This Film Is Not Yet Rated

This Film Is Not Yet Rated ***1/2

"This Film Is Not Yet Rated" is one of the best documentaries that I've seen in a long time. It answers some common questions that you always kind of think about when you have nothing better to do, but never bother doing any research on the topic. And that topic is the MPAA rating system. Everybody knows what it is. Every film is given a rating. G, which means that film is for everyone. PG, which means that the film may have some questionable content. PG-13, which means that it may have strong questionable content. R, where nobody under the age of seventeen can be present with a legal guardian present, and finally, the big cheese, NC-17, where not a single person under the age of seventeen is allowed in the audience. Now, for the most part, people just kind of ignore the ratings. At the theatre I work in, I've seen people see some of the bloodiest horror movies with their seven year old children. I may shake my head at the fact that they are doing it, but they do it nonetheless. And then there are those who follow the rating system like a Bible. I have friends who aren't allowed to see anything that is rated R, simply because they are not the proper age. And then there are the middle people. The ones who don't really care, but like to know about the system. After all, nobody really knows about the process of how film are rated. We all kind of take it for granted. But seriously,

1) Who does get to rate the films?
2) What are the standards?
3) What part of the questionable content do the raters focus on the most?

These questions, and many more, are attempted to be answered by documentary filmmaker Kirby Dick, who decides to tackle the MPAA. To start with the first question, nobody really knows who the raters are. They are supposed to be "the averge American parents, of children between the ages of 5 and 17." The raters get into the MPAA building through a secret entrance, and are never introduced to anybody as who they are. It would be too much "pressure" for them, says the head of the MPAA, Jack Valenti. To find out who these people are, Kirby Dick decides to hire a private detective, and him, the private eye, and the private eyes apprentice, go on a manhunt, tracking down all the people responsible for the ratings. This investigation is intercut with little interviews by popular directors, who have all been screwed over by the MPAA.

It turns out that independent film directors are targeted more to harsher ratings. Matt Stone and Trey Parker, who do TV's "South Park" made a little independent film in the early 90's, which was given an NC-17, without any advice about how to trim it down to an R rating. However, when they were hired by a big movie studio to make "South Park: Bigger Longer and Uncut," they recieved an NC-17 ratings. but had a nice long list of things they could cut to give it an R. The problem with the NC-17 rating is that big studios won't touch it. A whole audience is left out because nobody under seventeen is allowed in. In addition, television commericals can't be run, and marketing is strongly limited. How will people be able to see the movie if they never even heard of the movie in the first place? In addition, the MPAA seems to focus more on sex than violence. A movie could have a character running down a hallway, shooting anything that moves, without showing any blood, and get a PG-13, but god forbid there is any nudity. Many films have gotten an NC-17, simply because of a brief second of nudity.

When Kirby Dick submitted this film to the MPAA it recieved an NC-17. One could say it's because of some of the graphic images in the film, which are just featured in montages of scenes that warrented an NC-17 rating, but one could also say that Dick got screwed because of the focus os his documentary. The MPAA was mad that someone would make a film about them, that they completely shut it out. Dick tried to get the film appealed to a lower rating, but that system has a whole endless set of rules that you need to see to really understand. It's completely silly.

All in all, the rating system is indeed flawed. Dick's film is a bit biased, but it's also the truth. Look at some of the ratings in the past, I have been shocked by some of the reasons why some films are given R. For example, a wonderful film from two years ago called "The Merchant of Venice" was given an R rating because of four women standing, looking over a bridge, without any shirts on. What is the big deal? Dick pleas for a better system. A system that is relied more on the truth, instead of being so secretive. And he is right in what he is asking for. The MPAA rating system is simply another form of censorship. It is blocking what is right and what isn't right to see. It's possible to see some of the most horrid images on the news, and yet seeing a naked male or female is wrong. Art is art, and it doesn't need to be blocked. It shouldn't be.

As a documentary, Dick is very successful. Intercutting the investigation with interviews goes very smooth. The investigation is fun, and the interviews really do catch interest. I learned alot of things about the MPAA that I didn't know before. In addition, there were alot of fun stories about directors getting screwed over by the NC-17 rating, including stories from John Waters, whose last film was given an NC-17 rating. He asked why they rated it that, and what he could do to get it to an R, to which they replied "It's hard to say. We stopped taking notes about twenty minutes in."