NationStates Jolt Archive

I have just watched the film with that title, produced and released in part by Netflix. This is a movie about how the MPAA rating system, finalized in 1968 by Jack Valenti, is effectively a censorship board whose proceedings are completely shrouded in secrecy, and whose appeals process is but one step and is also completely secret.

The ratings board, for example, does not allow appellants to use other films' ratings as precedent, despite that being the only evidence available to anyone submitting an appeal. There is no judicial review, and those in charge of the MPAA are not held up to any legal or community standard. The ratings board is purported to be made up of "typical American parents", but at least half the board has either no children or has children in their 20s or even 30s.

The appeals board features two resident priests, one Catholic and one Protestant (Episcopalian), and the names of the appeals and ratings boards are jealously guarded.

The filmmaker, Kirby Dick, decided to hire a private investigator to determine just who it is that's determining which films get what ratings -- which, by extension, determines a lot about the culture of the USA (a film given an NC-17 rating stands to lose tens of millions of dollars in revenue due to lack of advertising and distribution). Films featuring sex other than missionary position and girl-on-top-facing-forward, or films depicting women deriving intense pleasure from sex or ANY mildly explicit gay sex are infinitely more likely to receive an NC-17 than even some very appalling violent scenes.

I urge all of you who enjoy movies to seek out this film (itself given an NC-17 by the ratings board) and look at the system which, in large part, determines what we get to see and that is accountable to nobody.

This Film Is Not Yet Rated (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-559517494445537267).


EDIT: Yes, I know the film was released in 2006, but it wasn't until I got Netflix that I had even heard of it. That, in itself, is telling.

Oh, that's what it's about? I just heard the title and figured it was another stupid teen "comedy" like Scary Movie or something.

I'll watch it.

The name sounds familiar, but the information about it sounds new. Maybe there was a thread about it before and I didn't pay any attention to it.

Can I only aquire it through netflicks?


I hope not, as Id like to see it.

Can I only aquire it through netflicks?


I hope not, as Id like to see it.

Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/This-Film-Not-Yet-Rated/dp/B000JGWD64/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1201387487&sr=1-1

should be available... I remember seeing it in a local rental store.

from IMDB.com

MPAA: Rating surrendered; previous version rated NC-17 for some graphic sexual content.

:D

should be available... I remember seeing it in a local rental store.

from IMDB.com

MPAA: Rating surrendered; previous version rated NC-17 for some graphic sexual content.

:D

Which is actually referenced in the movie. They show things like sex scenes from films that earned R versus films that earned NC-17 ratings -- and then point out that the scenes are essentially identical except for: A) The woman is shown actually enjoying the sex for more than a second or two; B) The nude or mostly nude sex is in any position other than missionary or woman on top facing man; or C) The sex is gay sex as opposed to straight.

The film was just plain enlightening.

Sounds similar to the FCC and ESRB.

Not surprising in the least.

I saw it on IFC about a year back. It doesn't make the rating system look that far off track - there's a few guidelines that seem a bit dumb, but that's about all I can remember being problematic.

I saw it on IFC about a year back. It doesn't make the rating system look that far off track - there's a few guidelines that seem a bit dumb, but that's about all I can remember being problematic.

You don't see a problem in a cabal of people who nobody but the MPAA knows, who have personal contact with studio executives (which means that studio system films get different treatment than independent films), and who are accountable to -- NOBODY -- deciding what you will or will not see at the movie theater?

Is there any other hierarchy of select individuals with that much control which is also that secret besides national-security-level agencies?

I saw it on IFC about a year back. It doesn't make the rating system look that far off track - there's a few guidelines that seem a bit dumb, but that's about all I can remember being problematic.

You don't see a problem in the fact that a snuff film would only get an 'R' rating, but a movie where a woman enjoys sex would get a NC-17?

You don't see a problem in a cabal of people who nobody but the MPAA knows, who have personal contact with studio executives (which means that studio system films get different treatment than independent films), and who are accountable to -- NOBODY -- deciding what you will or will not see at the movie theater?

Is there any other hierarchy of select individuals with that much control which is also that secret besides national-security-level agencies?

It's a bad thing, yes, but I have to wonder if it is truly all THAT horrible, ultimately. I mean, it's not as if we're talking about people who go broke and have their livelihoods completely ruined because the movie they made didn't get the rating it probably should have.

...

We aren't, are we? It'd be just like me to set up that "Actually, yes we are" bit.

Basically, my point being, we have other things we need to concentrate on first. Yes, it is bad, and needs to be fixed, but there are more important issues.

It's a bad thing, yes, but I have to wonder if it is truly all THAT horrible, ultimately. I mean, it's not as if we're talking about people who go broke and have their livelihoods completely ruined because the movie they made didn't get the rating it probably should have.

...

We aren't, are we? It'd be just like me to set up that "Actually, yes we are" bit.

Well, I don't know about individual people but it seems like it would be really easy for a start up indy film company to go bankrupt because the film that should have gotten an R or a PG-13 was rated NC17 and got almost no audience.

Basically, my point being, we have other things we need to concentrate on first. Yes, it is bad, and needs to be fixed, but there are more important issues.

Come on, you know that this logic won't get you very far. I'm not even going to properly challenge it because I reckon if you just think about it for a second you'll see why.

There are plenty of films that portray the people involved enjoying the sex they had on screen, so it's a little unfair to pretend like every movie where this happens gets an NC-17 rating, since I can't even remember the last movie with such a rating. To be honest, though, I had never even considered who rates movies and why...

I made my own ratings system that works so much better. It specifies what a movie has and how much. Not giving 1 of 4 broad ratings. I'd never have any of my movies rated by that corrupt organization.

Well, I don't know about individual people but it seems like it would be really easy for a start up indy film company to go bankrupt because the film that should have gotten an R or a PG-13 was rated NC17 and got almost no audience.

Come on, you know that this logic won't get you very far. I'm not even going to properly challenge it because I reckon if you just think about it for a second you'll see why.

Ah. Yes, I see why. That is bad.

So, then, suggestions on how to fix the situation?

Ah. Yes, I see why. That is bad.

So, then, suggestions on how to fix the situation?

Tell the MPAA and the FCC and anyone else that wants to make judgments on what is acceptable viewing/listening/gameplay to fuck off?

Tell the MPAA and the FCC and anyone else that wants to make judgments on what is acceptable viewing/listening/gameplay to fuck off?

I was thinking more along the lines of reforming such organizations so the bias isn't present.

What idiots. I'd like to see that movie though, it sounds interresting.

I have a proposal for a new rating system, one that would show the difference between a movie with a lot of sex and one that is violent.

Perhaps a film could get three numbers (scale of zero to five), for sex, violence, and language. A zero means that the criteria is completely absent. A five means that it is the major focus of the film. For sex, that would be a porn flick or an art film about sexuality. For violence, that would be like a horror film or a real gritty action movie (like Die Hard). For language, that would be like South Park.

Here's an example: Serenity would garner a 2-4-1. There is one frank mention of sex, and later two characters make out before descending into a bunk. There is plenty of violence. All the serious swearing is in Chinese.

I was thinking more along the lines of reforming such organizations so the bias isn't present.
Not going to happen without government intervention (against which the studios could probably launch a successful legal appeal), because the current situation favours the big studios so much.

Well, we could always deliberately sabotage the talks with the writers' guild. Stretch the strike for over a year, destroy the studios.

Just make sure that nobody torpedoes "Heroes".

I have a proposal for a new rating system, one that would show the difference between a movie with a lot of sex and one that is violent.

Perhaps a film could get three numbers (scale of zero to five), for sex, violence, and language. A zero means that the criteria is completely absent. A five means that it is the major focus of the film. For sex, that would be a porn flick or an art film about sexuality. For violence, that would be like a horror film or a real gritty action movie (like Die Hard). For language, that would be like South Park.

Here's an example: Serenity would garner a 2-4-1. There is one frank mention of sex, and later two characters make out before descending into a bunk. There is plenty of violence. All the serious swearing is in Chinese.

That makes sense. It can't be done.

Which is actually referenced in the movie. They show things like sex scenes from films that earned R versus films that earned NC-17 ratings -- and then point out that the scenes are essentially identical except for: A) The woman is shown actually enjoying the sex for more than a second or two; B) The nude or mostly nude sex is in any position other than missionary or woman on top facing man; or C) The sex is gay sex as opposed to straight.

The film was just plain enlightening.

I saw it in the cinema. Despite a few minor complaints I enjoyed (it was possible that a couple of the films used were rated NC-17 for reasons unrelated to gay sex).

There obviously are problems with the MPAA. It isn't even handed, there is a terrible bias towards studios. It has basically allowed the certification scheme to become a joke, frex.

Tell the MPAA and the FCC and anyone else that wants to make judgments on what is acceptable viewing/listening/gameplay to fuck off?

The problem isn't so much that they make judgements on what is and what isn't acceptable. Such a body would be very useful for parents.

The problem is also the whole system being rigged towards helping the big studios at the expense of more independent film makers. And also where one of the certificates awarded largely means the kiss of death to a film because adult films for adult audiences aren't stocked in many places (for "family-friendly" reasons) and aren't shown in many cinemas.

I couldn't help compare the MPAA to the BBFC whilst I watched. And though there are many terribly stupid things the BBFC have done, they are very good as a sort of guidence for parents.


NB: sorry if this is rambling and incoherent. I'll tidy it up tommorrow when I have had some rest. :)

Blockbuster, for instance, won't shelve This Film is Not Yet Rated because it never shelves NC-17, although it will shelve unrated movies. As a consequence, I can watch Cannibal Co-eds Unrated Edition, but I can't watch a documentary critiquing their method of shelf placement.

But as a side note, most of the reviews I saw said that the movie was undercut by ham-handed Michael Moore tactics like hiring a private investigator to hunt down MPAA members. Since you guys have seen it, perhaps I'll throw the question to you: would the work have been superior without the performance-art styled stunts and theatrics, or did it help?

But as a side note, most of the reviews I saw said that the movie was undercut by ham-handed Michael Moore tactics like hiring a private investigator to hunt down MPAA members. Since you guys have seen it, perhaps I'll throw the question to you: would the work have been superior without the performance-art styled stunts and theatrics, or did it help?

I'd say the film is most hamstrung by the fact that such a worthy topic is treated in a very slip shod manner.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed the film. But it had big flaws. It wasn't nearly as deep as it should/could have been. Dick seemed to only have a vague grasp of the topic he was investigating and there were some dubious films chosen as examples of MPAA bias (which is there, which is why it is a shame).

The PI bit was quite fun, and I suppose there was usefulness in uncovering the shadowy board of "parents," who are protected for their own sake apparently.

Basically, my point being, we have other things we need to concentrate on first. Yes, it is bad, and needs to be fixed, but there are more important issues.

Oh wow, why does this sound so familiar to me...

Another reason I'm happy I don't live in America. :)

I was thinking more along the lines of reforming such organizations so the bias isn't present.

Why? Just get rid of them and make your own decisions. Don't want your children seeing/hearing certain things? Then don't let them watch tv shows/movies or listen to music that you haven't seen/heard yourself. Or be with them while they watch/listen.

The problem isn't so much that they make judgements on what is and what isn't acceptable. Such a body would be very useful for parents.

It seems to me that taking an active role in what your kids watch/listen to/play would be a whole hell of a lot more useful than someone else's opinion on what is or is not appropriate for your child. See the Harry Potter kerflufel from the religious nuts for example.

It seems to me that taking an active role in what your kids watch/listen to/play would be a whole hell of a lot more useful than someone else's opinion on what is or is not appropriate for your child. See the Harry Potter kerflufel from the religious nuts for example.

If the ratings are applied properly they can be a useful guide, not just for parents but for everyone. For myself, if I know a movie will be particularly gory then I'll avoid it since such movies disturbed me personally and thus I'd like to avoid them. However, I recognize that others like gory movies so all I really want is a system that's going to tell me what to avoid while others can enjoy their entertainment. I agree that parents do need to do a better job explaining what goes on in movies and to state that "movies and real life are not the same things", but I don't think the ratings system- if it's used properly- can't serve some kind of a purpose.

Oh wow, why does this sound so familiar to me...
Hmm? Explain please.

Why? Just get rid of them and make your own decisions. Don't want your children seeing/hearing certain things? Then don't let them watch tv shows/movies or listen to music that you haven't seen/heard yourself. Or be with them while they watch/listen.

Nyet. It's not that simple at all.

The rating system originated to give people a basic idea of what to expect from a movie or film. A lot of people--including me--try to limit spoilers to an absolute minimum, so a rating helps give us an idea of what sort of general types of content to expect.

It needs to be reformed, yes, but not destroyed. Simply replace it with a non-biased, open system that does not paint in such broad strokes.

It seems to me that taking an active role in what your kids watch/listen to/play would be a whole hell of a lot more useful than someone else's opinion on what is or is not appropriate for your child. See the Harry Potter kerflufel from the religious nuts for example.

Looking at a film's certificate can be taking an active role in what ones children watch/listen/play. Surely you've noticed that there are only 24 hours in the day, which makes it very restrictive (and expensive) to see every film before deciding if it is suitable for your child.

This is why I like the BBFC. Who also devise a short rationale for their certificate, usually printed in the publicity*. It is also why I don't mind some of the christian film review sites on the internet. Admittedly they can be a little screeching. But largely they aren't censorous and give good advice for parents. (There is one in particular I thought was very good, but I've forgotten what it was)







* Admittedly they can be a little bizzare sometimes.

The private investigator segments, while not as enlightening as the interview and factoid/comparison segments, did highlight just how much of a cabal these people are. Also, while Jack Valenti is swearing up and down that the people in the ratings room are all "normal parents", the PI discovered that at least four of the eight of them have "children" over 18 or no kids at all.

Also telling were the interviews with two former ratings board members who were interviewed and who revealed that the head of the board (the only one who is actually not kept clandestine) votes in the board's decisions, and in the case of a tie -- SHE VOTES AGAIN to break it. This is America?

And no, I understand that this isn't the same as "free-speech zones" for protests or other First Amendment violations, but when the MPAA and the FCC -- two unelected agencies, the latter of which answering only to the President -- are in control of the only aspencts of American life unprotected by the free speech provision of the First Amendment of the US Constitution...I start to wonder who is really in charge and how free we really are.

I saw it on IFC about a year back. It doesn't make the rating system look that far off track - there's a few guidelines that seem a bit dumb, but that's about all I can remember being problematic.

I see a huge problem with the different ways violence and sex are treated in the rating system. It essentially says "violence okay", "sex bad". That's pretty fucked up.

Well, I don't know about individual people but it seems like it would be really easy for a start up indy film company to go bankrupt because the film that should have gotten an R or a PG-13 was rated NC17 and got almost no audience.

And they can't cut some of the controversy why? Many other films do it. A lot like to skirt "R" as close as tehy can, but still make the PG-13 cut... it means more audience.

Athough in today's lack of parenting I doubt rating is a huge deterrant anymore, not like it used to be.

I see a huge problem with the different ways violence and sex are treated in the rating system. It essentially says "violence okay", "sex bad". That's pretty fucked up.

Clearly not to them, and because they never claimed their priorities were universal they shouldn't be held accountable to your opinion.

Clearly not to them, and because they never claimed their priorities were universal they shouldn't be held accountable to your opinion.

Uh...considering their rating system determine who can see which movies, then yeah. They should be accountable to more than themselves.

Don't bitch about bad parenting when this is symptom of a culture that glorifies violence and is afraid of sexuality.

I have a proposal for a new rating system, one that would show the difference between a movie with a lot of sex and one that is violent.

Perhaps a film could get three numbers (scale of zero to five), for sex, violence, and language. A zero means that the criteria is completely absent. A five means that it is the major focus of the film. For sex, that would be a porn flick or an art film about sexuality. For violence, that would be like a horror film or a real gritty action movie (like Die Hard). For language, that would be like South Park.

Here's an example: Serenity would garner a 2-4-1. There is one frank mention of sex, and later two characters make out before descending into a bunk. There is plenty of violence. All the serious swearing is in Chinese.


Brilliant. Maybe add a 'drugs' category too, which might include smoking and alcohol as drugs since there is concern right now about smoking in films.

Uh...considering their rating system determine who can see which movies, then yeah. They should be accountable to more than themselves.

Don't bitch about bad parenting when this is symptom of a culture that glorifies violence and is afraid of sexuality.

Parents determine who can see what movie (except NC-17, but I have enver seen one at a local theatre anyway)

Parents determine who can see what movie (except NC-17, but I have enver seen one at a local theatre anyway)

I think that is the point being made here.

If this group gives the movie a rating that will keep it out of movie theaters...

I think that is the point being made here.

If this group gives the movie a rating that will keep it out of movie theaters...

I dunno, pretty racy movies make it into the 'R' category... even Titannic, in all of it's topless glory was only PG-13 (and fodder for the wet dreams of every middle school boy... except me, because I wanted to see Deep Impact instead....)

*snip

Just so. Watch La Cage aux Folles, which is a French film. It is rated "R". For what? The only thing that differentiates it from a standard film is that the two main characters are gay. It should be rated "G", as should its sequel.

I see a huge problem with the different ways violence and sex are treated in the rating system. It essentially says "violence okay", "sex bad". That's pretty fucked up.

While I agree, I don't think it can be ignored that many Americans have exactly the same view; I was 3 years old when I watched Rambo, but I had to have permission from my parents at 16 or so to watch Titanic. Absent the MPAA, one possible alternative is even more goofy local review boards.

Not to suggest that the MPAA isn't dumb, but another critique I'd heard of this movie was that it didn't discuss any constructive solutions, and as such invited us to consider the unintended consequences.

Great documentary. I watched it at a local film festival last spring. Wish I hadn't paid money for it though. :p

And they can't cut some of the controversy why? Many other films do it. A lot like to skirt "R" as close as tehy can, but still make the PG-13 cut... it means more audience.

Athough in today's lack of parenting I doubt rating is a huge deterrant anymore, not like it used to be.

They can cut some of the controversial scenes, but why should they HAVE to? True, most movies made by major studios bear as much resemblance to art as a bag of M&Ms does to an authentic Sachertorte, but why should an independent director's vision be impeded on account of some shadowy moralizers who are clearly in cahoots with the major studios? The MPAA can effectively screen out any independent film without enough financial backing to get it shown in theaters. That's restriction of expression and possibly even restraint of trade. That's just not very captialist, is it? And for a nation supposed wedded to the free market, why are we allowing moralists to decide what we'll see instead of the market itself?

Clearly not to them, and because they never claimed their priorities were universal they shouldn't be held accountable to your opinion.

Oh, but Jack Valenti clearly claims that the board's priorities are universal by declaring all of its members "normal parents", when three of them have kids in their 20s and 30s and one is divorced without kids at all.

Parents determine who can see what movie (except NC-17, but I have never seen one at a local theatre anyway)

You've just made my point for me. If the scene is essential to the film and the film is not that same film without it and it gets the third-rail NC-17 rating when a film with a similar scene (but involving heterosexual sex instead of homosexual sex, for one example), and as a result, the film doesn't receive any kind of decent distribution, that's a double standard. They've decided for us, via the means of distribution, what we will or will not see, and that's appalling (or should be).

I dunno, pretty racy movies make it into the 'R' category... even Titanic, in all of it's topless glory was only PG-13 (and fodder for the wet dreams of every middle school boy... except me, because I wanted to see Deep Impact instead....)

So even one brief topless glimpse is going to cause young hetero boys and lesbian girls to masturbate? Even that? If that's the case, then what's the difference between that and full frontal? I'm assuming the same demographic will get aroused -- so what's the difference?

Case in point from the film:

Young woman masturbating over her clothes(!) in But I'm a Cheerleader!, initial rating, NC-17 (film later resubmitted without that entire scene, weakening the perception of depth of feeling of that character for her forbidden fruit). Explicit, if not exposed, blowjob scene in Single White Female, R. Quoi?

Looking at a film's certificate can be taking an active role in what ones children watch/listen/play. Surely you've noticed that there are only 24 hours in the day, which makes it very restrictive (and expensive) to see every film before deciding if it is suitable for your child.

See it WITH your child. If it becomes unsuitible leave.

And they can't cut some of the controversy why?

The film maker should bow to someone elses prejudices why?

Looking at a film's certificate can be taking an active role in what ones children watch/listen/play. Surely you've noticed that there are only 24 hours in the day, which makes it very restrictive (and expensive) to see every film before deciding if it is suitable for your child.

even knowing if it's G, PG, PG-13 or R doesn't help me much to decide what's appropriate because the ratings seem to be handed out arbitrarily anyway. I don't have time to pre-view every movie either so I check internet sites where people rate movies for parents, basically they have time to watch them and can tell me that a movie is rated PG-13 for saying "damn" three times and having "a guy smoking a cigar" so I know that's not going to kill my kids, instead of the other movie rated PG-13 because a guy has his ear lopped off by a bad guy

Just so. Watch La Cage aux Folles, which is a French film. It is rated "R". For what? The only thing that differentiates it from a standard film is that the two main characters are gay. It should be rated "G", as should its sequel.

Wasn't that re-made as an American movie called "The Bird Cage"?

Wasn't that re-made as an American movie called "The Bird Cage"?

I think so. With Robin Williams, although I have never seen it.

Wasn't that re-made as an American movie called "The Bird Cage"?

Yes

This Movie is a Bit Out of Date.

Most of its criticisms (as I see echoed in the two other threads we had on it, I haven't seen it myself) are fairly valid, and the movie had its desired effect, to a degree, when the Classification and Ratings Administration came under the stewardship of Dan Glickman changed some of the rules and way it operates. (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117957535.html?categoryid=13&cs=1)

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.

Glickman, Graves and NATO prexy John Fithian said CARA also will increase its efforts to educate parents, including circulating a poster and video that will advertise a new Red Carpet Ratings Service, a weekly email alert that gives the parents the ratings for new releases.

This article is from Jan. of last year. It mentions the influence of This Film Is Not Yet Rated-
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.

See it WITH your child. If it becomes unsuitible leave.

Isn't that shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted?

It is also a potential incredible waste of time.

It is possible to have a ratings board without it being corrupt and censorous.

even knowing if it's G, PG, PG-13 or R doesn't help me much to decide what's appropriate because the ratings seem to be handed out arbitrarily anyway. I don't have time to pre-view every movie either so I check internet sites where people rate movies for parents, basically they have time to watch them and can tell me that a movie is rated PG-13 for saying "damn" three times and having "a guy smoking a cigar" so I know that's not going to kill my kids, instead of the other movie rated PG-13 because a guy has his ear lopped off by a bad guy

That's why I quite like the BBFC way of doing things, where a brief outline of the rating is put next to the the rating. (e.g., IIRC, Spiderman 3, 12, "contains moderate fantasy violence")

Of course I realise this isn't perfect, but AFAIK they also publish more detailed explanations on their website.

This Movie is a Bit Out of Date.

Most of its criticisms (as I see echoed in the two other threads we had on it, I haven't seen it myself) are fairly valid, and the movie had its desired effect, to a degree, when the Classification and Ratings Administration came under the stewardship of Dan Glickman changed some of the rules and way it operates. (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117957535.html?categoryid=13&cs=1)



This article is from Jan. of last year. It mentions the influence of This Film Is Not Yet Rated-

It's nice to see things are a changing. I hadn't actually thought about this since seeing the film.

It would also be nice if NC-17 films were more widely shown without businesses worrying about it being perceived as "anti-family."

It's nice to see things are a changing. I hadn't actually thought about this since seeing the film.

It would also be nice if NC-17 films were more widely shown without businesses worrying about it being perceived as "anti-family."

Even R-rated movies are a bit of a sticky (haha, pun...) situation for exhibitors. Essentially, you're restricting the audience that can come in and see a movie, so they tend to favor movies that more people can come see rather than ones that fewer can see.

If you look at the opening weekend distribution of films you find that on average an R-Rated movie opens on 2/3rds the number of screens as a PG-13 movie. It's not because exhibitors are puritans, they just want as many popcorn-buying attendees as possible.

Incidentally, if you want better fare at the theaters you have to go see it when it happens. Go to your art house theater and buy the popcorn, make your soda a large. You'll never match the crowds at the Norbert screening, but you'll make it worth while to actually try to make something worth seeing.

at least the MPAA is better than the Hays Code.

And probably (but unprovably) better than government enforced controls.

Even R-rated movies are a bit of a sticky (haha, pun...) situation for exhibitors. Essentially, you're restricting the audience that can come in and see a movie, so they tend to favor movies that more people can come see rather than ones that fewer can see.

If you look at the opening weekend distribution of films you find that on average an R-Rated movie opens on 2/3rds the number of screens as a PG-13 movie. It's not because exhibitors are puritans, they just want as many popcorn-buying attendees as possible.

Incidentally, if you want better fare at the theaters you have to go see it when it happens. Go to your art house theater and buy the popcorn, make your soda a large. You'll never match the crowds at the Norbert screening, but you'll make it worth while to actually try to make something worth seeing.

I'll say first off that I'm not speaking with any authority. Just as a casual observer. (So I may be wrong basically)

I though lots of the large cinema chains would show NC17s, I'll admit I never took economics into it, but also lots of media won't accept advirtising (which seems strange to me, so probably wrong), but also that large supermarkets such as walmart* won't sell them, for the same reason they don't sell AO games.

It seems odd to me because plenty of films are shown with the highest certificate, 18 (well there is higher, but that is a different case). But I suppose that can be explained because an argument can be made that we have tougher guideline, especially in relation to violence (e.g., Sweeney Todd, oddly enough) that we simply have more to make such a thing unworkable.


I haven't really thought about the way you put it. Though it does seem reasonable.

*Oddly walmart over here (ASDA) has no such qualms.

at least the MPAA is better than the Hays Code.

Do you have a toilet fetish? </jk>

And probably (but unprovably) better than government enforced controls.

Why do you say that?

Surely if all the checks and balances are in place, and the process is transparent it shouldn't be a problem?</devil's advocate>

even knowing if it's G, PG, PG-13 or R doesn't help me much to decide what's appropriate because the ratings seem to be handed out arbitrarily anyway. I don't have time to pre-view every movie either so I check internet sites where people rate movies for parents, basically they have time to watch them and can tell me that a movie is rated PG-13 for saying "damn" three times and having "a guy smoking a cigar" so I know that's not going to kill my kids, instead of the other movie rated PG-13 because a guy has his ear lopped off by a bad guy

They do that now. Next time you see one of those RATED [G/PG/PG-13/R/NC-17] banners, look at the bottom of it. In that box, it should say something like "sexual themes" or "pervasive language" or "intense fantasy violence", or some other not-quite-as-vague-but-better-than-nothing descriptive sentence.

This Movie is a Bit Out of Date.

Most of its criticisms (as I see echoed in the two other threads we had on it, I haven't seen it myself) are fairly valid, and the movie had its desired effect, to a degree, when the Classification and Ratings Administration came under the stewardship of Dan Glickman changed some of the rules and way it operates. (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117957535.html?categoryid=13&cs=1)

This article is from Jan. of last year. It mentions the influence of This Film Is Not Yet Rated-

Sorry for not keeping up with Variety, but I'd never heard of the film until I signed up with Netflix. I think it's a little disconcerting that I'd never seen it even at somewhat-less-restrictive Hollywood Video since it's release in 2006. Seriously -- I didn't know the film existed until I was browsing the documentary category on Netflix. Thanks for the update and the link -- it's good to know that the film had some effect.

Even R-rated movies are a bit of a sticky (haha, pun...) situation for exhibitors. Essentially, you're restricting the audience that can come in and see a movie, so they tend to favor movies that more people can come see rather than ones that fewer can see.

If you look at the opening weekend distribution of films you find that on average an R-Rated movie opens on 2/3rds the number of screens as a PG-13 movie. It's not because exhibitors are puritans, they just want as many popcorn-buying attendees as possible.

Incidentally, if you want better fare at the theaters you have to go see it when it happens. Go to your art house theater and buy the popcorn, make your soda a large. You'll never match the crowds at the Norbert screening, but you'll make it worth while to actually try to make something worth seeing.

Amen to that. It's kinda like a reverse of Field of Dreams -- if you attend them, they will come. My home city (Everett, WA), opened an indie theater a few years back (The Cosmopolitan), just in time for me to go to grad school across the state. I went as often as I could when I was home, but it folded within two years. :( A city of 100k people needs an indie theater.

Do you have a toilet fetish? </jk>



Why do you say that?

Surely if all the checks and balances are in place, and the process is transparent it shouldn't be a problem?</devil's advocate>

That's a sticky situation. In a lot of ways the MPAA Classification and Ratings System is a good-faith effort. Before the Hayes Commission there was government censorship after a ruling that film was not protected speech. That stemmed from a Catholic league that had pressured states to not show movies that it dissaproved of or to edit the content. When the states did that the studios sued, and initially it was found that as I said, film was not protected speech. That was overturned eventually, but in a sort of 'meeting half way' the Hayes commission was formed. It wasn't actually enforcible, it was an agreement. If the film passed the commission it was given approval and theaters had agreements to only run approved films.

It took films like The Bicycle Thief where it was denied approval because a kid peed on a wall and a string of Otto Prelinger films like The Man With the Golden Arm which had Frank Sinatra as a heroin addict to break down the code and change it. Changes like form the the Hayes commission and the one that took place at the Classification and Ratings System couldn't take place at a governmental level, and further since it would have to be enforcible in the way that the current rating system isn't, it would be dangerously close to censorship. If an industry self-censors that's its business. You can call them on it, you can try and patronize 'outlaws,' but thats in the public sector. Once the government gets in on it, it's a different animal all together.

...

Was all that history necessary or was I masturbating? I wrote it thinking I was setting up something but my conclusion now doesn't seem to need it. Ah well, what is the internet for if not masturbating...

They do that now. Next time you see one of those RATED [G/PG/PG-13/R/NC-17] banners, look at the bottom of it. In that box, it should say something like "sexual themes" or "pervasive language" or "intense fantasy violence", or some other not-quite-as-vague-but-better-than-nothing descriptive sentence.



Sorry for not keeping up with Variety, but I'd never heard of the film until I signed up with Netflix. I think it's a little disconcerting that I'd never seen it even at somewhat-less-restrictive Hollywood Video since it's release in 2006. Seriously -- I didn't know the film existed until I was browsing the documentary category on Netflix. Thanks for the update and the link -- it's good to know that the film had some effect.
I actually first heard the story on NPR when they interviewed Dan whatshisname. Indie documentaries don't break into the major chain rental houses that often, no matter the content.

I'm not lambasting you necessarily for not being up to date on all the comings and goings of the inner-film industry, but it's a good idea in general when you watch an older work of social criticism to check around and see if the movie has had the effect they were going for or not. That could just be commenting on it on some forum and hoping someone who might know something posts something, so it's all good.

If you did the search you might have seen the stories on this little nugget of social engineering (http://highbloodpressure.about.com/b/2007/05/30/mpaa-changes-movie-rating-scale-to-combat-smoking.htm), so the changes aren't all sunshine...



Amen to that. It's kinda like a reverse of Field of Dreams -- if you attend them, they will come. My home city (Everett, WA), opened an indie theater a few years back (The Cosmopolitan), just in time for me to go to grad school across the state. I went as often as I could when I was home, but it folded within two years. :( A city of 100k people needs an indie theater.
I got spoiled for while. My college town had more art screens than it did 'mainstream' screens. Of course, that was Santa Cruz, California, so, you know...it was awesome. I live in San Francisco now, though, so it's not like I have a shortage of art screens to go to when I have the dough.

Now that I've heard about, and it pisses me off. Since when are movies supposed to be beacons shining the way to living a clean, healthy life?



See the discussion on the Hayes Commission...

If you did the search you might have seen the stories on this little nugget of social engineering (http://highbloodpressure.about.com/b/2007/05/30/mpaa-changes-movie-rating-scale-to-combat-smoking.htm), so the changes aren't all sunshine...


Now that I've heard about, and it pisses me off. Since when are movies supposed to be beacons shining the way to living a clean, healthy life?

You have to show behavior and some consequences, but not all bad behaviors have the consequences the moralists devoutly pray for -- it's childish to make any one action the subject of an entire ratings class/angle, especially when the action is not (yet...) illegal. What's next? The next film like Superbad gets an NC-17 because teenagers shouldn't be seen drinking? Hell, if I had seen that film as a teenager, I'd know a hell of a lot more about how not to party and what not to sweat than I did then. What films did the 80s show me to guide me? Sixteen Candles, The Breakfast Club, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Pretty in Pink, Some Kind of Wonderful, Weird Science, Fast Times at Ridgemont High? Thanks a heap. I'd LOVE to have seen a film like Superbad back then to show me that I'm worried about a lot of shit that doesn't matter, and that cops are really as dumb as my parents' ranting makes them out to be (mostly kidding).

Bah, smoking. What's next? We're gonna ban the next Star Wars because we shouldn't misrepresent the physics of space travel TO THE IMPRESSIONABLE CHILDREN?

I haven't seen the movie, but I think I will at some time. But regarding the MPAA I think a lot of the arguments against them are really quite silly and are based in paranoia more than fact. Here is one thing: The board was set up by the movie industry simple as that. The members change annually. (At least that is what my two professors told me in my class, and yes they work in the industry) The idea some board was set up to restrict film makers is really quite silly, considering the MPAA was set up by the industry. There is no sufficient or logical reason as to why they would be biased against independent filmmakers. People love to bitch about the MPAA because it's free publicity and plays up the sympathy card for the film. The reason Indies are usually given a stronger rating is simple: They don't have big suite execs breathing down their necks. Big studios know what makes money they know who goes to the theater, they have learned from past experiences, thus they tell their crews "do it like this." Indies are out on their own making it according to their design with no one telling them right or wrong. Which is very good in many ways yes. The MPAA is not out to get Indies, they have been, they have no reason to. Any publicity is good publicity for indies because advertising is expensive.

The stigma resulting from NC-17 is abuse of it's predecessor X. Because the X wasn't trademarked (Like the other ratings) it was liberally applied to any Porno. However the MPAA is only partially to blame. The blame should also fall onto the theater owners and video stores that don't sell them, however they maintain the double standard by selling the unrated versions.

The MPAA is there to tell you, you may want to learn more about the movie before you take your child to see it.

Notice the MPAA is perhaps the only voluntary system in the world? Far as I have seen every other country mandates a certificate on all films.

I haven't seen the movie, but I think I will at some time. But regarding the MPAA I think a lot of the arguments against them are really quite silly and are based in paranoia more than fact. Here is one thing: The board was set up by the movie industry simple as that. The members change annually. (At least that is what my two professors told me in my class, and yes they work in the industry)
And one of the claims debunked in This Film is Not Yet Rated, IIRC. They found that the ratings board's membership was not precisely as described by the MPAA.
The idea some board was set up to restrict film makers is really quite silly, considering the MPAA was set up by the industry. There is no sufficient or logical reason as to why they would be biased against independent filmmakers.
Try homophobia on the part of actual board members. One of the things documented in the film is that corresponding scenes in films featuring non-heterosexual people were deemed more objectionable than those featuring heterosexuals doing exactly the same things. Even when not doing them with other people (the pie scene from American Pie is one of the mainstream examples).

Try clout. A major studio has pull with the MPAA. In the film, they did interviews comparing the ratings process for independent and major studio filmmakers. IIRC, the studios were getting much more detailed feedback on what to change in order to get a particular rating.

I think you need to actually watch this documentary.

That still doesn't help me any. "mild violence" tells me nothing, is there one act of violence? 20 mild acts of violence? what are sexual themes? do they mean people are shown kissing and almost fucking? or do they mean there is lots of innuendo? (because if it's just the illusion of sex, it might be acceptable, having to explain insinuations to a snow job to my kid? not cool.) what is "pervasive language"? I need to know.

'Pervasive language', a slew of dated language from the 60s that only babyboomers are down with. ;)

'Mild violence', no one really gets hurt, so there's no point in watching.

'Sexual themes'... well, we don't know what to call that kiss. It's premarital so we must be careful! Or kids might think kissing is good and not full of icky cooties.

They do that now. Next time you see one of those RATED [G/PG/PG-13/R/NC-17] banners, look at the bottom of it. In that box, it should say something like "sexual themes" or "pervasive language" or "intense fantasy violence", or some other not-quite-as-vague-but-better-than-nothing descriptive sentence.

That still doesn't help me any. "mild violence" tells me nothing, is there one act of violence? 20 mild acts of violence? what are sexual themes? do they mean people are shown kissing and almost fucking? or do they mean there is lots of innuendo? (because if it's just the illusion of sex, it might be acceptable, having to explain insinuations to a snow job to my kid? not cool.) what is "pervasive language"? I need to know.

I just finished watching "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" five minutes ago. Before I watched it, I thought the movie rating system was somewhat inconsistent. Now I'm sure it's broken. I don't know how to fix it, but I believe that, at a minimum, raters should be trained in how to rate films. By which I mean what gets what kind of a rating. And let's remove the homophobia, please.

I don't particularly care for the ratings system anyway. If you don't want your kid to go see a movie don't let your kid go see it. Or leave it up to the theatres or states. But them some would be too stricct. So I guess it works. But I don't like the concept.

I don't particularly care for the ratings system anyway. If you don't want your kid to go see a movie don't let your kid go see it. Or leave it up to the theatres or states. But them some would be too stricct. So I guess it works. But I don't like the concept.

The states were doing it themselves, it was inconsistant and unworkable. So they came up with the Hayes Commission. Which was clunky and arbitrary. So it was replaced with the MPAA rating. Which wasn't transparent. So now (after the movie) they changed a bit of that.

I just finished watching "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" five minutes ago. Before I watched it, I thought the movie rating system was somewhat inconsistent. Now I'm sure it's broken. I don't know how to fix it, but I believe that, at a minimum, raters should be trained in how to rate films. By which I mean what gets what kind of a rating. And let's remove the homophobia, please.

I don't know about the homophobia, but if you read into the thread you'll find that they do in fact offer the training now.

Surely if all the checks and balances are in place, and the process is transparent it shouldn't be a problem?</devil's advocate>

When has government regulation of an industry ever been a good thing (take the FCC for example)?

While enforced government control would at least be transparent, it would be done by a federal agency, which wouldn't necessarily be under sufficient checks and balances, and would not be reachable by the public, we'd end up with a system we could see is broken instead of one people have to tell us is broken.
While the FCC did and does accomplish much good, it also broke a lot of things that didn't need breaking, and ultimately, in my opinion is worse than unregulated (or at least minimally regulated) cable.
Whether one is better than the other in this case is certainly debatable, but from a number of standpoints, I prefer the industry to self regulate. (it would be nice if the FCC would slap cable news around a bit, but other than that I'd prefer it to but out)

When has government regulation of an industry ever been a good thing (take the FCC for example)?

I've already offered a counter example in this thread... the BBFC.

There are many nations in the world, some good, some bad. A few even have decent regulatory agencies. To act as if only US federal agencies count is very unfair.

While enforced government control would at least be transparent, it would be done by a federal agency, which wouldn't necessarily be under sufficient checks and balances, and would not be reachable by the public, we'd end up with a system we could see is broken instead of one people have to tell us is broken.
While the FCC did and does accomplish much good, it also broke a lot of things that didn't need breaking, and ultimately, in my opinion is worse than unregulated (or at least minimally regulated) cable.
Whether one is better than the other in this case is certainly debatable, but from a number of standpoints, I prefer the industry to self regulate. (it would be nice if the FCC would slap cable news around a bit, but other than that I'd prefer it to but out)

I agree that it is probably better for an industry to self regulate, but it many cases it seems like it getting the fox to guard the chickens. I'm not au fait with the FCC, but I know that here (UK) some of the regulatory agencies are paper tigers. For example, the Press Complaints Commission does a good job of pretending that it keeps the press in line, but in actual fact, it refuses to hear around 90% of cases and tends to side with the press. (I realise using the financial sector may present a stronger arguement, but I don't have the facts to hand.)

There are also numerous other cases that frequently find their way into the pages of Private Eye where the self regulatory committees show themselves to be useless (or useful from an industry standpoint I suppose). Of course what I am accusing you for could be levelled against me. It could that I'm being anglo-centric when I announce my skepticism of industry being able to properly regulate itself.

That's a sticky situation. In a lot of ways the MPAA Classification and Ratings System is a good-faith effort. Before the Hayes Commission there was government censorship after a ruling that film was not protected speech. That stemmed from a Catholic league that had pressured states to not show movies that it dissaproved of or to edit the content. When the states did that the studios sued, and initially it was found that as I said, film was not protected speech. That was overturned eventually, but in a sort of 'meeting half way' the Hayes commission was formed. It wasn't actually enforcible, it was an agreement. If the film passed the commission it was given approval and theaters had agreements to only run approved films.

It took films like The Bicycle Thief where it was denied approval because a kid peed on a wall and a string of Otto Prelinger films like The Man With the Golden Arm which had Frank Sinatra as a heroin addict to break down the code and change it. Changes like form the the Hayes commission and the one that took place at the Classification and Ratings System couldn't take place at a governmental level, and further since it would have to be enforcible in the way that the current rating system isn't, it would be dangerously close to censorship. If an industry self-censors that's its business. You can call them on it, you can try and patronize 'outlaws,' but thats in the public sector. Once the government gets in on it, it's a different animal all together.

...

Obviously censorship is bad. But I'm still not quite sure why it is better for an industry to self-censorship (under the threat of coercion) than for a government to do it.


Especially when it isn't accurate to describe the industry as a monolith. There a number of oligarchs (studios) at the top, that seem to use the MPAA as a tool to prevent competition. This may not be intentional on there part. But it does seem as if the MPAA and its ratings are a racket.

The stigma resulting from NC-17 is abuse of it's predecessor X. Because the X wasn't trademarked (Like the other ratings) it was liberally applied to any Porno. However the MPAA is only partially to blame. The blame should also fall onto the theater owners and video stores that don't sell them, however they maintain the double standard by selling the unrated versions.

I don't think its fate was help by Showgirls being the first (and I believe only?) NC-17 blockbuster.

Though it is surprising that some outlets have a problem with the concept of adult entertainment made for adults.

meh