This Film is Not Yet Rated
That this film was released at all is a testament to the power of freedom of speech in this country. That it brings out a rebellious spirit in its’ viewer- at least in this one- is a tribute to the scrappy determination and focus of director Kirby Dick. A hit at this year’s Sundance Film Festival, Kirby’s fascinating look at the movie ratings system is an eye-opener for anyone with even a slight interest in the business. It’s also indespensible viewing for anyone who may have to deal with the Motion Picture Association of America one day; in other words, listen up aspiring filmmakers- Kirby Dick has something to tell you.
The hypocracy and contradictions in how the MPAA rates movies isn’t news to me- I wrote a paper on it back at GSU in 1997 (to be posted on Sonic Cinema in the near future). And since then, it’s only gotten more ridiculously obvious how much the system has to change. What is news, however, is how Dick’s investigation reveals how little we should expect change from the monolithic organization- which serves as Hollywood’s lobby in Washington (should we be surprised long-time MPAA mouthpiece Jack Valenti was a politician prior to Hollywood?)- anytime soon. It’s kind of disheartening. What’s inspiring is Dick’s drive to uncover the organization’s secrets- namely, the unnamed group of nine “average parents” who make up the film rating board, which watches the film, and assigns it one of the following ratings- G, PG, PG-13, R, or NC-17 (the general guidlines for what constitutes each rating have never been more pointedly funny as how Dick tells it here), the last of which replaced the “X” rating after that became associated with hardcore pornography. But what’s in a name? X or NC-17, it still means restrictions on advertising, booking, and box-office. Like the MPAA, Dick isn’t fair and balanced- this is muckraking documentary journalism along the lines of Michael Moore (“Fahrenheit 9/11”) and Morgan Spurlock (“Super Size Me”). We’ve seen the MPAA’s side in talking head interviews and in the way they rate movies. This film needs to be one-sided to prove its’ point, which is that artistic integrity has become compromised in the name of censorship, as the MPAA’s board decides what stays (violence), what goes (sex), and what just shouldn’t be (gay sex). We hear from filmmakers- mostly indie- across the spectrum of genre filmmaking- about how they’ve been handcuffed into making edits to their films- ranging from Oscar winners (Kimberly Pierce’s “Boys Don’t Cry”) to cult attractions (John Waters’ “A Dirty Shame”) to iconoclastic swan songs (Stanley Kubrick’s “Eyes Wide Shut” is mentioned by Newsweek critic David Asnen) to critical hits (Matt Stone and Trey Parker’s “South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut”) to box-office duds (Kevin Smith’s “Jersey Girl”)- in order to gain favorable ratings for maximum exposure. If you think the earlier reference to violence being greenlit over sex for an R rating is exaggerated, think again- “Saving Private Ryan” and “True Lies” received R-ratings handily despite excessive violence, while “Eyes Wide Shut” was forced into digital alterations after its’ makers death because of excessive nudity (only when controversial politics- see Oliver Stone’s unmentioned “Natural Born Killers”- comes in does violence get a red flag from the board). And that’s just the major studio films; the indies have it ten times worse. The same scene that would get a pass in a mainstream film is ordered to be chopped in a low-budget film; of course, one can’t even fein surprise when you realize the major studios are paying the $30,000-range salaries of the board members.
Why are the board members’ identities kept secret? According to the MPAA, to keep them from being influenced, but when you’re being paid by the studios anyway- and apparently the studios do have contact with the members in discussing what would have to change to gain a more favorable rating- how much more influenced can they be? Are we talking about “favors” that might get them slapped with an NC-17 in a ratings screening? A more believable company line for the anonymity of the board members would be to protect the members from outside reprisals and scorn from average folks who disagree with their decisions and filmmakers who are at their mercy for their film’s creative and financial freedom. That’s where Dick’s decision to hire a private detective to find out the identities of the member’s becomes problematic. He has the right to do so, but is it the right thing to do? Are you ruining these people’s lives in doing so for your own purposes? He argues- as do others he interviews- that the US is the only country where movie raters are kept a secret from the public, and that’s fair, but it also brings into question his own ethical guidelines. Of course, there is an appeals process in place for filmmakers who wish to get the rating overturned without putting their film further beneath the editing knife. The members of the appeals board are not kept out of sight for filmmakers, but their identities are, and for good reason; through Dick’s investigation, we discover that all are either studio or exhibitor employees, and even two members of the clergy are present. Talk about a stacked deck. It’s not entirely hopeless, though; last year’s Iraq soldier doc “Gunner’s Palace” had their R-rating overturned for a PG-13 despite the film’s foul language and violent content, the argument being that this is real life, and you can’t censor that.
Dick wasn’t so lucky. The last portion of his film is devoted to his dealing with the MPAA on the part of this very film. He submits it to the ratings board, who gives it an NC-17; they cite the many clips of sex scenes he employs in the film to make his point, but you suspect something else lead to the decision. And the appeals process ties his hands by not allowing him to cite past decisions of the board ,’cause, you know, this isn’t a court of law where precedent has meaning. Of course, even thinking about the precedent the MPAA has set is enough to make one’s head hurt. Ultimately, that’s the point of what Dick is looking into in this film. No threatening to burn the negative by Hollywood for this film, as has been the case in the past for films from “Citizen Kane” to “The Last Temptation of Christ”; slapping it with the ratings board’s own kiss of death will do just fine to make sure everyone doesn’t see it. But in allowing it to be released, even if it is limited, maybe the MPAA underestimated Dick’s film and its’ power to inspire someone to come along and change things. It’s certainly a step in that direction.
