This Film is Not Yet Rated
3.5/4
With Kirby Dick
The version being reviewed is unrated. It was previously rated NC-17 for Some Graphic Sexual Content
Think the film ratings board has your kids best interests at heart, as they so frequently claim?
Think again.
For everyone who is a film buff, or is at least a casual follower of the film industry, there are few things in the industry that inspire such universal vicious hatred than the MPAA. Under the guise of being advocates for parents, they commit some blatantly unethical, not to mention illegal, acts to protect themselves and the film industry. Corruption is hardwired into its very DNA. Everything they say is a distortion, a half truth, or a flat out lie. Blackmail, bullying, smear campaigns, favoritism, sexism, crackdowns on creative or technological innovation, piracy (which they so fervently "fight against")...all are methods that they resort to keep the status quo. And that's beyond the hypocrisy of their ratings board, which has raised the eyebrows of just about everyone and left film buffs and critics fuming.
The MPAA is little more than a "culture police" organization, and being indirectly funded organizations who control almost all of the media in the United States, they're in the perfect place to do it. They're funded by big business and wield immense influence in the government, making them essentially untouchable. In a deleted scene, one interviewee says that they have a whole building of lobbyists as opposed to Apple, who has one lobbyist in a rented office. For anyone who values the freedom of speech, that should chill you to the bone.
Kirby Dick, a documentary filmmaker who was nominated for an Academy Award for his film "Twist of Faith" (he was subsequently nominated again last year for his film "The Invisible War"), sought to make an expose on the MPAA. Before I viewed this film for the first time a number of years ago, I was already a harsh critic of the Ratings Board. As I watched the film, I grew more and more horrified. Their fingers into the forces that govern our way of life run far deeper than I could have imagined.
It's not that they're censors, although that part is bad enough that a government run board could only make things better since there would be some openness and at least some accountability (it's hard to imagine it being worse). It's that they work so hard to keep our culture from growing in just about every way possible. As society is becoming more and more liberal when it comes to sexual issues and profanity, the MPAA refuses to acknowledge this. Filmmakers, who often put years of tireless work into making the best film they can, are given a rating by an organization who won't allow anyone to know who they are (if people did, they'd realize how shoddy they were and how they were controlled by the big studios and beholden to special interest groups).
We're not seeing the movies that we were meant to see because of them. Or in the case of military-themed movies, not seeing them at all. The military will not give support (ranging from weapons to vehicles) unless they approve of the script, it passes by an appointed man who oversees filming, and the generals have to approve the final cut. Basically, any movie that makes the military look bad gets a no go right from the beginning.
They're incredibly tough on independent films, and Dick shows, in screen comparisons, the hypocrisy. Sex scenes that are virtually identical are often given harsher ratings if they're not a big studio film, and definitely if they're not straight sex. Unless its missionary or the woman on top, a sex scene will almost certainly get an NC-17. Even a woman experiencing pleasure from sex is unacceptable in many instances. They also, claiming not to want to interfere with their art, won't tell independent filmmakers what objectionable content to cut out. For big studios, it's the opposite.
What's more disturbing is that this wasn't something that happened recently (although as Dick points out, movies with much more explicit content were acceptable in the 1970's). No, it was rotten to the core even before its inception in its current form, and founder Jack Valenti was complicit in every bit of it.
Even the ratings process is a sham. If there's a tie or she disagrees with it, head rater Joan Graves can be the deciding vote or overrule it. Both she and Valenti are shown to be lying bullies, and Graves is a money hog (she has a multi-million dollar house when the other raters get as little as 30 grand a year). Priests from the Episcopal and Catholic Church are in the room for appeals. The raters aren't experts nor do they have any training or background that would make them well-suited for the position. They're "average" American parents, but the backgrounds the MPAA claims they have are a lie too.
The film plays out almost like a heist movie and a conspiracy thriller. Dick hires a trio of private investigators to track down and identify some of the raters. While this has some entertainment value, it's not as interesting or compelling as the disturbing activities of the MPAA.
Dick has gathered a more than a few filmmakers to talk about their confusing and confounding experiences with the wretched organization. "South Park" co-creator Matt Stone ("Orgazmo" and "South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut"), directors Kimberly Pierce ("Boys Don't Cry"), Mary Harron ("American Psycho"), Wayne Kramer ("The Cooler"), John Waters ("A Dirty Shame"), Allison Anders ("Gas, Food, Lighting"), Jamie Babbitt ("But I'm A Cheerleader"), Darren Aronofsky ("Requiem for a Dream"), Atom Egoyan ("Where the Truth Lies"). Actress Maria Bello appears, who is confused and a little pissed off at how a brief glimpse of her pubic hair earned the film an NC-17. Two former raters appear as well, as does film critic David Ansen (no doubt Roger Ebert, a vocal and tenacious critic of the MPAA, would have appeared, although his cancer treatments probably prevented him from doing so).
Their attacks on piracy are very simple: attack new technologies and try to legislate them from existence. As one interviewee points out, this interferes with the public's creative process and hampers innovation. Until we're exposed to it, we don't know what kind of features we want. Copyright law always favors the holder, and at the rate its going, nothing is going into public domain. And they're trying to make it next to impossible to use clips of footage for parodies or news segments. But, as Dick points out, they think themselves above the laws that they get passed, as they had copied his movie without his permission.
There are times when the film gets repetitive and drags, but all in all this is a disturbing and enlightening view of how pointless, not to mention reprehensible, the MPAA is. If you're curious as to why I rant about the MPAA until I'm red in the face, this is why.
With Kirby Dick
The version being reviewed is unrated. It was previously rated NC-17 for Some Graphic Sexual Content
Think the film ratings board has your kids best interests at heart, as they so frequently claim?
Think again.
For everyone who is a film buff, or is at least a casual follower of the film industry, there are few things in the industry that inspire such universal vicious hatred than the MPAA. Under the guise of being advocates for parents, they commit some blatantly unethical, not to mention illegal, acts to protect themselves and the film industry. Corruption is hardwired into its very DNA. Everything they say is a distortion, a half truth, or a flat out lie. Blackmail, bullying, smear campaigns, favoritism, sexism, crackdowns on creative or technological innovation, piracy (which they so fervently "fight against")...all are methods that they resort to keep the status quo. And that's beyond the hypocrisy of their ratings board, which has raised the eyebrows of just about everyone and left film buffs and critics fuming.
The MPAA is little more than a "culture police" organization, and being indirectly funded organizations who control almost all of the media in the United States, they're in the perfect place to do it. They're funded by big business and wield immense influence in the government, making them essentially untouchable. In a deleted scene, one interviewee says that they have a whole building of lobbyists as opposed to Apple, who has one lobbyist in a rented office. For anyone who values the freedom of speech, that should chill you to the bone.
Kirby Dick, a documentary filmmaker who was nominated for an Academy Award for his film "Twist of Faith" (he was subsequently nominated again last year for his film "The Invisible War"), sought to make an expose on the MPAA. Before I viewed this film for the first time a number of years ago, I was already a harsh critic of the Ratings Board. As I watched the film, I grew more and more horrified. Their fingers into the forces that govern our way of life run far deeper than I could have imagined.
It's not that they're censors, although that part is bad enough that a government run board could only make things better since there would be some openness and at least some accountability (it's hard to imagine it being worse). It's that they work so hard to keep our culture from growing in just about every way possible. As society is becoming more and more liberal when it comes to sexual issues and profanity, the MPAA refuses to acknowledge this. Filmmakers, who often put years of tireless work into making the best film they can, are given a rating by an organization who won't allow anyone to know who they are (if people did, they'd realize how shoddy they were and how they were controlled by the big studios and beholden to special interest groups).
We're not seeing the movies that we were meant to see because of them. Or in the case of military-themed movies, not seeing them at all. The military will not give support (ranging from weapons to vehicles) unless they approve of the script, it passes by an appointed man who oversees filming, and the generals have to approve the final cut. Basically, any movie that makes the military look bad gets a no go right from the beginning.
They're incredibly tough on independent films, and Dick shows, in screen comparisons, the hypocrisy. Sex scenes that are virtually identical are often given harsher ratings if they're not a big studio film, and definitely if they're not straight sex. Unless its missionary or the woman on top, a sex scene will almost certainly get an NC-17. Even a woman experiencing pleasure from sex is unacceptable in many instances. They also, claiming not to want to interfere with their art, won't tell independent filmmakers what objectionable content to cut out. For big studios, it's the opposite.
What's more disturbing is that this wasn't something that happened recently (although as Dick points out, movies with much more explicit content were acceptable in the 1970's). No, it was rotten to the core even before its inception in its current form, and founder Jack Valenti was complicit in every bit of it.
Even the ratings process is a sham. If there's a tie or she disagrees with it, head rater Joan Graves can be the deciding vote or overrule it. Both she and Valenti are shown to be lying bullies, and Graves is a money hog (she has a multi-million dollar house when the other raters get as little as 30 grand a year). Priests from the Episcopal and Catholic Church are in the room for appeals. The raters aren't experts nor do they have any training or background that would make them well-suited for the position. They're "average" American parents, but the backgrounds the MPAA claims they have are a lie too.
The film plays out almost like a heist movie and a conspiracy thriller. Dick hires a trio of private investigators to track down and identify some of the raters. While this has some entertainment value, it's not as interesting or compelling as the disturbing activities of the MPAA.
Dick has gathered a more than a few filmmakers to talk about their confusing and confounding experiences with the wretched organization. "South Park" co-creator Matt Stone ("Orgazmo" and "South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut"), directors Kimberly Pierce ("Boys Don't Cry"), Mary Harron ("American Psycho"), Wayne Kramer ("The Cooler"), John Waters ("A Dirty Shame"), Allison Anders ("Gas, Food, Lighting"), Jamie Babbitt ("But I'm A Cheerleader"), Darren Aronofsky ("Requiem for a Dream"), Atom Egoyan ("Where the Truth Lies"). Actress Maria Bello appears, who is confused and a little pissed off at how a brief glimpse of her pubic hair earned the film an NC-17. Two former raters appear as well, as does film critic David Ansen (no doubt Roger Ebert, a vocal and tenacious critic of the MPAA, would have appeared, although his cancer treatments probably prevented him from doing so).
Their attacks on piracy are very simple: attack new technologies and try to legislate them from existence. As one interviewee points out, this interferes with the public's creative process and hampers innovation. Until we're exposed to it, we don't know what kind of features we want. Copyright law always favors the holder, and at the rate its going, nothing is going into public domain. And they're trying to make it next to impossible to use clips of footage for parodies or news segments. But, as Dick points out, they think themselves above the laws that they get passed, as they had copied his movie without his permission.
There are times when the film gets repetitive and drags, but all in all this is a disturbing and enlightening view of how pointless, not to mention reprehensible, the MPAA is. If you're curious as to why I rant about the MPAA until I'm red in the face, this is why.
Comments
Post a Comment