This Film is Not Yet Rated

Z

-zach-

Veteran
I seriously got into like 3 hours of searching the net about this movie, and all of the movies that have been cut and the difference of ratings in the US versus everywhere else. Seriously, I'm starting to really dislike this censorship.

This Film is Not Yet Rated is a movie about how director Kirby Dick tries to find out who the people behind the MPAA are and why are films given NC-17 ratings versus R ratings.
Not Yet Rated

Here is a link to the website on IFC, where if you look at some of the stories told on the MPAA horror stories board you can see some references to the movie "The Cooler" and others.
IFC Link

I don't think that films should be censored by the MPAA at all. Seriously, we're putting art, drama, comedy out there and then we have to take it back. It's our statement right? This should fall under the First Amendment. It should be a person's personal discretion to go see the movie, not a rating. And as for commercials, and theatres, it should be at the theatre's discretion to showcase the movie or not.

Just because we catch a glimpse of Maria Bello or one scene in Brown Bunny doesn't mean that they shouldn't show the film that the director and editor intended.

I think that the MPAA is a *****, seriously. Somehow they gotta be stopped.

Z
 
The movie ratings system is a voluntary system operated by the MPAA and the National Association of Theater Owners (NATO). The ratings are given by a board of parents who comprise the Classification and Rating Administration (CARA). CARA’s Board members view each film and, after a group discussion, vote on its rating. The ratings are intended to provide parents with advance information so they can decide for themselves which films are appropriate for viewing by their own children. The Board uses the same criteria as any parent making a judgment – theme, language, violence, nudity, sex and drug use are among content areas considered in the decision-making process.

It is what it is. I have no problem with the MPAA. I mean, what are you missing ? What could possibly be shown that would make the flick all that more special ? How many Unrated Director's cut's have we seen where you're left asking 'That's it?'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPAA_film_rating_system

Here is some interesting insight into the MPAA

I found this quote to be the most intersting:

The erosion of the film production code had several effects: while it allowed for certain kinds of artistic movies like Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho to be filmed, it also sparked a rise in low budget exploitation films that became more and more explicit in their sexual and violent content.

-

It's just a guide.
 
John_Hudson said:
It is what it is. I have no problem with the MPAA. I mean, what are you missing ? What could possibly be shown that would make the flick all that more special ? How many Unrated Director's cut's have we seen where you're left asking 'That's it?'
Click to expand...

Well I know that I can't stop them, but if so called explicit content is cut, you could lose some of what was intended. Even if the innuendo isn't that bad, they'll give it a bad rating. I know what you mean about the Director's Cut Edition DVDs, but don't you kind of expect that? I mean, it's material that they cut out of the film because the MPAA told them it had to be out of there because of the rating. Then they release the Director's Cut edition, the one that the director intended to have anyways.

Z
 
Barry_Green said:
They're not.
Click to expand...

I understand that they aren't specifically censored, but it's one of those you-know-what-i-mean moments.

right?

Like, movies aren't censored by the MPAA, but based on the content in the movie they can give it a certain rating, one that the director isn't hoping for. Then the director cuts out stuff to keep the PG-13 or R rating or whatever. I know it isn't censorship but I can't find a word for it.

z
 
I know what you mean, but I think the word for it is: they want all the freedom and all the money and none of the responsibility.

And that's the problem.

Audiences want to know what the content is. If movies were free, maybe nobody would mind so much, but when you're shelling out your own cash then you're entitled to know what you're getting! Sites like www.screenit.com are very popular for a reason -- people want to know what they're exposing themselves to (and paying money for!) The MPAA used to give an extraordinarily vague guideline (an R can be garnered for two instances of "the F word", or for the graphic sex of a "Basic Instinct" or the extraordinary amount of violence in the "Kill Bill" pictures). Just an "R" wasn't a helpful amount of feedback, so now they've modified it that you can go to filmratings.com and see what type of things the film was rated for.

All directors have all the freedom in the world to put whatever content they want in their films (excepting things like child pornography). And nobody has to submit their film to the MPAA for a rating if they don't want to.

But they can't go expecting people to give them money then either. The MPAA is only a commercial concern; people are free to release their movies "unrated" all they want. The MPAA is a *voluntary* process. But if you want to sell your film in Wal-Mart or distribute it in national theater chains, most outlets won't accept it without an MPAA rating.

Why?

Because customers won't buy the product. They want the information. They want to know what's in it.

I sometimes think some directors or artists have the attitude of "I'm gonna make whatever I want and I don't care if you're offended by it, you're still going to give me your money." It doesn't work that way, it never has, and it never will.
 
Totally

And these studios are the one's catering to the censorship; for the box office. It is all about demo-graphic's and rating's.
 
Barry, John, you guys couldn't be more correct. MPAA has NOTHING to do with censorship. And if you say that the director self censors to make a certain MPAA rating, what does that mean? Self censorship. Is it any different that directorial choices? Show me.

The only difficult position is that most outlets won't show an NC-17 movie.

Now, some directors submit to contractual obligations to deliver a movie that meets a certain MPAA requirement. Is this an imposition on the director? **** no. He took the job with the understanding of what was required of him.

Go make your ****ing movie. Let the chips fall where they will. The most important thing to remember as a filmmaker is: "what is your audience?" and make your movie accordingly. :thumbsup:
 
I'm not a huge fan of the MPAA in practice (too liberal with violence, too conservative with sex/sexuality IMO - when's the last time you saw an NC-17 for violence?), but I don't have any problem with the idea of a ratings system. If a director "self-censors" to make sure they get a certain rating, they are making a commercial and not an artistic decision. Nothing wrong with that regardless of which decision they make (for money or for "art"), but don't whine that your creativity and speech are being stifled simply because you're afraid of loosing some money.
 
Blaine said:
Barry, John, you guys couldn't be more correct. MPAA has NOTHING to do with censorship.
Click to expand...
mostly true, but not entirely true. they do not mandate cuts to theatrical films, but they DO govern what is acceptable in works created to advertise the film. trailers, tv spots and the design of movie posters all fall under their jurisdiction. did you know you can't show a firearm shooting in a tv spot? and you may have heard that the poster for The Road to Guantanamo was rejected. this is because any advertising carrying the MPAA's rating has to be approved by the MPAA.
 
Last edited:
cygnet74 said:
and you may have heard that the poster for The Road to Guantanamo was rejected. this is because any advertising carrying the MPAA's rating has to be approved by the MPAA.
Click to expand...

Excellent point cygnet. If anyone has seen the original poster design that was rejected, it's a bit unbelievable that this was not, indeed, censorship. Comparing the graphic images from many horror flick posters leads me to that conclusion.
 
BEFORE...

poster.jpg


AFTER...

RoadtoGuantanamoOneSheet.jpg
 
Controversy sells so i'll create some,... I personally think more movies should be censored for content, maybe i'll create a movie about it and call it, CUT. Then I will put a slanted twist on it and confuse the minds of our impressionable youth, who will act as my soldiers in an unjust cause.
Thanks John, Barry, ect... For presenting the facts.
 
Just for the record - I hate the MPAA, and my old boss who's a good freind is the CTO of the MPAA. But the MPAA gets involved in issues it has no business in.

If it was up to the MPAA magnetic tape would have never made it to the consumer. Jack Valenti could not have been more wrong when he told congress that "the VCR is to the movie industry what Jack the Ripper is to a woman home alone." WTF?

They consistantly come down on the wrong side of issues like that. The MPAA thinks consumers are all crooks and wants to implement all sorts of controls over what we watch and how we watch it. Granted, though technically not censorsip there's a certain amount of irony when studios spend billions of dollars producing content and hundreds of millions trying to prevent us from watching it.

I recently completed a movie that we had to re-edit becuase it recieved an R rating and the producers wanted a PG rating. Sure the MPAA didn't tell us that we had to remove anything, but through negotiating with the producers attorneys they did tell me what to change to get that PG rating.

Also, the MPAA got busted for making a copy of the movie "Not Yet Rated" and they justified the copy in case they wanted to file a law suit against the producers.

Although technically this is not censorship they do have this perverse influence over producers and have demonstrated time and again their bad judgement -- it's out of control :violent5:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top