My pick for the week is a great documentary from last year called This Film is Not Yet Rated. The film looks at how movie ratings happen — whether a movie gets a G, PG, PG-13, R or NC-17 label, and why. The difference in ratings is quite significant. An NC-17 film suffers from diminished advertising and distribution potential: dramatically fewer people will see, or even hear of movies that get the dreaded rating. And the factors that distinguish the R from NC-17 are much more disturbing than you’d think.
Ratings are decided by a secret panel at the MPAA made up of ordinary American parents. And here’s what they are determined to protect society from: female masturbation, female orgasm, a woman getting oral sex, non-missionary sex and gay sex. I mean, think of the children! (Actually, don’t — they wouldn’t be getting into R movies, anyway.)
Violence, on the other hand, is pretty OK in any form. So, in other words, if you’re a filmmaker, it’s easier to get away with having a woman get beaten up than having a woman get off.
The doc is ripe with great interviews with filmmakers including John Waters (who is hilarious), Kimberly Peirce (who made Boys Don’t Cry), Atom Egoyan, Matt Stone (of South Park fame), Darren Aronofsky (who made Requiem for a Dream) and Kevin Smith who have all come up against the MPAA in their careers. Their viewpoints are often funny but frustrating — when a film comes back with an NC-17 rating, filmmakers are often not told what specifically the offending material was — and must go back and blindly edit to make the film less “offensive” if they wish to win the lesser rating.
This last fact is most offensive of all: there are no concrete guidelines to argue with, nothing out in the open to debate and denounce: just a chill that goes through film if indie filmmakers want anyone to see their movie at all. It’s censorship, pure and simple. And, it’s just so supremely fucked up that a woman having an orgasm is more controversial than murder, war or execution.
(The other half of the film is also intensely satisfying: filmmaker Kirby Dick hires a private investigator to figure out who, exactly, is on this secret panel. Through stakeouts, surveillance and stealing trash, they uncover the people behind the MPAA.)
Highly recommended.
Digg
Facebook
del.icio.us
10 comments
Do remember, though, that Canadian and American film ratings are different, and decided by different bodies. Canadian ratings tend to be tougher on violence and less concerned with sex, which makes sense to me. :)
Posted by allison
August 25, 2007, 4:11 AM
I remember, with reference to one of Atom Egoyan's movies, reading about how two "thrusts" in a sex scene was okay, but three would put the movie over the edge into porn territory. Who decides these things? Guess I should watch the movie to find out.
Posted by Anna
August 25, 2007, 3:10 PM
Does the MPAA actually say their panels are made up of ORDINARY American parents? And do you have to be a parent to be on the panel? I wonder if the movie talks about what makes a parent "ordinary" i.e. if you're a single parent, a queer parent, a lower income parent, an Arab parent, or an adoptive parent, are you still an ordinary parent? Yeesh.
Posted by Thea
August 25, 2007, 5:15 PM
I think the Egoyan movie in question is Where the Truth Lies, but I've heard the whole "two thrusts" thing as well as many other seemingly arbitrary limits bandied about when discussing movies trying to avoid the NC-17/unrated label.
Also, Thea, an ordinary parent is one that cares about family values. No, you don't get to look at the definition of family values we wrote up, you just have to take our word for it.
Posted by Wesley
August 26, 2007, 12:12 AM
i really enjoyed the movie, but how do y'all feel about the cover? i didn't see that cover when i rented it, but it creeps me out a bit - i'm sure they're trying to demonstrate the branding of sexuality in films as bad, but to me it just looks like violence.
Posted by fireeyedgirl
August 29, 2007, 10:16 AM
Yeah, I'm not loving that case art. I actually didn't realize what it was when I skimmed over it to read Megan's post. It is the sort of image I'd like to hear Jean Kilbourne comment on.
Posted by Catherine
August 30, 2007, 12:55 PM
I was about to post "Isn't that a man's hand?" when I realised that's a naked female body. Gaks! It makes me think of the kerfuffle re: Jessica Valenti's Full Frontal Feminism cover - how it's a body of a hot naked lady. It's caused particular anger in the women of colour blogosphere, who feel that the book doesn't appeal to young women (as it claims), but simply to young white women, and that the cover just reinforces that.
Posted by Thea
August 30, 2007, 1:48 PM
Um, I got the whole "this cover image is worth discussion because they're burning a branding into a woman's naked ass like she was cattle," but not really feeling the "this cover image is worth discussion because it's a white (vaguely) naked torso." I really just don't understand the problem with Valenti's cover at all. Not in the slightest. Just sayin'.
Posted by Stacey May
August 30, 2007, 1:58 PM
The DVD cover put me right off too - one of those "we're using violence to expose and critique violence" kind of things. Maybe it's fitting, and I'm not like "They should have used an image of a fluffy bunny instead", but yeah, ironic appropriations of disturbing things is questionable at best.
Posted by Anna
August 30, 2007, 2:06 PM
Okay, so I just got the deets on the poster: turns out they did three versions of this poster...
"The IFC web site (the Independent Film Channel is releasing the documentary) is hosting two This Film Is Not Yet Rated movie posters. The two one-sheets each feature a naked torso (one male, one female) with the film title treatment (based on the design of an MPAA ratings logo) being branded into the subject’s skin. The IFC web site and promotional materials featured these copylines about their print campaign:
“Take a look at the ad they wouldn’t let us place.”
“See the poster they wouldn’t let you see only at ifc.com”
The OTHER poster is completely ass-free, and the one that made it into newspapers and the public domain.
Posted by Stacey May
August 30, 2007, 2:07 PM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.