How is there only one review of this here?
Added 1/15/2010
I saw this film shortly after it came out, and loved it, despite various flaws. I forgot about reviewing it until reading the comments in the reviews for Ma Vie En Rose, a fine film that many were amazed to see receive an R-rating.
That rating makes perfect sense once one sees this movie. Whether we like to admit it or not, there's a lot of control in this country over what we experience from folks who haven't learned how to think properly---that is, with an open mind and wide range of cultural awarenesses. These are the kind of people who keep us permanently in one war or another; apparently the God they worship doesn't like nudity or anything sexual...but he just LOVES violence and war. How does that First Commandment go again?
We are encouraged (by those pulling the strings) to watch graphic, brutal killings day in and night out on TV and in movies, but we are so scared of a little sexuality, especially if it's of a sort that doesn't feature the missionary position and strong feelings of guilt afterwards. These are the kind of folks who quietly review our celluloid art (or lack thereof) and decide what we and our kids are allowed to watch. This film makes that clear, intelligently and with much wry wit.
If you've ever questioned a rating on a movie, see this film and find out why that rating was put there. Our national conscience comes to a large degree from the art we encounter, so control over that art is a big deal for those who stand to make trillions from selling guns and war, and from promoting their neanderthal concepts of what sexuality and religion are.
This doc does have some problems, such as the ineptness of the private investigators, Dick's occasionally immature attitude, and the very one-sided approach in general. But the topic, and the truths presented, outweigh the faults and make this film well worth seeing.
I thought this was a well-known movie, especially among film lovers. Apparently not, from the dearth of reviews here. All I can say is, if you love the art of cinema and wonder why we don't see more of it in this land, watch This Film Is Not Yet Rated to see who subtly shapes our cinematic landscape in ways you might never imagine.
4 out of 4 people found this helpful.
|
Mind Opening....
Added 12/2/2009
I recently rented this movie and found it disturbing and revealing. How a group of people, working for "the best interest of the public" is kept secret, in this day and age is shocking. Kirby's efforts are funny and rewarding... GREAT JOB A must see if you wanna see how much of a land of the free we DON'T live in... Censorship is alive and well in Hollywood....
3 out of 4 people found this helpful.
|
Big Brother Goes to the Movies
Added 7/12/2009
Kirby Dick attempts in this film to show how arbitrary and capricious the ranking of movies by the Motion Picture Association of America is in this country and to "out" both the reviewers and members of the appeals board since the identies of both groups are highly secretive. For instance, only two former members of the reviewers were willing to talk on camera; one appeals member spoke while another would not let his face or voice be recognized.
Some interesting findings: there are no known homosexuals on the reviewer list. (This fact is important because gay-themed films consistently get closer scrutiny than do straight ones. The difference between an R and N-17 in terms of income is enormous. Funniest fact: The F word used once in a film gets you a GP-13 ranking, and the F word cannot refer to a physical act but must be used as slang.
Interesting trivia not covered in the film: Jack Valenti, the head of the Motion Picture Association of America from 1966 to 2004-- we could not have a night at the Oscars of course without his presence-- was investigated, on orders from J. Edgar Hoover, by the FBI to determine if he were homosexual or not when Lyndon Johnson made him an aide in 1964. Talk about the pot calling the kettle beige! The ironies are too thick to fathom.
This movie is certainly an eye-opener.
2 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
A Bit Dated - But What You Always Thought The MPAA Was Doing
Added 7/11/2009
This is an excellent documentary about the MPAA, and how those mysterious film ratings appear on the movies you watch.
Kirby Dick blends interviews with leading edge directors and his own work to get "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" documentary rated by the MPAA. The usual suspects are here, John Waters (Pecker, Pink Flamingos, Hairspray, and A Dirty Shame), and Kevin Smith (Clerks, Dogma, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, Clerks II, and Zack and Miri Make A Porno). Both I recognize as genius directors that push every boundary imaginable. The interesting spin Dick uses is to include director interviews about some not so controversial films from 2005 - South Park, Team America, The Cooler, Boys Don't Cry.
The first half of the film is a bit hokey, although the director had to develop his premise and background to get to the more important topics. There's some silliness with hiring a private investigator, he spends a long time showing us how she spied on the MPAA's office building, writing down license plate numbers, snooping in plain sight for reviewers' names, etc. It all smacked a bit of sensationalist television. I probably could have used a lot less of this, especially after I viewed the DVD bonus materials. Yes he shows a few sensual clips from certain movies.
The example that surprised me the most was The Cooler. I've seen this film, and loved it. Originally the film got an NC-17 rating, why? Because at one point William Macy give oral pleasure to Maria Bello, and for a fraction of a second her pubic hair is visible. There is a good interview with the director about how he appealed the rating and lost. The film stands in two versions, R with that scene edited, and NC-17 with that scene intact. This is one of many examples of the capricious nature of the rating board.
Where the film truly shines is in the last 30 minutes when Kirby Dick starts to talk about appealing the rating of his film, and supports that with other director's experiences. Its a mysterious secret society that only a few are allowed to play in and do well.
The DVD has a fantastic set of bonus features. In fact the about 45 minutes of interviews feel like they should have been woven into the film. The very last discussion about copywright law is fascinating.
The movie is a bit dated. Although released in 2006/2007, it is really based on filming and investigation from 2005. At the time, Blockbuster and Wall-Mart virtually ruled the world in movie rentals. Jack Valenti was still alive. And there was a very strong moral majority undercurrent in the country. Fast forward to 2009, Blockbuster is virtually bankrupt and is no longer the only outlet for rentals. Jack Valenti has passed away and his 1950's morality is very slowly fading away from the MPAA. Theatrical release is not the only way that a studio can make money on films anymore - in fact direct to DVD indie films tend to make significant money. And there's a sort of backlash in DVD sales and rentals - mark a movie Unrated and it almost automatically sells more (yes I know its mostly certain genres, but the point is still valid). Independent film by FilmMovements, ThinkFilm, and others are giving a huge number of film makers a voice outside of the MPAA. Add to that Hulu and DVR's, and a lot of what was pointed out in the film is a little less valid today.
I certainly viewed this film in a positive light, almost knew that I would agree with it before pressing play. The entire MPAA system baffles me. It should confuse anyone that watches a significant number of movies. The only thing that seems to apply is a 1950's morality that we supposedly had back in that era (mom at home baking pies, dad working hard, the kids playing baseball outside, and everyone is rich and happy not cursing). Sadly when you think carefully about that time period, it was probably one of the most oppressive eras we have ever had. It is hard for me to put myself in the shoes of a viewer that thinks everything the MPAA does is brilliant and the best system ever invented. How those people would view this film, I simply can't comment or fathom.
The film is a little bit sensationalist and self promoting. You sort of have to agree that the MPAA generally doesn't do a very good job at rating films. But once you get past that, there's a lot to think about in this film. I found it to be a very interesting hour and a half.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Always good when a documentary entertains and informs
Added 4/17/2009
Amazing documentary about the MPAA, how it operates in secrecy, and what that means for movie consumers - mainly, a board of people with dubious credentials and experience make decisions about what you and I can and cannot see in a movie theater. For a serious topic, the documentary is hilarious and takes a light-hearted approach. If, like me, you believe that adults should be allowed to make their own informed decisions about what they can and can't watch, this is a great expose on just how much power the MPAA raters have to change the content of what you and I watch. If you love movies, don't miss this DVD!
2 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
