This
Film Is Not Yet Rated (**)
review by Jon
Waterman
Every filmgoer in the United States knows about it, but how
much do we use it? The Motion Picture Association of America
(MPAA) presents the public with ratings for virtually every
film, thus giving parents a guideline as to what films are
appropriate for their children to see. The most common ratings
are G, PG, PG-13, and R. This last one is the bane of high
school students everywhere. Every once in a while, a film will
receive an NC-17 rating, which means that no one under 17 years
of age is permitted to see the film. The rating is a kiss of
death to filmmakers, because not only does it mean fewer people
can attend their films, but also that the mass media will refuse
to advertise it, most distributors will refuse to carry it,
and most theaters will refuse to show it. Is the MPAA really
a voluntary system designed solely to inform the masses, or
is it really a form of censorship?
Documentarian Kirby Dick attempts to expose the MPAA as the
latter, citing inconsistencies in the ratings system, the anonymity
of its ratings panel, the nearly fascist appeals process, and
its direct ties to the major motion picture studios. The argument
is somewhat strong, but focuses on the wrong factors. The majority
of the time is spent trying to determine just who these raters
are. In order to do this, he hires a private investigator to
do some elementary spy work. The MPAA believes that making
these names public will cause undue pressure and influence
on the raters. Dick takes a vendetta approach to revealing
them while only glancing over the fact that the raters are
internally influenced by the studios that they consult throughout
the rating process. I’m not sure exactly what purpose
showing the raters ultimately has, other than to piss off the
MPAA and kill a lot of time within the movie that should have
been spent making a multi-pronged attack on this biased, flawed,
hypocritical system. To insinuate that just because the children
of the people on the board are now grown up that they can’t
remember what it was like to raise young children and rate
films accordingly is cheap.
Dick spends a lot of time interviewing individual filmmakers
who have been burned by the MPAA. They were forced to cut their
movie (and their vision) to avoid the NC-17 rating if they
hoped to have their film released and seen by anyone. It would
be interesting to hear what a few more mainstream directors
that haven’t had battles think about the MPAA system
and how they’ve dealt with it, or if they agree with
the more risqué filmmakers’ claims. Dick does
interview one film critic (along with a couple other non-filmmakers
which help give the situation a historical context), but I
know that Roger Ebert has been very vocal about the MPAA’s
system and has called for reform on several different occasions.
He would be a valuable interview and resource, not only because
of his criticism abilities, but also because of his ideas for
change.
I was disappointed that Kirby doesn’t offer much in
terms of what can be done to fix the problem. I guess he thinks
that revealing who’s involved will help swing the tide
in the artists’ favor. The only real solution given is
to start up a different ratings board. He doesn’t even
provide the audience with contact information or a reason to
do so. I would be calling for the public to write letters to
the MPAA asking to implement specific changes. The biggest
problem is that there is the NC-17 rating to begin with. If
the system is designed to give the parents a guide as to what
their children should or should not see, then why is there
a rating meant to completely restrict attendance of people
up to a certain age? If I’m a parent and I feel it might
be appropriate, then I should have that choice. There are accountability
problems across the board, from the parents, to the theaters
that are supposed to enforce the ratings, to the MPAA for giving
similar scenes contradictory ratings.
The system is flawed, there is no doubt about that. Kirby
sheds some light on the issue, but doesn’t offer a whole
lot of new information. Most likely, people that have an interest
in seeing the movie already can figure out what’s going
on inside the MPAA doors. It’s frustrating to know that
filmmakers feel they have to compromise their vision to get
an audience, but it’s also frustrating to see a documentary
that doesn’t touch on the real problems and issues.
respond to jon@filmbrats.com
|