Intriguing documentary about the Motion Picture Association of America and their strange, secretive, sometimes clueless, occasionally contradictory methods of assigning 'ratings' to movies.
It seems like every director in Hollywood has butted heads with the MPAA over their rating system at least once since it was introduced in the late 1960s, usually having to do with the sexual content of films. "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" observes that rampant violence in films seems to be perfectly OK with the MPAA, but sex...hmmm, not so much. Interviews include such directors as Kevin 'Clerks' Smith, John 'Cry Baby' Waters, Matt 'South Park' Stone, and Mary 'American Psycho' Harron.
Interesting stuff that raises many questions about who gets to decide what kinds of movies America sees.
Movie Reviews
Any fan of film should see this
Patrick | Wisconsin, USA | 08/06/2010
(5 out of 5 stars)
"It's really disappointing to learn just how censored our media is. What should be protected as art and free speech is highly restricted by a bunch of people who are held accountable to no one. This documentary was highly informative and also entertaining. In particular the private investigator. I thought she was awesome."
Sex? Straight or gay? Violence? Language? What's good or ba
DelusionalAngel | USA | 08/17/2010
(4 out of 5 stars)
"Ever wondered how a movie got its rating? Why one seems to skate into a rating where as another movie with more "questionable" material gets rated much tougher? Well you aren't alone. The makers of this film not only wondered, they went out on a mission to find the answers to those questions. And how does one find those answers? By attempting to learn the identities of the mysterious rating board. Stalking out their work place. Following them to restaurants in the hopes of overhearing work chatter as they eat lunch. Sifting through their garbage. Interviewing filmmakers who have dealt with them.
In the end we are left with no real answers, but we do get some interesting commentary on the behind the scenes goings on of the movie industry along the way."
Important issue for film fans
Jem | MD, USA | 08/20/2010
(3 out of 5 stars)
"This film is definitely one that all movie fans should see - it's not perfect by any stretch, but it does bring to light a problem in the film industry. Most of us do not even consider the rating board's impact on the films we see. Kirby Dick brings up some interesting, and disturbing points about a system that has no oversight and it kept completely secret. What makes this handful of people qualified to rate films? Why are clergy involved at all? The strongest part of the documentary are the myriad examples of double-standard and outright prejudice on which films get "slapped" with an NC-17, and which get an R. How does torture porn like "Hostel" get an R, but "Boys Don't Cry" was given an NC-17 with less nudity (and based on a true story no less)?! Moreover, why is sex a greater offense than brutal violence? Children under 17 should be allowed to see "The Passion of the Christ," but not "Clerks"? Several prominent directors are interviewed about the ratings process, and their struggle with the NC-17 rating, and Kirby Dick also documents his own journey through the process, including learning that the MPAA illegally made copies of his film! The film also has a lot of tongue-in-cheek humor, in particular the montage of "sex scenes" that counts the number of thrusts that are likely to earn the dreaded NC-17. Hilarious.
Unfortunately, what weakened this film substantially was how few filmmakers, and absolutely no industry insiders, would consent to be interviewed on camera. Which made for a very short documentary that the director then padded. I agree with another reviewer that I couldn't care less who the raters were (the point that they were not parents with children under 17 as publicized was more important than their names), and all the footage of the PI tracking them was utterly boring. In fact, I fast forwarded through almost all of it. I think the film would have been better served by letting us hear more from the directors who were interviewed (Matt Stone, Kevin Smith, etc), or by delving deeper into the DVD market and how unrated and director's cuts are benefiting the studios more than if those editions were shown in theatres. How many consumers go to the theatre for a film, and then are lured into buying the DVD for more footage?
The DVD has a few extras, including deleted scenes with more interview footage, and a scene that considers the MPAA lobby that has impacted copyright laws. This bit was so intriguing, it would have benefited from another full documentary on the subject! A Q&A session with Kirby Dick is also included, and was well worth watching. Overall, the film has many weak points, but is worth seeing just to learn more about who is determining what we see in theatres."
This film has now been tainted.
Paul Aragon | Virginia | 08/08/2010
(3 out of 5 stars)
"Kirby Dick's documentary about the unjust practices of the MPAA takes a very light hearted and rather adolescent approach to what is very serious subject matter. The MPAA is the main censorship organization in The US and has the power to kill any film it wants to right in its tracks. A film slapped with an NC 17 rating can not be advertised, and will not be sold on DVD in most of the major store chains. Since cinema is arguably the most widely consumed form of entertainment by The American public, this means that The MPAA has its finger tips squarely on the pulse of American culture. A pretty scary amount of power considering that The MPAA is not an elected body, and is there for not answerable to the citizens of the country that it is supposedly protecting from mental harm. Instead of treating this issue like it was of national importance by making a stern uptight investigation, Kirby Dick's approach was one of airy easy going humor. This is an approach that can be quit off putting for many viewers. After all, one does get the feeling while watching this movie that Kirby Dick is merely playing pranks on The MPAA like some kind of authority defying school boy.
The gags in TFINYR consist of showing those MPAA offending excerpts that had to be removed from existing films in order to receive that much coveted R rating. Other gags consist of having a set of rudimentary cartoon characters display the language and actions of all the different rating board levels in American films. When those cute smiling cartoon cut outs engage in NC 17 aberrational sexual behavior, it is hard not to laugh out loud at what you're seeing. Another gag in this film is to tally up a count of sexual pelvic thrusts from NC17 movie sex scenes. While each of these Sesame Street styled numbers pop up on the screen, they are accompanied by the ding of a food service bell. All of these gags are actually fairly effective devices, not only because they are quit entertaining, but also because it does clearly demonstrate just how silly this MPAA moral snobbery actually is.
At its worst, TFINYR seems so randomly constructed that it feels sloppy and rudderless half of the time. It is hard not to feel like this film made all its major points in the first half hour and then tried to stretch itself into a feature length film with a bunch of filler. Its best moment was to play R rated heterosexual scenes side by side with identical homosexual NC 17 sex scenes. This display brilliantly lets the viewer know that The MPAA is absolutely biased and thinks it should enforce the notion that homosexuality is somehow amoral and un-American. Another point that clearly comes across is that The MPAA works for and favors the major Hollywood studios while issuing an unfair double standard against independent film makers. These are all great points that needed to be made. It is just that as a cohesive whole, TFINYR feels about as loosely put together as a bowl of oatmeal.
Kirby Dick should of known better!
TFINYR works great as an informative tool to not only show the public that a new and better form of film censorship is indeed needed in our culture, but also as advertisement for movies and film makers that have been given the shaft by The MPAA. As off putting as its laid back style may be, TFINYR is actually speaking the language of the layman by choosing entertainment over seriousness. I was in fact, overjoyed to learn that one of my very favoite films of all time, Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolfe, is the actual movie catalyst that caused The MPAA to be invented in the first place. This to me is the ultimate badge of honor for my personal film taste. TFINYR accomplishes what it sets out to do, and I would of gladly given it four stars had only Kirby Dick just been a little bit more thoughtful as to which film clips he chose to use while making his ultimate point that violence is far more accepted then sex in American movies.
The film clip he should of used to drive this point home, is that of Arnold Schwarzenegger using an innocent bystander as a human shield on an escalator while spraying the bad guys with a barrage of machine gun fire in Total Recall. Something like that. What he showed the public instead was the pre-rape footage from Straw Dogs by Sam Peckinpah. Not only does this completely defy the very point that he was trying to make in the first place, but it showed an overall lack of understanding and caring about one of the most important films in cinematic history. If the point of his documentary is to make a stand for the integrity of cinema and movie makers alike, then why insult the very history of cinema by cheeply inserting violent images from a black listed film simply because they are visceral? Kirby Dick has to know that Straw Dogs has never once been accepted for even a single solitary second during its 40 years of existence due to nature of the voilence in those very clips he so flippantly inserted into his film. Kirby Dick has to know that the violence in Straw Dogs will never be acceptable in the eyes of the general public, but he chose to insert these clips anyway. He must of thought that like him, no one would care, or know the difference.
We all have our sacred texts.
Not only is it completely asinine to make a point about the acceptance of violence over sex by showing sexual violence of all things, a choice that is utterly stupid, but the violence in Straw Dogs goes well beyond being mere entertainment anyway. Straw Dogs is not The Long Kiss Goodnight or Die Hard. There are no chases, escapes, explosions, acrobatic gun battles, raining cars, or painless death. Straw Dogs shows violence that hurts and gets under your skin and damages you. It is violence that hits you on all levels, especially the sexual psychological level. Straw Dogs shows violence against everything imaginable, including the most controversial rape scene ever depicted in the history of cinema. Till this day, I have never meet a single woman who can watch Straw Dogs all the way through, that is how unforgiving and unrelenting the violence in this film is. I will go on the record by nakedly stating that Straw Dogs is the purest film on violence ever made, even more so then A Clockwork Orange. There is nothing to celebrate or emulate in Straw Dogs. No charming humble narrator like Malcolm McDowell to root for, no futuristic setting to soften the blow. Straw Dogs is a film that forces us all to hold a mirror up to ourselves and cringe at what we see. To think that little Kirby Dick actually thought that he could pass off clips from this masterpiece as if it is the acceptable standard of American entertainment film violence is both laughable and insulting. This single choice by Kirby Dick ruined it for me. That is why I'm going to be stuffing my copy of TFINYR into a coworkers stocking come Christmas time. He has a lot of nerve to display any part of Straw Dogs so completely out of context just to make a stupid point. I guess that this only goes to show that I shouldn't of expected any better from him anyway. After all, he has always been a Kirby Dick."