This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2005)

Disappointed in documentary

I was expecting more then this documentary delivered. After viewing the documentary I was not persuaded by it. While the current rating board is not perfect, it is still a guide. In every situation in life we can always find examples that may show an inconstant behavior in judgment. We can use the Baseball Hall Of Fame as an example. One player may gain entrance while another, with similar life time stats does not. So I am not surprised we find the same situation in movie ratings. Ratings are important and I am sure that rating a film is not always easy. Those that want a more friendly movie knows what they have to do, yet we find them complaining in this, so called, documentary. They would rather change the system then change their movie. While some may have valid complaints displayed in this movie, the system as a whole, does do an effective and difficult job. Any system replacing it would also receive criticism.
July 30, 2008

An important film about censorship ... and fun for the whole family

This is an absolutely excellent film about one area of censorship we don't hear much about. To think that ALL movies that we see in theaters or for sale in retail chain stores have to be approved by Jack Valenti (now Dan Glickman) and his band of fundamentalists is scary, scary stuff.

Not only is this a great subject, the filmmaker also made it very fun. It's a good mix of interviews, funny (and sexy) edited movie scenes, and of course, the private investigators chasing around the MPAA raters was very exciting. It really had me on the edge of my seat.

Seriously, I would approve this film for teenagers - if you're old enough to take a civics class, and old enough to think (maturely) about censorship issues, you should see this film. I am going to recommend this film to journalism, film, and arts professors - anybody going into the arts as a career should give serious thought to the issues raised here. Additionally, the documentary briefly discusses government (Pentagon) censorship of movies as well.

Our media and government censors what we see and hear every day. Bush doesn't want us to see the funerals of dead soldiers for "national security" reasons, or the news will drop a story because it offends their sponsor (or their parent company, or one of their sister companies). This film shows us another active example of censorship, through a private, corporate-owned committee. It's almost impossible to believe that, in the 21st Century, we are at a point where all films must go through this vetting process before they can be sold in stores, shown in a theater, or before a commercial can be played on TV. Again, scary stuff. Our freedoms are just an illusion. June 9, 2008

If anything, watch it to find out what movies to watch.

I watched this documentary after seeing a preview for it online. In the preview, it featured Matt Stone, one of the creators of South Park. I am a huge fan of South Park: The Movie, and knowing the struggle Matt Stone and Trey Parker went through with the MPAA, I had to see this documentary. I say documentary, but really, it falls more under the new genre heading of docutainment. A documentary that has been scripted to be more entertaining than informative, a la Super Size Me or any Michael Moore piece. With that said, all things considered, two things you should know when you buy or rent this film; one, there is nudity and violence abound. If that kind of thing turns you off, then you should probably avoid this. However, if were sitting around, and asking yourself what does Maria Bello's pubes look like, then hey, you're in luck. Second thing you should consider, this movie is produced by Netflix. I wondered at first why Netflix can or even would produce this. Then I realized at the end of the movie why, because at the end, I wanted to watch every movie featured in it. Seriously, I even found myself wanting to watch Boy's Don't Cry, to see why the MPAA thought it was so bad.

I don't want to give too much away, just note the two main thoughts above, know this documentary is more entertaining than informative, and at the end, you'll want to make time to watch more movies. June 6, 2008

MPAA, be gone!

I got this documentary because I thought this was going to focus on films that have been "unrated", which seems to be the latest trend these days. However, this film is more about the MPAA and their subjective ratings on movies.

Wow! I've learned a lot more about the MPAA than any other mediums. Just who exactly are these people and what criteria do they use when rating movies? Naturally, suspicion arises when you find out that there's no public information released as to who's on the board. In addition, there are no known criteria on how films are given a rating. In other words, filmmakers do not get a form detailing how their particular film earned such a rating.

This doesn't sit well with Kirby Dick. He's determined to expose to the public just who work for the MPAA. With the help of a private investigator, the mystery unfolds.

Kirby Dick includes interviews of different filmmakers and their reactions of the ratings. What really bugs me the most is when Dick showed a comparison of films on certain topics and each received a different rating. For example, gay films are more likely to get an NC-17 as compared to the mainstream films, even when the topic is the same, such as masturbation, orgasm, full frontal nudity, kissing and the like.

Overall, I thought that this was a good documentary. I do wish that there were more clips of other movies or a comparison of movies that have been edited and the originals. Nonetheless, very educational! April 18, 2008

Whose standards are they, anyway???

"This Film is Not Yet Rated" should stand next to "Indie Sex" as two films that show the arbitrary nature of a group of people who take it upon thenselves to protect you from yourself. The battles over ratings was begun years ago, when the first independent filmmaker decided that a body of prudes and primadonnas should not have the last say in regards to his film's content. Since then, the MPAA has stretched it's tentacles to remain the defacto judge on how popular a film is to become.

The process that an independent film must be subjected to, versus a major studio film, to be given a rating that will not affect it's distribution or advertising is tantamount to a violation of the First Amendment. This film gives the viewer a look at the people that make these decisions, but all that aside, this controversy started with the appointment of Jack Valenti to head the MPAA. Valenti, it seems, had access to people in pretty high offices in Washington. He made himself the "Ruler of Hollywood" by instituting a laundry list of guidelines for the studios to follow. Now, if a studio had a film they were to release that "stretched" the code just a little bit, more times than not, it made it through the process to be distributed as any other film with a lower rating.

There was a code that was instituted on the studios, back in 1930. Apparently, there were films that were becoming "racier" and stretching the bounds of decency that existed back then. The rules back then were pretty clear cut. The differences can be seen between films that were made pre-1930, and ones that were made post 1930. The differences were subtle, but there, nonetheless. To see them today, one might wonder what all the fuss was about. The same question is being asked today. It is surprising that a film that is no more than blood and guts violence can be "passed" by the MPAA with an "R" rating, and a film that has NO violence, but treats sex respectfully, has to wade through a mountain of crap before it can even be CONSIDERED.

How about all those films that are "unrated"? What happened to NC-17? Or was this a "gimme" by the MPAA, so the major studios could squeak under the radar? There are a rash of films today being released that are "unrated". What exactly does this change encompass? Seems to me that films made by the major studios are becoming worse, while Independent Films are kept (still) in limited release. Maybe it is an attempt to "level the playing field". What these people don't realise, is that it is content, not rating, that makes a film what it is.

The fact that the MPAA will not give reasons or guidelines to Independent Filmmakers, so they can meet the requirements for wider distribution, appears as an extension of the Civil Rights fight, back in the 60's. Valenti possessed a lot of power in Hollywood, as well as Washington. The arbitrary nature of the MPAA goes to the heart of the people who enforce the rules. In "this Film is Not Yet Rated", great pains are taken in keeping these people "anonymous". WHY? In the MPAA's credo, it states that the ratings are made by "ordinary" people. "Ordinary"? Define THAT one! If these people are "ordinary", why can't the average person question them? Or their governing body?

"This Film is Not Yet Rated" is a humorous look at an institution that touts itself as the "saviors of decency" in Hollywood. If they're not careful, they just might "savior" themselves into obsolescence. March 30, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...