This Film Is Not Yet Rated

2006 "Censorship, uncensored."
This Film Is Not Yet Rated
7.4| 1h38m| NR| en| More Info
Released: 26 January 2006 Released
Producted By: BBC
Country:
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

Kirby Dick's provocative documentary investigates the secretive and inconsistent process by which the Motion Picture Association of America rates films, revealing the organization's underhanded efforts to control culture. Dick questions whether certain studios get preferential treatment and exposes the discrepancies in how the MPAA views sex and violence.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

BBC

Trailers & Images

Reviews

chaveza427 I made sure to read both side of the arguments for and against this movie before posting my own personal review and I must say, it's obvious that people have a hug problem with their own bodies. You will read a series of arguments saying that this movie is asking to have our children of six or seven years of age walk into a theater and watch hardcore pornography. What they fail to realize is how much an NC-17 rating destroys a film's budget.This movie makes an extremely valid argument that despite our supposed first amendment rights here in the United States, we have a secondary form of censorship. That is to say, the financial form. Taking a look at the MPAA's rating system they immediately uncover the moral duplicity involved in rating a film. From the difference between an adolescent male masturbating into an apple pie, and a fully clothed female masturbating to curb a homosexual desire.Our constant filtration of simple sexual acts that most humans figure out by their thirteenth birthday (with the rest realized by their seventeenth) is pointed out. The filmmakers interviewed are all victims of this biased rating system allowing them to voice the reasons behind certain scenes in their movies.I suggest this movie to anyone who would like to see how our First Amendment is held up.
jscott554 The movie makes an attempt to illustrated the nuances of how the Motion Picture Association goes about its business of rating films. While it does outline the basics of what level of unacceptable behavior will result in a more restricted rating, it does so poking fun at the notion that a board elected to rate the films may actually know better than the filmmakers themselves as to what is acceptable and what isn't for a 17 year old child. In any family with daughters, it is no surprise that parents are highly sensitive to the ratings on movies and what their children may (or may not) see. The opening scene in this movie is typical of the rest of the film. It shows a filmmaker who takes issue with the strikes that the panel gave her film. The studio killed the film because it had an NC-17 (no child under 17 allowed). The three strikes against the film were; Strike one, a scene with a shot of a boy coming up from "going down" on a girl but has his face covered in cum. Strike two is graphic scene depicting anal rape of a boy. The third scene is an explicit display of a woman's long orgasm.While the last scene may be acceptable for showing sexual gratification (R rating), it is a far fetched notion that any child should be allowed to see scene one or two. The filmmaker is completely surprised by the board's stance. This documentary styled film is an illustration as to why the Motion Picture Association has no business letting filmmakers rate their own films. The artists and the filmmakers themselves have no idea of vulgarity or beautiful scenery. While the film attempts to show both sides, it's tilted to the notion that filmmakers should be allowed more freedom. Want a movie with an agenda... this is the one for you.
tnrcooper This is an investigation into the membership and methodology by which the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) reaches decisions about ratings for films in the United States.The MPAA will not disclose the names of the members who rate the films, saying only that they are parents of kids. There is a lot of inconsistency in the manner in which ratings are given to films and director Kirby Dick in this film addresses those inconsistencies, speaking to many directors about their dealings with the MPAA. Some of the revelations by the directors are quite interesting and speak to the seeming arbitrariness by which the MPAA operates. Kimberly Peirce ("Boys Don't Cry") is particularly poignant about the different treatment toward a woman dressed to pass as a woman in her film as opposed to more tolerant treatment toward a woman experiencing a similar sexual experience in other films. Kevin Smith speaks of why the MPAA rated his film an NC-17 and it is because Liv Tyler's character in his movie expresses pleasure from sex. Dick discloses the number of directors who have been forced to change NC-17 into R-rated films and it is a who's who of directors.If a film receives an NC-17 rating, it will have difficulty securing distribution or advertising-essentially ensuring that the film will be an economic failure. In retaining the ability to make directors change their films, the MPAA under the leadership of Jack Valenti and then his successor together with deputy Joan Graves, head of the ratings board (and very handsomely compensated), the organization seems like a willing handmaiden to the studio system in the United States. Even more byzantine and moralistic is the appeals board to which a filmmaker reaches out if he or she is unhappy with his/her rating. That board includes two members of the clergy who do not vote, but who are present nonetheless for the appeals from filmmakers as to why their film shouldn't be rated NC-17 and the board's subsequent response to their appeal. The presence there seems like a not-so-subtle message from the MPAA to filmmakers. It turns out that the appeal board members are even more invested in retaining the power of studios to control the messages conveyed by filmmakers in that all the members are important figures within the film business.For Dick, more annoying is the fact that the identities of the MPAA members are kept secret. This is done, allegedly, in order to immunize the members from outside pressure. This point seems to be undercut by the fact that during the film board members are reported to be speaking with studios about how to get a certain rating. And Dick learns that, contrary to the claims of the MPAA, the board ratings members are not parents of kids-for whose benefit the MPAA supposedly works. In any case, Dick hires an investigative company to attempt to identify the members of the MPAA which rates films. The MPAA comes off as small-minded and Napoleonic in its use of power arbitrarily to serve the power of the studios for whom it was essentially created. Dick makes an entertaining and insightful film and is very enterprising in wheedling out the identities of the MPAA rating board. All in all, this is a fairly entertaining expose of the myopia and secrecy of the MPAA.
kiz-hunter I just wanted to say first that I don't normally review films so this isn't going to be a professional review, it just a personal review of the documentary. With that said , I thought it was great! It was so real and honest. I wish I had heard about this documentary a long time ago. If you've ever wondered who in the world rates movies this is for sure the movie for you. I definitely give it a 10/10. Its probably the best documentary I've seen. Its hilarious and compelling, it will make you angry and smile at the same time. just a great watch. I recommend this to anyone who loves a good documentary/ film in general. It's definitely a must see.