Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: This Film is Not Yet Rated (2006)

This is topic This Film is Not Yet Rated (2006) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001187

Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 10-19-2006, 10:29 PM:

Probably one of the best documentaries I've ever run; a shame that only 3 or 4 people attended each showing.

This film is a MUST SEE for everyone here!

This film is definately anti-MPAA and anti-Valenti.

Ever wondered the identities of the secret members of the ratings board? Is there a bias in favor of more leniant ratings for the big studios over indies? Watch this film and find out.

Did you know that there are PRIESTS on the appeals board? This and many other fun secrets of this corrupt organization are revealed in the film.

Curious? GO SEE THIS, or rent the dvd and make copies for all your friends. [evil]

See the website for playdates and other fun trivia not discussed in the film. here

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-20-2006, 12:51 AM:

quote: Dan Lyons
Did you know that there are PRIESTS on the appeals board?

That would certainly explain their issue with the slightest hint of sex. The best example ever of this was with the movie Orgazmo. If you watch it, you will notice there isn't any real nudity in it and I'm not even sure if I recall more than a couple of naughty words...but it got an NC-17 rating. Total bullshit.

Posted by Edwin Sheldon (Member # 4001) on 10-20-2006, 03:13 AM:

I saw this film at the Century Landmark in Chicago about two months ago and thoroughly enjoyed it.

By the way, the MPAA ratings search still lists the movie as rated NC-17, even though the final cut was changed drastically from the rated cut and as such is unrated.

Mini-spoiler:
I found it quite amusing that the CEO of one of the select few chains screening the film happens to be on the appeals board.
End mini-spoiler

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 10-21-2006, 02:25 PM:

I agree that this movie's awesome. Who would've guessed that the MPAA could be even more messed up than it appears?

Posted by Edwin Sheldon (Member # 4001) on 10-24-2006, 04:41 PM:

By the way, Brad, they talk about the bullshit Orgazmo rating at length. [thumbsup]

Posted by Andrea Werft (Member # 2551) on 10-26-2006, 06:26 PM:

I have the screener at home...just haven't watched it yet!

Posted by Jeff Lacey (Member # 3217) on 11-11-2006, 03:52 AM:

I agree with everything said here.... Its a great film, but like was stated before, no one is seeing it at my theater... Why do you think that is? No interest? NC17 (former) rating?

Posted by Edwin Sheldon (Member # 4001) on 11-11-2006, 11:07 AM:

No one is seeing it because no one knows about it thanks to their inability to advertise. I learned about it by accident on a Wikipedia search for something else.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-30-2007, 03:40 AM:

I caught this tonight on DVD. This is absolutely a MUST SEE movie and was definitely one of the best documentaries I have ever seen. Excellent work by Kirby Dick and his private investigator Becky Altringer!

5 of out 5 stars

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-30-2007, 09:38 AM:

Independent Film Channel will show This Filim Is Not Yet Rated Saturday evening, March 31 at 11:00pm Eastern/10:00 Central.

Preceding that is the uncensored version of Leaving Las Vegas, which IFC claims has never been shown anywhere. The uncut version of The Cooler (which was slapped with a NC-17 by the MPAA) will be shown after the broadcast of This Film Is Not Yet Rated.

I posted my review of the documentary, as seen on DVD, over in the Afterlife section. Very highly recommended movie for anyone that considers himself a film fan.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 03-30-2007, 10:29 AM:

Wasn't the uncensored version of LEAVING LAS VEGAS on both LD and DVD?

I'm glad to see they're showing THE COOLER, because you really can't get that anywhere.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-30-2007, 12:56 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
Wasn't the uncensored version of LEAVING LAS VEGAS on both LD and DVD?

Yes, according to Widescreen Review, where the LaserDisc was reviewed in Issue 21 (Oct. 1996) and was identified as "Not Rated" and with a running time of 112 minutes. Ditto for the DVD review in Issue 29 (Nov. 1998). The commonly quoted running time for the R-rated theatrical release seems to be 111 minutes.

Also yes according to the IMDb.

quote:
LaserDisc version is unrated and contains more sexually explicit footage. First pressings of the VHS versions also contained this footage but later pressings did not. The Unrated Edition has also been released on DVD and runs 112 min.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-30-2007, 03:15 PM:

IFC's promo for the Leaving Las Vegas broadcast (preceding This Film Is Not Yet Rated) seems to imply there is some additional footage that hasn't been seen in previous cuts of the film. Whether they're right about that or not, I don't know. Tune into IFC to see the promo for yourself. They seem to air it a lot.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 03-31-2007, 11:53 PM:

What a great exposé of what ***REALLY*** has and still goes on with the MPAA and with that asshole Valenti that STILL pulls the strings in the MPAA.

I think it's way over due that ALL people reject that fake organization for the bias, secrecy, and fraud that it is. It's well past time to ignore ALL the ratings of that contrived system.

At the end of the film, when Jack-baby comments on what he hopes is on his tombstone, I can't help but think the appropriate thing would be: "I was and still am an asshole, hypocrite, fraud and a money-grubbing jerk that had my 1st stroke 35 years ago. May I rot in hell."

OBTW: AS *MUCH* as it KILLS me to agree with Brad, I rate this film 5 stars outta 5. Excellent!

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 04-01-2007, 10:26 AM:

Just as the documentary Super Size Me takes great pains to point out the blatantly obvious, so does This Film Is Not Yet Rated point out something which has been known for many, many years. In the end, This Film Is Not Yet Rated is miles ahead of Morgan Spurlock's movie. It has a more compelling foundation. It's put together better and, obviously, the research aspect is immeasurably better.

The problem with both movies is that the people who are really angry about the underlying problem shouldn't be so surprised. But the audience walks away feeling angry, muttering words like "There ought to be a law!" And this kind of thinking ignores the greatest achievement of the current rating system. Beginning in the late 1960s, it did allow filmmakers to shoot whatever they wanted and eliminated any real system of local or national, government censorship boards.

Now, you'll argue that the rating system is, in effect, its own form of censorship. Fair enough... If you want a movie to have increased box office potential. But Free Speech doesn't guarantee commercial success. And Hollywood studios have lost the power to suppress the indie filmmakers. Note that This Film Is Not Yet Rated was shown on a channel which comes into my parents' satellite box. And, while they're not activists about their viewing habits, I'm sure that if I'd gone over to watch it on their TV last night they'd be surprised to know they're paying to receive such explicit material.

The filmmaker (video maker?) talks to a lot of people who've had "unfair" dealings with the MPAA. But all of those people, near as I can tell, were trying to push the envelope... to work in that area which teeters between the R and NC-17 ratings without going "too far." Then they whine about getting an NC-17 rating. Why am I not crying along with them? They complain that, with an NC-17 rating, they won't have commercial success. Again, they're working in the indie realm where filmmakers are often proud that "commercial success" is an oxymoron. They made their beds. Now they're complaining that they can't sleep comfortably.

Millions of Americans have dealt with the MPAA on an ongoing basis. The movie seems to ignore them. If they wanted to make an air-tight case they might have interviewed a better variety of parents at average American multiplexes. I know that's not entertaining cinema. But they would also find that many "average parents" are complaining that the current system allows too much to be included in a PG-13 or an R-rated movie, and that the system should be tougher. Meanwhile, the indie filmmakers seem to want kids to see more of what might be called "adult material." And I ask... to what end? Just so that indie filmmakers can make more money? Is it really about money for them? That would make them just as bad as the evil corporations which control the media!

It's all well and good that we, as adults, can complain about inconsistencies in the ratings, but who's really talking about kids anymore?

There's a telling moment in "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" where someone from the MPAA (voice re-enacted) confronts the filmmaker about whether he thinks he should show his movie to a child. His reply is "It depends on the child." Exactly! So should the rating system be lenient, based on the most mature child who can process this stuff, or should it be an advocate for less-well-armed children and their parents?

To quote another review... "Folks who care won't learn anything and folks who don't, can't."

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-01-2007, 12:15 PM:

quote: Greg Anderson
Beginning in the late 1960s, it did allow filmmakers to shoot whatever they wanted and eliminated any real system of local or national, government censorship boards.

40 years have passed and since then, particularly starting in 1990 when the NC-17 rating was first introduced, the MPAA ratings system has turned into a tool for Hollywood studios to collude together and keep indie releases held at a commercial disadvantage.

The ratings system also doesn't make sense for the galling inconsistencies between one film to the next. The people who rate the films have no qualification for doing so and their names are kept secret -largely to avoid accountability for their retarded decisions. I think there's already enough evidence for the MPAA to get sued by a variety of different groups and even brought up on Anti-Trust charges of collusion by the Dept. of Justice.

The MPAA is far more preoccupied with censoring sex than it is with violence. The United States has far more murders and other acts of violence than any other nation on the planet. Simple logic would suggest doing more to treat violent content harshly in the ratings process would be better for the general public and all those sensitive parents.

Ultimately, the ratings system fails because it is not independent from movie studio influence.

quote: Greg Anderson
Now, you'll argue that the rating system is, in effect, its own form of censorship. Fair enough... If you want a movie to have increased box office potential. But Free Speech doesn't guarantee commercial success. And Hollywood studios have lost the power to suppress the indie filmmakers. Note that This Film Is Not Yet Rated was shown on a channel which comes into my parents' satellite box. And, while they're not activists about their viewing habits, I'm sure that if I'd gone over to watch it on their TV last night they'd be surprised to know they're paying to receive such explicit material.

That sounds like the sort of thing Jack Valenti would say.

First, there's nothing pornographic at all in This Film Is Not Yet Rated.

Second, the show (as well as the two movies shown before and after it) were rated TV-MA. That's warning enough for anyone who just can't handle the level of simulated, not explicit sex and violence.

Third, every TV set comes with controls to change the channel. Many new ones have features to block out channels.

On the censorship of movies themselves, exactly how is it fair for a viewer such as myself to have my choices of movies limited just because some other parents elsewhere have a problem with that kind of movie. If a serious indie film gets hit with a NC-17 rating, I get to wait for that movie to come out on DVD and hope the local Hastings video store will carry it for rent. Blockbuster Video and Hollywood Video don't rent NC-17 rated movies.

quote: Greg Anderson
The filmmaker (video maker?) talks to a lot of people who've had "unfair" dealings with the MPAA. But all of those people, near as I can tell, were trying to push the envelope... to work in that area which teeters between the R and NC-17 ratings without going "too far." Then they whine about getting an NC-17 rating. Why am I not crying along with them? They complain that, with an NC-17 rating, they won't have commercial success. Again, they're working in the indie realm where filmmakers are often proud that "commercial success" is an oxymoron. They made their beds. Now they're complaining that they can't sleep comfortably.

Greg, you apparently missed the fact the NC-17 rating equals no TV ads, no newspaper ads and no movie theater bookings in many areas of the country. Many advertising outlets simply treat any NC-17 rated movie as if it were hardcore pornography when very often those NC-17 rated indie films are no worse than many R-rated major Hollywood releases.

quote: Greg Anderson
Millions of Americans have dealt with the MPAA on an ongoing basis. The movie seems to ignore them.

I don't agree with that. However, the MPAA regularly insults the intelligence of the American public.

quote: Greg Anderson
Meanwhile, the indie filmmakers seem to want kids to see more of what might be called "adult material."

That's absolutely wrong. Indie filmmakers aren't making porn. The charge they want it put in front of kids is crazy. What they want is the unfairness regarding their NOT-porn material to stop. If their movie gets rated NC-17 it absolutely is a commercial death sentence. Many TV stations and newspapers refuse to run any ads for NC-17 rated shows. Many movie theater chains refuse to book any NC-17 rated shows.

I'll also repeat again the very real fact that many major Hollywood studio releases will get an "R" for airing the same kind of thing that gets an indie feature a "NC-17."

The NC-17 rating is just bullshit. The rating's original intention when it was created back in 1990 was to separate challenging dramatic movies for mature audiences apart from porn. The MPAA sidestepped that and allowed some pornographers to use the NC-17. Then Jack Valenti vomited out his justification for not separating porn, "I can't get into making 'artistic' decisions."

Anyone who can't tell the difference between a hardcore porn video and a real movie just for adults is a freaking idiot. Simple as that. The difference between porn and serious adult movies is PHYSICAL not artistic.

The NC-17 rating will never be fair to indie films until it is applied consistently, fairly and absolutely separate from porn. The rating will also not be fair as long as movie theater chains, TV station and newspapers refuse to carry ads for these non-porn movies.

quote: Greg Anderson
It's all well and good that we, as adults, can complain about inconsistencies in the ratings, but who's really talking about kids anymore?

First, it is the parents job to raise their kids -not the job of everyone else. It's not the job of teachers. It's not the job of grand parents. And it's certainly not the job of people who didn't choose to have kids either.

Somehow that got twisted around where irresponsible parents who refuse to properly discipline wayward kids make it the fault of every one else around them for how badly their kids are turning out. There's a lot of people having children who have absolutely no business being parents at all. They don't feel like putting in the time and work it really takes to raise their kids.

And that gets to the real problem. Many parents don't want to spend the time it takes to educate their kids to have mature and responsible attitudes when being confronted with sexual or violent content.

Kids aren't stupid. The subject matter for sex and violence is everywhere. Bleep out a curse word and any idiot no matter how young can fill in the blank. It's easier than playing Wheel of Fortune. Lots of daytime TV shows, be it a soap opera or some talk show has all sorts of inferences to sex or even violence. The violent content is especially widespread with the current war and all sorts of "if it bleeds it leads" content on news programs.

All of this stuff gets back to the sick, American compulsion where people blame their own mistakes on some external cause. My kid turned into a criminal, it's the fault of movies and video games. No, parent-guy, it's your fault your kid grew up to be a criminal. You were too busy doing your own thing rather than making that child your top priority.

Many parents out there wound up as parents by accident because they were just looking to get laid and didn't figure the role would have such widespread duties. When someone brings a child into the world, that kid becomes the #1 priority in their life and all other considerations are far less important. Many parents don't see it like that and don't live it that way. That's why their kids grow up screwed up. Blaming Hollywood or video games or rap music is just a cop out.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-02-2007, 06:12 PM:

Excellent post, Bobby! I agree 100% with ALL you said!

quote: Bobby Henderson
...it is the parents job to raise their kids -not the job of everyone else...

I wish the heck the movie-going public would take heed and realize the MPAA for what it ***REALLY** is... a secret, contrived fraudulent control and censorship organization that issues double-secret-probation ratings based on SECRET members on their high-horse, the goodie-2-shoes, and those self-appointed "saviors" ..oh and $$$!

Bottom line on the TV thingie, There ***IS*** a channel selector... IF ya don't like what's on, change the channel! Quit yur whining!

Posted by Matt Barth (Member # 3429) on 04-12-2007, 07:45 PM:

I dunno, I wasn't at all impressed with the film. I didn't need to see the PI read off peoples' license plates. I wanted to hear people debate the issue and I was really disappointed at how lop-sided the "debate" was. Maybe I just went in with the wrong mindset.

---Matt (did enjoy how it made Grindhouse's momentary NC-17 seem like a ploy by Rodriguez/Tarantino)

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 04-14-2007, 09:08 AM:

I seem to remember that, when the NC-17 rating was invented, it was supposed to allow "Adult" movies to hit the mainstream without the stigma of the X rating. It didn't take long, however, before the theatres and advertisers decided to treat it EXACTLY like an X rating. For the past several years, Roger Ebert has advocated an "A" rating to distinguish "Adult" films from pornography. But I can't see how a new rating would change anything. It would just be another replacement for X in the eyes of theatre owners and newspapers, and it would soon carry the same stigma.

In this movie, everyone who gets an NC-17 rating on their movie complains about it. To make them happy and be "fair," we'd have to declare that everything you can't show in a PG-13 movie should be rated R and there shouldn't be any rating "stronger" than that. If that happened, I guarantee that some opportunistic politicians would begin hearings and they would threaten censorship. The MPAA would be reduced to a puppet of Washington (instead of the major studios) and their tyranny would be far more disturbing than anything the MPAA has ever done!

The market seems to have dictated our current situation. If theatre owners and audiences really wanted stronger-than-R-rated material to be readily available in "middle-American" multiplexes, it would happen.

As it stands (thanks to this movie) the MPAA will adopt practices that should be more fair. But if that just means that, for all practical purposes, anything goes in R-rated movies, the backlash will be devastating.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 04-14-2007, 09:35 AM:

quote: Greg Anderson
For the past several years, Roger Ebert has advocated an "A" rating to distinguish "Adult" films from pornography.

I've always had problems with this, because it seems like they'd be crossing the line by judging the artistic merit of the movies instead just the content. Also, it woud feed into the perception that violence is bad, but sex is really bad. That's just scary.

As far as "R" not being enough, I personally don't think the government would step in, because children would still not be allowed in without a parent.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-14-2007, 12:24 PM:

quote: Greg Anderson
I seem to remember that, when the NC-17 rating was invented, it was supposed to allow "Adult" movies to hit the mainstream without the stigma of the X rating. It didn't take long, however, before the theatres and advertisers decided to treat it EXACTLY like an X rating.

That's because Jack Valenti stupidly refused to use the NC-17 rating to draw a clear line between hardcore porn and serious adults-only movies. That caused TV stations and newspapers to refuse ads for NC-17 rated movies. Certain movie theater chains adopted policies against booking movies with such ratings.

quote: Greg Anderson
Roger Ebert has advocated an "A" rating to distinguish "Adult" films from pornography. But I can't see how a new rating would change anything. It would just be another replacement for X in the eyes of theatre owners and newspapers, and it would soon carry the same stigma.

Here's how the "NC-17" rating (or Ebert's "A" rating) should be working:

1. Absolutely no pornographers should be allowed to use it. They have the "X". Any retard can tell the difference between a porn movie with actual, not simulated, sex scenes.

2. TV and newspapers should not be allowed to deny ad placement for a non-porn adult-rated movie. Every ad campaign I've seen for such movies looks pretty much like any other R-rated movie. Theater chains should not have a policy against booking such movies.

3. The standards should be applied consistently. Right now they are not. Many indie films with content honestly in only "R" territory often get slammed with the NC-17 commercial death sentence whereas many releases from major studios have to go a lot farther to get tagged with the rating. The major studios are colluding with the MPAA to keep the product from other movie distributors held at a serious disadvantage. The Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission should be looking into this on grounds of anti-trust law violations.

quote: Greg Anderson
The market seems to have dictated our current situation. If theatre owners and audiences really wanted stronger-than-R-rated material to be readily available in "middle-American" multiplexes, it would happen.

That's incorrect. The MPAA and major movie studios have created the current situation on their own with their arguably illegal, monopolistic policies.

TV stations, newspapers and movie theater circuits are covering their asses in avoiding any NC-17 movie advertising or booking. The MPAA refuses to be clear on just what kinds of movies can or cannot get a NC-17 rating. Theater chains have no choice but to act in a preemptive manner to avoid the political firestorm that would occur if they accidentally booked a porn movie into their theaters.

If there was a clear, hard line drawn between porn and serious movies for adults, then the theater chains and various advertising outlets would feel much safer in booking such movies.

quote: Greg Anderson
As it stands (thanks to this movie) the MPAA will adopt practices that should be more fair. But if that just means that, for all practical purposes, anything goes in R-rated movies, the backlash will be devastating.

No one is calling for an "anything goes" policy within the bounds of the R-rating.

However, I've seen a lot of indie films which have been hit by the NC-17 that really had nothing worse than a typical R-rated movie from a major Hollywood studio. The rating standards are very inconsistent.

If the MPAA gets its act together (or the system is entirely revamped), audiences will only benefit from having a greater choice of movies to see. A lot of indie films getting the NC-17 rating really don't deserve it.

quote: Mike Schindler
I've always had problems with this, because it seems like they'd be crossing the line by judging the artistic merit of the movies instead just the content. Also, it woud feed into the perception that violence is bad, but sex is really bad. That's just scary.

Sorry, but that condition is already very present in our society and the MPAA's ratings policy.

Americans are much more tolerant of violence than sex in entertainment. That's not only true in movies, the same conditions are present in television shows, video games and even music. It's very rare for a movie to get hit with the NC-17 for violent content. It's a lot more common for the same rating to be applied to movies with simulated sexual content. Something as little as a head shot of an actress acting like she's having an orgasm will get an indie movie hit with the NC-17.

Also, how exactly is it "crossing the line on judging artistic merit" to draw a clear line between a serious movie and porn? It's an easy difference to call. The difference is physical. Not artistic.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 04-14-2007, 01:48 PM:

Differentiating between "serious movie" and "porn" is the problem. How do you do that? Is the difference whether a movie depicts real or simulated sex? Then what happens to "serious movies" like Catherine Breillat's ROMANCE, or Larry Clark's KEN PARK? Better yet, what about something like FACTORY GIRL, which is rumored to depict real sex? And what is considered to be "real sex" anyway? Then you also run into the problem where some "porn" has a certain amount of legitimacy. THE OPENING OF MISTY BEETHOVEN was ranked as one of the ten best films of all time by a professor who voted in SIGHT AND SOUND's last critic's poll. There's just way too much gray area to make that kind of a rating work.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-14-2007, 02:29 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
Differentiating between "serious movie" and "porn" is the problem. How do you do that?

C'mon, Mike. You can't pretend to be that stupid.

In one movie the people are ACTING like they're having sex. In another movie the people really are having sex. They're not acting. They really are screwing in front of the camera. It is that simple. That's the most simple, defining difference between hardcore pornography and everything else.

I would hand out an X rating to any show that features actual footage of penises (or other objects) penetrating various body orifices, shots of actual oral copulation and footage of actual ejaculation. These are scenes you don't normally find in dramatic movies where actors are merely pretending to have sex.

A handful of movies have crossed the line and showed explicit penetration and even ejaculation. I would consider giving them a X rating as well, just to be consistent on the rule.

Most of those movies were made in Europe, although I can think of one American movie with at least one truly explicit scene. The Brown Bunny featured a scene where Chloë Sevigny performed oral sex on Vincent Gallo. I've never seen the movie for myself and understand a different cut of the movie was shown at the Cannes Film Festival in 2003 versus what ended up being released into the theaters. Many at the Cannes festival hated the movie; even Roger Ebert called it "the worst in the history of Cannes." Ebert wound up giving the re-edited version a positive review. The film was still released as "unrated" here in the United States, but I don't know if the oral sex scene survived the cut.

Now, when it comes to acts of penetration, I do think it is a little funny how our society is reviled and disgusted by a scene of sexual penetration whereas a scene where a spear or sword penetrates a person's guts and comes out of their back seems to be a little more palatable.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 04-14-2007, 03:54 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
C'mon, Mike. You can't pretend to be that stupid.

I wasn't pretending to be stupid. If you read the rest of my post, you can see that I elaborated on that question, and why I think it's not cut and dry.

The solution you present sounds reasonable, although I still think it sends a dangerous message regarding sex and violence.

Posted by Edwin Sheldon (Member # 4001) on 04-14-2007, 08:16 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
In one movie the people are ACTING like they're having sex. In another movie the people really are having sex. They're not acting. They really are screwing in front of the camera. It is that simple. That's the most simple, defining difference between hardcore pornography and everything else.

Is Short Bus porn? It shows penetration.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-15-2007, 12:52 AM:

The line has to be drawn somewhere. Actual penetration, oral copulation and ejaculation are pretty clear guidelines. Use any of them in a movie and I'll certainly judge it to be an example of pornography and worthy of an X rating.

My judgment is not one of having a huge problem with porn either. In fact, I think the porn industry does better using the "X" rating. There's a certain brand identity involved and promise of delivering a certain level of content. If someone wants to see a really intense porn movie, that person will know the goods are going to be delivered via something carrying the "X" rating. With something like NC-17 that viewer will run the strong risk of getting something that is only simulated soft core material.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 04-15-2007, 01:57 AM:

Is this a review thread or a debate of the rating system? I suppose given the content of the movie it should be both.

Someone correct me if I am wrong but I heard/read recently that the real reason the NC-17 rating was created was that the MPAA had never copyrighted the X rating and therefore had no control over its use. The X rating was basically invented by the porn industry as their own rating/marketing ploy. Can anyone confirm this?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-15-2007, 02:25 AM:

I'm not quite sure about that.

Technically, you cannot copyright a letter. Even the artwork in carefully designed typefaces is not a copyright-able thing (you can only copyright or trademark the font name, not the actual font outlines). That's one of the reasons why you have fonts like Antique Olive and then some other company has an identical font called "Incised 911."

One thing the "X" rating lacked compared to other MPAA ratings was the MPAA logo alongside it. The MPAA logo functioned as a sort of "seal of approval" that the movie's content fit within a certain set of standards. The practice was kind of a hold-over from the old Hays code.

Not too long after the "X" rating was developed and used on certain films like Midnight Cowboy the porn industry did indeed take a kind of ownership of the mark following the popularity of porn movies like Deep Throat, The Devil in Miss Jones and Behind the Green Door. That single "X" was then modified where certain pornographers self-bestowed the "XXX" rating on their products to suggest the content was even more intense.

The "X" and "XXX" marks both developed a strong brand identity for porn. That was ultimately what inspired the MPAA to re-think what it should do about movies that weren't porn but were still too intense for any underage viewers. The NC-17 rating was supposed to be that kind of thing, and even carried the MPAA logo alongside the letters. But the MPAA refused to draw a line between porn and everything else and that put the problem right back at square one.

quote: Dustin Mitchell
Is this a review thread or a debate of the rating system? I suppose given the content of the movie it should be both.

I would agree this thread has turned into something like that.

I think This Film Is Not Yet Rated is pretty revealing in showing the various levels of unfairness, inconsistencies and arguably illegal policies the MPAA currently uses in rating movies. I highly recommend this documentary to any film buff.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 04-15-2007, 03:07 AM:

You may not be able to copyright a letter but you can certainly copyright the use of text in a certain context. Really all copyrighted material is just a series of letters. I can't make a movie and say that it is rated PG because 'PG' in the context of a film rating is owned by the MPAA. Further somewhat related example-the World Wildlife Funds successful suit against the World Wresteling Federation to get them to stop using the acronym 'WWF'.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-15-2007, 02:50 PM:

Actually you can use the plain ratings letters, such as "G" or "PG-13," without having a stick a ™ or ® next to them.

The full ratings logos, where the characteristic slab serif letters are put into those box designs and such, are registered trademarks. The MPAA logo (the film reel in front of an oval globe) is also a registered trademark. Any combination of those logotype items should have the ® mark next to them.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-11-2008, 02:31 AM:

I illegally downloaded this tonight and it was great! I wonder what the MPAA thought of it besides trying to give it an NC-17. Were they pissed as hell? I hope so. I wonder if all of the MPAA names that were revealed got fired? The secrecy borders on complete retardation. Aw fuck it, it IS retarded. This cannot be denied. I like the example of Sharon Stone's crotch which got an R vs the short glimpse of trimmed pubes from some other movie which got an NC-17. That doesn't make much sense since you see tons of pubes in R rated movies. The MPAA is really all about hypocrisy.

Some of the people are championing the MPAA in this thread. How can you champion hypocrisy? Perhaps they themselves are hypocrites?

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 02-11-2008, 05:58 AM:

I have to (largely) disagree with most of you guys (unwise for a noobie on his first post, I know [Wink]

), but here's my (I guess) Antipodean perspective on the doco:

Director, Kirby Dick (is that his real name?), investigates the anonymity and subsequent complete unaccountability of the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) Ratings Board who make highly subjective moral judgements in their classification of films presented in the U.S. Although, strictly speaking, classification is voluntary in the U.S., the reality is that without a rating a film is severely limited in the theatres which will present that film and the promotional budgets that studios will allocate to it, so in practical terms, classification is considered mandatory for any director seeking any kind of mainstream release. It should be noted that, while there are parallels between the MPAA and the Australian OFLC (Office of Film and Literature Classification), unlike their U.S. counterparts, the Australian Classification Board Members are [u]not[/u] anonymous.

Dick presents a largely interesting documentary though he does, at times, descend into Michael Mooreishness, particularly in his determination to publicly identify the secretive Ratings Board members, a ploy which is ethically ambiguous at best. But the tactic does offer a very interesting exposé on the private investigation industry, which is ironic considering this is not what the film is about. When the film is on track with it's main thesis, however, it comes across a little one note; yes, we know that the ratings board is made up of a bunch of anonymous prudes, we got that in the first 15 minutes! Unfortunately, the film tends to spend most of it's duration hammering this one point home. Dick is also a little hit and miss with his assertions, for instance, he makes a big point about how only 6 corporations (they being Sony, Viacom, Disney, News Corp, Time Warner and GE) control 95% of the motion picture industry in America, but this is hardly a monopoly!

These shortcomings aside, there are some very interesting comments made from the many players interviewed which include Kevin Smith, Darren Aronofsky, Matt Stone, Maria Bello, Mary Harron and, of course, John Waters who never passes up an opportunity talk about smut. The contribution of these characters alone make the film worth watching.

7.5 out of 10.

Oh, and I guess I should probably introduce myself......
Hi. My name is Stu and I'm a projectionist. It's been only 1 day since my last presentation but I'm trying really hard to give up. I hope that with the loving support from this group that I will conquer this disease and be healthy once again; to be able to walk out of that darkened room towards the light; to rediscover the goodness in myself. Let us pray......