NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm watching This Film Is Not Yet Rated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated) right now. Most of the way through.

It's a very intriguing watch for anybody who follows American cinema. More to come after I watch the rest of it.

The one thing that impressed me most is that there wasn't any single piece of information that came as a surprise, and yet the whole picture it painted was in a fashion startling.

I'd always felt ratings seemed a bit arbitrary and inconsistent, but I hadn't realized just how completely full of crap the MPAA was. After watching the film, I had the sudden urge to start buying many more NC-17 films to see what I've been missing out on - the way in which the MPAA rates films NC-17 instead of R, and the way in which those are treated in the marketplace, is one of the main focuses of the film.

South Park Bigger, Longer, and Uncut is funnier and does a better job juxtaposing violence and sex.

I spent my last quarter in film school studying a bit of this nonsense and it's frustrating as hell.

I seem to remember that there was talk of changing that system a bit to make it more accountable and open. I can't remember the specifics.

EDIT: Here's the imdb.com thing
The Motion Picture Association of America, always resistant to changes to its movie ratings system under its previous chief, Jack Valenti, is now planning to make some key alterations to the system, Daily Variety reported today (Wednesday). The trade paper said that the MPAA will now warn parents that some R-rated movies are not suitable for younger people -- whether or not they are accompanied by an adult. Another change will allow a filmmaker to cite scenes in another movie when appealing a severe rating. In an interview with Variety Dan Glickman, who succeed Valenti in 2004, said that the organization had been influenced by criticism of its ratings system presented in the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated, which debuted at the Sundance film festival last year. Glickman plans to discuss the new revisions of the ratings rules with independent filmmakers attending this year's Sundance festival, which gets underway on Monday, Variety said.

EDiT II: And here (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117957535.html?categoryid=13&cs=1) is the Variety article.
To that end, the public soon will have access to information previously unavailable. That includes:

* For the first time, CARA will post the ratings rules on the MPAA Web site, describing the standards for each rating. The ratings and appeal processes also will be described in detail, along with a link to paperwork needed to submit a film for a rating.

* Most members of the ratings board will remain anonymous, although CARA will describe the demographic make-up of the board, which is composed of parents. The names of the three senior raters have always been public; now, they will be posted online.

In terms of rule revisions, the planned changes include:

* A filmmaker who appeals a rating can reference similar scenes in other movies, although the appeals board still will focus heavily on context.

* CARA will formalize its rule that a member of the ratings board doesn't stay on the board after his or her children are grown.

* CARA also will formalize its educational training system for raters.

* When the CARA rules are implemented later this year, the MPAA and NATO will designate additional members to the appeals board who don't come from the MPAA or NATO fold. (Indie filmmakers might be one possibility.)

* NATO and MPAA will occasionally be able to designate additional observers from different backgrounds to the appeals board.

and interestingly enough-
A year ago at Sundance, Kirby Dick made noise with his docu "This Film Is Not Yet Rated," which took direct aim at the Motion Picture Assn. of America's ratings system for being shrouded in secrecy and, hence, lacking accountability.

At the time, Glickman had already been meeting with and gathering input from various stakeholders in the ratings system -- including filmmakers, guilds, parents' groups and Washington lawmakers -- but Dick's film had an impact.

"The documentary made it clear that we probably haven't done as much as we can to explain how it all works," Glickman told Daily Variety, adding that the voluntary ratings system--devised and implemented by Jack Valenti, his predecessor -- is a "gem," even if it needs some polishing.

The UK rating system is vaguely okay. Each certificate (on a video or DVD) is broken down into its component parts ie. Language, Sex, Violence and Other (drugs, imitable techniques and horror). So whilst some films still recieve high ratings you can see what is in the film that has caused it to recieve such a rating.

Like I have a copy of Donnie Darko. It's rated 15 and next to the rating it says 'Contains strong lanuage and psychological terror'.

I do feel sorry for the people who have to rate films. You might be peeved that they've rated something a little oddly, but just imagine all the crap they have to watch. And they do have to watch all of it make sure it doesn't contain anything that should cause the film to be banned.

Well, in the US, there's nothing that would cause a film to actually be banned by the Feds short of child pornography, IIRC.

I shall look for it and watch it. Sounds interesting.

Well, in the US, there's nothing that would cause a film to actually be banned by the Feds short of child pornography, IIRC.

No, but as was probably outlined in the movie you watched a 'high' rating like R or NC-17 can effectively stiffle a movie, especially a small one. I remember a story about Kevin Smith having to campaign to get the NC-17 rating reduced on Clerks, had he not succeeded he'd still be working at that video store trying to convince people it wasn't a porn about cashiers doin' each other.

On average an R rating will mean opening on 2/3rd the screens that a PG or PG-13 movie which can hurt that all important opening weekend. (there are exceptions, 300 opened on around 3,000 screens, which is about average for a wide release but close to 1,000 more than a typical R rated movie).

They have been, in the last few years (and this might be the new guys' influence) including reasons why the movie is rated the way it is (excessive violence, language, etc) which is a more useful tool than just "appropriate for children/not appropriate for children" especially when parents have different standards.

I've seen the film and if all is accurate it is certainly a big eyeopener for me. I always saw the NC-17's as some film with as much horrific violence and/or graphic nudity and sex as could possibly be fit inside its running time. Instead I find it could receive that rating just because of a single scene that the raters didn't care for. This film made me despise the MPAA even more than I did already.

I found it amusing though that the people who made Team America made an extra long sex scene with even more graphic content to send to the MPAA in an attempt to get at least some of it in. Quite entertaining. :D

The big eye-opener for me was seeing some of the films I'd studied in a recent class labeled NC-17 - for apparently simply including non-heterosexual content.

The big eye-opener for me was seeing some of the films I'd studied in a recent class labeled NC-17 - for apparently simply including non-heterosexual content.

Apparently not being an intolerant prick is not on the list of qualifications for the job of rating movies. Which really explains a lot, to be honest.

The big eye-opener for me was seeing some of the films I'd studied in a recent class labeled NC-17 - for apparently simply including non-heterosexual content.

Could be worse. In the days of the Hayes code The Bicycle Thief wasn't shown because it had a kid pee on a wall.

I just finished watching it, and all I can say is, "wow, what an eyeopener."

I always kind of thought that the MPAA was prudish but this blew my mind and then some; kind of like a chilling winter breeze up my skirt.