This post is not yet rated
Oct. 29th, 2010 03:34 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
von_geisterhandOne of the more interesting films I saw recently was "This film is not yet rated", a documentary by Kirby Dick, who you might remember as the director of "Sick: The Life and Death of Bob Flanagan, Supermasochist" (not really a film you are bound to forget if you've seen it).
The subject of "This film is not yet rated" (which, incidentally, is not rated by the MPAA) is... the MPAA. And the fact that it's a private organisation with no (official) government backing but some very interesting connections to the major film studios and some just-as-interesting lobby groups. Now, if you think that the MPAA's decisions don't really affect you because you don't live in the US, you might want to consider that point-of-view. For a start, there is the fact that the big US studios have taken to produce/distribute non-American films as well, just as obviously any decision that affects what films are made in the US also affects a market Hollywood has a monopoly on. As the film quite rightly points out, you will never know what films you never got to see just because somebody (possibly a member of the MPAA) decided it wasn't a good idea to make that film.
The starting point for the film is that while the MPAA is the main body who decides what is and what isn't suitable for the big screen, they are remarkably secretive when it comes to the identities of their raters as well as what actually makes them rate a film "NC-17" as opposed to "R". Well, when dealing with independent films, they are... So Kirby Dick (and a private investigator) set out to put a face to the MPAA. But that's not even the interesting bit.
Far more fascinating is how different the MPAA's judgment of scenes is when there is, say, a heterosexual sex scene onscreen from the rating for (a film containing, say,) a sex scene involving two men. Or a couple of African descent. (No, seriously.) Or anything else that deviates from what they see as "right and proper". If you ever wanted an evil, bigoted and secret(ive) organisation, there you have it.
The subject of "This film is not yet rated" (which, incidentally, is not rated by the MPAA) is... the MPAA. And the fact that it's a private organisation with no (official) government backing but some very interesting connections to the major film studios and some just-as-interesting lobby groups. Now, if you think that the MPAA's decisions don't really affect you because you don't live in the US, you might want to consider that point-of-view. For a start, there is the fact that the big US studios have taken to produce/distribute non-American films as well, just as obviously any decision that affects what films are made in the US also affects a market Hollywood has a monopoly on. As the film quite rightly points out, you will never know what films you never got to see just because somebody (possibly a member of the MPAA) decided it wasn't a good idea to make that film.
The starting point for the film is that while the MPAA is the main body who decides what is and what isn't suitable for the big screen, they are remarkably secretive when it comes to the identities of their raters as well as what actually makes them rate a film "NC-17" as opposed to "R". Well, when dealing with independent films, they are... So Kirby Dick (and a private investigator) set out to put a face to the MPAA. But that's not even the interesting bit.
Far more fascinating is how different the MPAA's judgment of scenes is when there is, say, a heterosexual sex scene onscreen from the rating for (a film containing, say,) a sex scene involving two men. Or a couple of African descent. (No, seriously.) Or anything else that deviates from what they see as "right and proper". If you ever wanted an evil, bigoted and secret(ive) organisation, there you have it.
