This film is not yet rated

[tic]

A tv documentary shown on BBC (uk) on 17th of September
Director Kirby Dick on the secretive censors.


Imagine you’re on trial, defending yourself, only to be judged by an anonymous group whose deliberations are held behind closed doors, whose unchallengeable standards are seemingly arbitrary. It’s not a system that would hold up in many courts of law, but it’s the way that the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) classifies movies in the US.

Since its inception in 1968, numerous filmmakers have fallen foul of an age-based classification set-up (from G to the dreaded, stigmatized NC-17) which, frankly, screams “set-up”. One that gets its knickers in a twist over explicit sexuality (especially homosexuality or female pleasure) but appears unfazed by excessive violence; and one proven to favour studio output at the expense of true independent cinema.

Enter indie documentarian Kirby Dick’s This Film Is Not Yet Rated, an indignant exposé of the MPAA’s mysterious moral guardians and the system’s glaring hypocrisies. “It’s still astonishing that for nearly 30 years these people’s names have been kept secret,” puzzles Dick. “News organizations and 60 Minutes have tried to get these names but no one has made an issue out of it.”



Alongside Dick’s detective work, he interviews several penalized filmmakers, including Kimberley Pierce (Boys Don’t Cry), John Waters (A Dirty Shame) and Team America’s Matt Stone, though many others declined to appear. “Again I was very surprised by the paranoia,” says Dick. “It’s not national security. But many independent filmmakers were afraid to speak because I think they thought their future films would be harshly rated.”

Dick’s criticisms are numerous: professionalizing the raters to include media experts and child psychologists; clearly defining down their criteria; and less anti-indie bias. His own solution, though, is unlikely to find favour in Hollywood or Washington.

“Personally I think that the ideal ratings system would be one without age-based restrictions,” he offers. “The most important function a ratings board can perform is to give concise, comprehensive descriptions of a film’s content, whether it’s sex, nudity, violence, drug use - and let parents across the US decide what they want their children to see, rather than let ten anonymous parents in Los Angeles.”

After all, who watches the watchmen? Submitting his own film, Dick learned that the MPAA had given it an NC-17 – and illegally made a copy of it. “The MPAA defines piracy as ‘any single unauthorized duplication of a copyrighted work’,” he chuckles, “so by their own definition they pirated my film

The documentary's main aim was to try to identify those people (the supposed Moral Majority) who where members of this body, in order to establish whether they had the right to issue the ratings, eg two members represented the church, some where in the media industry.

One aspect which came up concerned the war film - in order to be allowed general release, the film had to be shown to the pentagon. Any film which showed the US military in a bad way was unacceptable, ie the infamous pictures showing the iraqi captives during the gulf war, would (if released) receive a NC-17, however a film which shows the military as the saviour of the world, eg TopGun or virtually all second world war films, would be on general release, with a PG shoved on for good measure.

Another issue which came up was the question of sexuality and/or swear words - a pre-printed form with tick boxes, questions and reasons for a particular rating were given, eg how many 'pelvic thrusts' where in a sex scene, the number of times the word 'fuck' or 'shit' was used, scenes of sexual violence or implied ' Boys Don't Cry' was used as an example, the list went on and on.

There was frequents snips of those films in question and a comparison to the European Film industry which has a far more lenient view on the above and on other issues. "The US film industry is frequently viewed as odd to Europe", was one comment. Why?

A comparison of the ratings:

Uk and Europe
U & Uc - Universal - Anyone can see it.
PG - Parental Guidance. Suitable for children if accompanied by an adult.
12 & 12a - Only suitable for those aged 12 and over.
15- Suitable for those of the age of 15 and over.
18- Only for adults of 18 and over.
R18 - Only in licensed cinemas and/or sex shops (also known as XXX)

US
G - General Audience - anyone can see it
PG - Parental Guidance - Suitable for children if accompanied by an adult.
PG-13 - as above but the child must be 13 or over.
R - Viewers under 17 must be accompanied by an adult
NC-17 - Only suitable for the ages 17 and over.

One of the most interesting is the 15 cert'. In the UK anyone of 15 and over can see it, unaccompanied. The closest to this for the US seems to be the R cert', the difference is you must be accompanied by an adult.

Are the 15 year olds in the UK more mature than those in the US?

Are UK adults more lenient than US adults?

A far as I'm aware NO member of the church is a member of the BBFC. (British Board of Film Classication) Are the British immoral?

Many films that where originally 'banned' in the UK can now be bought in general dvd sections. Again are the UK adults more lenient and immoral?

You decide.

[ABnormaL]

Sorry, going to be picky, a 12A can be seen by children under 12 if accompanied by an adult but a 12 can't be viewed by anyone under the age of 12. The 12A certificate was created for films such as Spiderman.

Comparing the certificates and what they mean it does look like the MPAA is a lot more strict than the BBFC but I was always under the impression that Britain was the most harsh film censor than anywhere else. Maybe that just means they are more likely to apply a higher rating to a film than anyone else? I think it's bad that America doesn't have the equivalent 15 certificate. It's like until you're 17 you can't go and see a movie by yourself.

I always look at ratings as 'guidelines' rather than having to be the actual age to see the film, but I do agree that it should be there. Would anyone rather have non-rated films?

[neverending]

The IFC was heavily promoting this film last year when it came out. I really want to see it. I hope it will come to cable in the US soon.

As for who is more lenient- it was Britain who outright BANNED all those video nasties in the first place- in the US we could go see them if we wanted.

I wouldn't categorize this as a TV documentary, as it did have a (limited) theatrical release.

[Bub the Zombie]

The ratings have never made sense. If I like a movie then I'll go and watch it or buy it. The censor board has always had it's head up it's own ass.

[tic]

quote As for who is more lenient- it was Britain who outright BANNED all those video nasties in the first place- in the US we could go see them if we wanted. unquote Neverending (it didn't work don't know why)

But like I said, now we've been able to get all of them. Usually in the big high street stores, which previously would never have thought of such a thing, that also goes for the games aswell; there was a big hoo-hah over here about 'Manhunt' but you could and indeed still can buy it (usually in the bargain bucket).

Incidently while watching this documentary/film whatever you wish to call it, the phrase "homosexual re-habilitation camp" was mentioned. I had to look this up, as I couldn't believe what I just heard - a place where people are sent to cure them, of what?

But I do agree or at least did agree, that previously the US seemed more lenient on somethings, but I fail to see why the Church should be present, acting as some sort of moral guardian, deciding if someone should see something or not.

I am my own censor and moral guardian and feel qualified enough to decide whether I should watch something or not, I have known myself the longest afterall.

I said before in another thread, that during my younger days (teen era) I watched things that perhaps I shouldn't have, I was referring to those 'video nasties'. All, I may mention with my parents, whether this makes my parents bad or not I don't know. I do know I was brought up to respect them and others and their opinions, I may not agree with them all of the time but still prepared to give them a fair shot.

I also haven't (unless while sleep-walking) turned into a vampire, werewolf, psychotic mask wearing serial killer or cannibal, but of course there's still time. ;)

I am not a parent, but have young relatives, and when they come to visit do not allow them to watch those things which they shouldn't, or are perhaps too young to understand.

Which makes me a hypocrite if you've read the above. :rolleyes:

[ManchestrMorgue]

However, the ratings system in the US is voluntary. In Australia (and I believe in the UK as well) it is mandatory. In Australia any film that is distributed, be it in cinemas, on DVD etc, has to be reviewed by the OFLC and given a rating. If it is "refused classification" it is, in effect, banned.

So Cannibal Holocaust, up until last year, was refused classification in Australia, which meant that it couldn't be sold here, and could be seized by customs if someone tried to privately import it. Other films still remain banned in Australia. Eg Salo is banned here, although it was classified at one point in time. The full version of Caligula is banned here.

It is my understanding that in the USA, ratings really affect cinematic release - eg a film getting an NC-17 means that many cinemas won't show the film, and audiences are restricted by age. However the same film can be released without a rating applied on DVD.