This Film is Not Yet Rated is a documentary directed by Kirby Dick, and produced by Eddie Schmidt about the Motion Picture Association of America (or the MPAA) and their often-unjust rules in rating movies. The MPAA’s rating system is as follows: G and PG are the same as they are in Australia, M is called PG-13 in America, MA15+ is R, and R18+ is NC-17, the latter being the strongest rating. The difference between an R movie and an NC-17 movie can be as wide as hundreds of millions of dollars, and is factored by disparities between Hollywood and indie filmmakers, straight and gay sex, male and female sexual depictions and violent and sexual content.
Little is known about the production process of This Film Is Not Yet Rated, other than it was presumably filmed sometime in late 2005. Most of the documentary follows Dick’s collaboration with Becky Altringer, a private investigator, to reveal the identities of the members of the MPAA review board, which they claim to be “average American parents” with children aged between five and seventeen. They discovered that most of the MPAA review board members had children over the age of eighteen at the time of filming, and some of them had no children at all, contrasting with the MPAA’s original intentions of guiding parents on what they should let their children watch. They also discovered that the members of the MPAA appeals board were mostly comprised of studio executives, sales representatives and film buyers, putting Indie filmmakers at an immediate disadvantage of getting an NC-17 rating so they make less money at the box office. The documentary also includes interviews with filmmakers whose movies received NC-17 ratings. The documentary falls under the Expository mode, due to its use...
... middle of paper ...
...ringer that exposes all of the MPAA’s worst kept secrets, namely their unjust criteria and ulterior motives behind the NC-17 rating as well as the identities of the raters. It is a system made to give parents a guideline on what they should let their children watch, but their biased rating methods at the end of the day will only fail parents and their families if they see a scene that justifies its corresponding movie to be given a higher rating than the one it was given. While some may argue that the documentary is one sided, the MPAA are highly unlikely to give an honest point of view when their credibility is at stake. Instead, the documentary tells the untold stories of the filmmakers affected by the NC-17 rating and this is where the documentary gets its drive from, rather than the MPAA defending themselves by denying all the rumours circulating around them.
Nichols, John. ""Counbtering Censorship: Edgar Dale and the Film appreciation movement (critical essay)."." Cinema Jouranl. Fall 2006.
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) gave Trey Parker's puppet satire Team America (2004) the ‘R' rating after initially giving it the dreaded NC-17 stamp of disapproval. Dr. Kevin Sandler, Professor of Media Studies at the University of Arizona, associates the R rating with the motion picture industry's focus on producing ‘respectable' or ‘incontestable' films. Known as the “Incontestable R,” an R rating ensures audiences that the film's content cannot be confused with that of an NC-17 film. Parker's efforts to cut out portions of Team America's controversial puppet sex scene and its subsequent R rating, seem to have been fruitful. Team America generated little controversy with media critics in regard to its R rating.
Although Valenti and the Rating System's advocates claim that parents should have the final choice in what their children view, the system may, in practice, obstruct that purpose for parents who decide that their children should see some films. For films with the controversial NC-17 rating, the theatre is prevented from letting young John Small and his under-aged ilk from seeing a film despite his parents' permission. In fact, had John actually been accompanied by his parents, the theatre would have had every right -- some would even say responsibility -- to refuse his admission. The printing of the NC-17 rating often does not read -- as would be reasonable -- "Intended for Adults Only" but rather the more rigid "Not to be Attended by Children Under Seventeen.
The MPAA rating system was once a good source for people to find out whether a movie would contain immoral or violent images; currently the system has grown to become ineffective in today’s society. Society changes as well as movies; content and subject matter has changed for movies of this generation. If the system is not changed it will not help parents to know what movies will be appropriate for their children to watch. Because of the influence and prevalence of movies in our society and culture today a rating system is important, if that system fails to do its duty the negative influence that the movies can have on the children and youth of tomorrow will be great.
Now here's a controversial one - the portrayal of homosexuals and the ravages of AIDS in the movies. How exactly does a machine like Hollywood, not exactly known for its subtlety, cover subjects like these? Does it make a gritty, realistic adult portrayal of the issues at hand? Or does it make a soft-hearted and ultimately dishonest plea for acceptance? Take a guess.
When a video, video game or feature film is released, if the Australian Classifications Board is unable to classify material or the material is refused then it is effectively censored. Refused material is categorised as refused classification (RC). Despite the fact that the ACB admits adults should be able to watch, play and read what they want, the sole criterion provided for RC classification is “content that is very high in impact and fa...
American commercial cinema currently fuels many aspects of society. In the twenty-first century it has become available, active force in the perception of gender relations in the United States. In the earlier part of this century filmmakers, as well as the public, did not necessarily view the female“media image” as an infrastructure of sex inequality. Today, contemporary audiences and critics have become preoccupied with the role the cinema plays in shaping social values, institutions, and attitudes. American cinema has become narrowly focused on images of violent women, female sexuality, the portrayal of the “weaker sex” and subversively portraying women negatively in film. “Double Indemnity can be read in two ways. It is either a misogynist film about a terrifying, destroying woman, or it is a film that liberates the female character from the restrictive and oppressed melodramatic situation that render her helpless” (Kolker 124). There are arguably two extreme portrayals of the character of Phyllis Dietrichson in Double Indemnity; neither one is an accurate or fare portrayal.
In Hollywood today, most films can be categorized according to the genre system. There are action films, horror flicks, Westerns, comedies and the likes. On a broader scope, films are often separated into two categories: Hollywood films, and independent or foreign ‘art house’ films. Yet, this outlook, albeit superficial, was how many viewed films. Celebrity-packed blockbusters filled with action and drama, with the use of seamless top-of-the-line digital editing and special effects were considered ‘Hollywood films’. Films where unconventional themes like existentialism or paranoia, often with excessive violence or sex or a combination of both, with obvious attempts to displace its audiences from the film were often attributed with the generic label of ‘foreign’ or ‘art house’ cinema.
...sad to say but it seems that there is no trust in the maturity and logical thinking of society or in the human race itself. As individuals of society we are given the choice, the freedom, to choose whether we want to view “inappropriate” films. After all, films are rated and we are to view with our own discretion.
Many Americans love films, the meanings behind those films and the impact some films have on people’s lives. Ever since films were created there have been people and organizations that have tried to censor and block what the public can and cannot see. Even to this day there are certain things that if put on film because of censorship, would never make it to the public. This is very sad. Film is one of this country’s great expressive outlets. Many filmmakers and the people who enjoy what these filmmakers put out are effected by the horrible concept of censorship. When a film is put out to the public it is first reviewed by a movie rating board who then assigns the film a rating to tell people what age groups the film is suitable for and what the film contains. Movie selection for minors should solely be the responsibility of that child’s parent, not some critic that watches films and then makes decisions for other people about who can watch it and who can’t. People just need to start to understand the real meaning of free speech and expression in this country. Too many people are taking it for granted. People who are for the censorship of films may argue that it’s for the good of our children, shielding them from violence and sex, and not exposing them to something that they claim may be mentally harm...
audience for money making purposes. Most teenagers don’t want to go watch a movie where the
It is amazing that the movie industry started out so plain, either the film was accepted, or not. Therefore, how did they go from that to what it is today? In 1952, the U.S. Supreme court to step in to guarantee the film industry the right to freedom of speech. (Lucia, pg. 1) In the 1960’s, MPAA Chairman, Jack Valenti was faced with a few controversy films; where the filmmakers tested the limits that was once unacceptable. With the times changing, Jack knew he had to come up with something. Late 1968, the movie rating system was created; after reaching out to a couple of organization for feedback. All parties agreed to enforce the system to ensure the films was seen by the appropriate ages. (2011)
Youth have a certain quality and charisma that has made making films about them not only an interesting endeavor but also fundamental to cinema (Shary, 2002). Representative of hope and change, children are viewed as the future. Youth culture, with its ‘here today and gone tomorrow’ kind of dynamic, suggests that children are also the future of film. For decades the film industry has relied on young audiences for patronage and also looked to youth for inspiration and just the kind of material that makes a relevant and refreshing script (Shary, 2002). Youth-oriented film has subsequently become a genre all its own (Shary, 2002). A history of American youth cinema would indicate no different. It is thus interesting to explore youth-oriented films and how films across time, namely Lolita (1962), Marathon Man (1976), Rain Man (1988), Kids (1995), and The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012), have depicted youth culture, specifically the theme of “Coming-Of-Age.”
In this film, I believe the filmmakers presented the topic well and made sure it was not baised. It showed the individuals personal lives to where we as the viewers were not judging
Going to the movies is a favorite past-time event of American lives. A long time ago, however, there wasn’t any rating system. Making one seemed like a good idea at the time. Today, the system is still the same way and doesn’t fit today’s changed time. Therefore, the movie rating system should be revised because the current rating system is outdated.