded ratings police gave it an NC-17. Actually it's not rated. The director went back and added in the final section on the rating-contesting process and did not resubmit the film to be reviewed by the MPAA so the film has no rating.

If I recall correctly - the MPAA even wanted their letter/card/certificate of rating for the screened version back.
...then of course you've got all the added fun of the 'duplication' contriversy - where the MPAA states their mission to combat illegal copying of films; then made a bunch of copies of his film after telling him they wouldn't.
I don't care how biased this documentary was (and it's pretty easy to see that it is) - the MPAA is an insanely corrupt organization and more people should be aware of it's workings. A handful of wealthy individuals should not have the power to decide what is and isn't right for the entirety of America to see...and neither should any established system slant to studios with bigger wallets and agendas.

[Aaron_bhkk]

I haven't seen this movie since it came out in theaters (I liked it quite a bit, by the way), but if I recall correctly, the MPAA didn't really make a big effort to offer up their side of things.

Also, for those calling it bias, "one-sided" (as one person stated) is a more apt-description, but what's so wrong with a movie trying to make a point?

[Cogliostro]

I finally watched this a little while ago and really enjoyed it. Most people don't know much of anything about the MPAA and how they "work". My girlfriend watched it and ended up being really interested in it. I think that the MPAA is very flawed monopoly.

I find it funny how they say justify that there is no real evidence that violence in the movies influences young viewers to be violent and that is why they are less strict on allowing violence in movies.

With their own logic, where is the evidence that sex and nudity causes young viewers to have sex? Why so strict on sex if they don't believe movies to influence young viewers?

What really bothers me about the rating system is that it effects the artist/directors vision because most if not all companies do not want or allow a movie to be released with a NC-17 rating because it has been injected in the public that these are pretty much just soft core porn movies when they're not. Sex is more part of our lives then I would hope violence is and yet it is censored and labeled bad.

[Hanshotfirst113]

LOL, same here.

That report managed to bump my Social Studies grade up from a B- to an A.

That the professor in that class has not decapitated me is a testament to his generosity :p.

[DrTooth]

Still, I thought that it made a lot of interesting points about the idiotic hypocrisies of the MPAA, and my whole classroom was unable to adequately explain why violence is OK to show to children, but sex is not :p.

Actually, from what I can understand Neither are acceptible for kids. I think the fact that all the supposed Kid's movies are now rated PG, when there's nothing to really warrent most of them being that way. TMNT was much less violent or adult than it's 1990 counterpart (the one where Raph kept uttering "Damn" every so often). Apparently a kick to the head is instantly qualifiable for pg 13 or R at least. I also find it funny Spaceballs is rated PG (at least on the old Video tape I have's package), and they uttered 2 Pg-13 or R swear words. If anything, the ratings are going down a peg, not up a peg.

[Hanshotfirst113]

Actually, from what I can understand neither are acceptable for kids. I think the fact that all the supposed Kid's movies are now rated PG, when there's nothing to really warrant most of them being that way. TMNT was much less violent or adult than it's 1990 counterpart (the one where Raph kept uttering "Damn" every so often). Apparently a kick to the head is instantly qualifiable for pg 13 or R at least. I also find it funny Spaceballs is rated PG (at least on the old Video tape I have's package), and they uttered 2 Pg-13 or R swear words. If anything, the ratings are going down a peg, not up a peg.

To an extent, I agree. The standards have definately changed. These days, you can push quite a bit more with content and still keep the ratings down, but there are some really weird wild cards that I'd be hard pressed to try to explain. But generally, if you avoid actual blood and show the violence as cartoonish, you can usually get away with a PG-13 rating. Look at James Bond films, all of which have swung PG and PG-13 ratings, vs. films that actually show the consequence of violence (Saving Private Ryan, etc.). I always find it odd when watching a movie edited for TV that we can's say ****, but the bullet wounds and blistering series of explosions and the mayhem caused by them seems to slip through. I CERTAINLY think that in America, we're far more tolerant of violence than of sex, whereas in Europe, the reverse is true (Not saying that that's good, bad, or indifferent, but I find it interesting), especially when you consider the greater openness about sex over there. There are all kinds of rules that are really weird, ranging from changing the color of blood to get the rating down, to the "context of scenes" and how that affects what they're rated. As I say, the documentary has a chip on it's shoulder the size of a small planet, but it also makes a lot of interesting points (my favorite being the parts where they illegally copy his film and where people try to appeal, but aren't allowed to reference other films). When asked why children should be shown sex scenes the answer was "Well that' something person that we should be able to discuss with our children," an assessment with which I agree (Though having been raised Catholic, there's a certain repressiveness that I find a bit bizarre, especially considering how much I've learned from Judy Blume :p.). However, while they were uptight about that, people seeing violence didn't seem to bother people anywhere near as much (NOT that I'm suggesting that we should go showing kids either, but the double standard intrigues me). I hope that I'm not seeming hypocritical here. I've watched, enjoyed, and own many violent films and find many violent films very entertaining, and play lots of violent video games (Goldeneye). But the squeamishness that I have about sex is odd to me. Why do I seem shocked at nudity in movies, especially more open European ones, but not at a shootout scene? I don't know myself, and I find it intriguing. Shouldn't violence disturb me more? What's so bad about sex? Surely, I should find the idea of someone shooting some else far more disturbing that seeing two people making love. It's odd to me, and I can't explain it.

[Hanshotfirst113]

I also thought the NC-17 rating was perfectly justified as they totally went overkill in the film clips they used to demonstrate their point; I wanted to eject the disc multiple times through but I hate not finishing a movie once I start it.

Really? You didn't think the clips that they showed illustrated the proper point about the hypocrisies of the rating system? Practically the same scenes side-by-side, but they got rated different ratings? The double standards for one thing vs. the other? That didn't resonate at all? I mean, don't get me wrong. The film has a huge chip on its shoulder, but think about it from the point of view of the filmmakers. I'd probably have chip on my shoulder too if I was one of the filmmakers in the film. I think that the biggest problem with the film was that essentially, it's not telling us anything we don't already know. I mean, if you're a little guy then the big guys are going to walk all over you? Anyone who's left the house is going to know that. This is probably not going to make the MPAA do much of anything, and I doubt that most people watching will care. This is getting at something deeper in points of view and in culture as a whole, and that's a whole different subject. Still, I thought that the film made its points well. Biased to the nth degree, but really, if I was a filmmaker, I probably would be too.