Quirkee.com

This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2006) Directed by Kirby Dick; Writing credits Kirby Dick & Eddie Schmidt and Matt Patterson.

If the road to hell is truly paved with good intentions, my belief after watching This Film Is Not Yet Rated is that said road needs to be rechristened The Jack Valenti Memorial Highway. And it should be as wide as the man's ego and sense of self-righteousness.

From 1966 to 2004, Valenti served as President of the Motion Picture Association of America. He introduced the MPAA rating system for films in 1968 to rate suitability of a movie's content for a given audience. Like the Hayes Code before it, the MPAA rating system was an attempt by the film industry to self-regulate, keeping the government from imposing outside guidelines on artistic content.

In This Film Is Not Yet Rated, documentary filmmaker Kirby Dick attempted to highlight some of the hypocrisy, contradictions and secrecy that have been born by Valenti's brainchild. If the MPAA Board's purpose is to rate movies as they believe an average parental viewer might see them, Dick's film illustrates that the MPAA thinks that we're a nation that is much more accepting of violence than sex. That as a nation, homosexual sex gives us an overwhelming case of the "icks." And apparently witnessing a female orgasm of any significance is cause for alarm.

"I have what I refer to as Valenti's law which says that if you make a movie that a lot of people really want to see, no rating on earth will hurt you. And if you make a movie that few people want to see, no rating on earth can help you."

- Jack Valenti, This Film Is Not Yet Rated

Dick notes multiple occasions when filmmakers associated with independent producers presenting films for consideration were given a rating by the board with no justification or explanation. When probed for clarification by the filmmakers as to what changes may merit a lower rating, the board would claim an inability to provide specifics, for fear that would push them over the line into being a de facto censorship board.

Yet one of these independent filmmakers came back two years later with a film for one of the big six studios and was given chapter and verse specifications on what needed to be changed to go from an NC-17 to an R. That filmmaker was Matt Stone, whose story highlights the two-faced nature of the board in relating the different treatments received by his independent film Orgazmo in comparison to the reception for Paramount Pictures production of South Park: The Movie.

Another prime example is provided by director Jamie Babbitt in discussing the treatment of her film But I'm a Cheerleader. That film received an NC-17 for a comparatively tame scene involving actress Natasha Lyonne. In the scene in question, Lyonne's character Megan masturbates over her clothing while spying on a couple of bunkmates at a camp for teaching kids how not to be gay. Babbitt's outrage over the rating provided to her film was compounded when American Pie, released that same year, received an R rating despite the now famous and far more graphic scene featuring Jason Biggs molesting the titular dessert (no pun intended).

Dick proceeds to show scenes side by side from different films that received R or NC-17 ratings to show the rampant inconsistency in how the board views sex. Scenes depicting homosexual sex were given NC-17's while scenes depicting the same acts with hetero couples netted R's time and again.

This is relevant given that as director John Waters points out in This Film, Blockbuster and Wal-Mart, which control the lion's share of the home video market for rentals and purchases, refuse to carry films rated NC-17. Likewise, Waters notes, most theater chains will not carry NC-17 or unrated films, and most TV stations will not air ads for them. Thus, "Valenti's Law" is true only as long as it completely ignores the financial mechanisms that drive the studios that put Valenti in place to begin with.

Valenti is also cited in newsreel footage in This Film, where he makes the observation "no film can withstand the buzz of public scorn." Beyond the fact that the statement clearly had to have been made before he'd ever seen Gigli, that position asserts that the films, and by extension the studios, are beholden to the general public and that public's approval to exist and thrive. It's not an unreasonable position to take and it speaks to the power of public activism as a means to punish unacceptable practices in a capitalist marketplace.

So it should come as some surprise that someone like Valenti, who spoke to and enacted a ratings system that was ostensibly responsive to the general public, should take such great measure to obfuscate every aspect of their decision making and those that are involved with it. Pulling back the veil on this process is Dick's ultimate goal with the film, and it makes for the most entertaining narrative thread within it.

Couched around Dick's discussions with various filmmakers about what is and isn't acceptable in the eyes of the board is an examination of the fact that all members of the ratings board and the appeals board are kept secret from the filmmakers who bring films before them, and the public at large. In a jury trial, a defendant may at least confront his accusers and face those judging him or her. A filmmaker is afforded no such luxury by a non-governmental body that technically holds no legal power over them.

Dick explores the reasons given for keeping the raters and appeals board members identities secret and then sets about trying to work around the MPAA's barrier. He hires a private detective to help him try and ascertain the identities of some or all of the board members, and it creates scenarios that are both ludicrously funny and head-scratchingly confusing as to why such information is kept under lock and key. Dick evokes some sense of paranoia in his investigations but the paranoia seems to be well-founded. Every response from those in the MPAA who speak to Dick on camera belies a mentality of people who are not used to being questioned, and has the self-righteous indignation of some of the most hardened zealots.

It's that last point that ultimately made me love Dick's documentary and at the same time inflamed my ire at the MPAA. Although I'm not a parent, I can see where there is a necessity for something like the current ratings system. If Jack Valenti never existed, if the MPAA ratings system never came to be, something like it would have been created sometime somewhere. Whether it was from the government or from the industry, it would have come into existence out of simple need.

But in making an open judgment about the merits of a particular artistic expression's content, saying whether it is or is not fit for public consumption runs contrary to everything I believe in as an American. I make no bones about being what my brother calls a "pink commie hippie liberal." Freedom of expression in particular holds a special place for me as I've developed as a writer.

And part of that process includes being able to argue rationally with those who would judge my work, be it my editors, or my readers, on whether a particular inclusion or exclusion has merit. The give and take dynamic of that is something I find almost as enjoyable as the writing process itself. That may in fact mark me amongst my writer friends as one sick puppy, but there it is.

The thing is, I know whom it is that judges me as a writer for the most part, me being the one which is providing that editorial content. And I know what their respective qualifications are and can argue from that understanding. Dick shows that what filmmakers had to cope with until the start of this year could be maddening for the deliberately opaque nature of the process. Dick asks questions of the ratings board members like "Are there any openly homosexual people on the board?" because it is common sense to wonder how someone who may not be homosexual, or who may be openly hostile towards homosexuality can give a fair rating of a film containing homosexual content. Those questions in the scenario Dick highlights with his film can't be asked in a reasonable manner.

There was an amusing post-script to the film in that because of its inclusions of many of the scenes cut from offending films, This Film Is Not Yet Rated wound up also receiving an NC-17 rating. Even in that, Dick manages to have the last laugh, incorporating his own experience in the ratings process into the ending of the film. Though with that NC-17 rating, his documentary might have seen its commercial options limited, it ultimately serves as the exclamation point to the argument Dick was making. That, in and of itself, is a position that I personally found quite enjoyable and respect Dick for including.

Jack Valenti only recently passed away last month. Before his passing, he saw his successor Dan Glickman make changes in the ratings system that encouraged more transparency in the process, and allowed for more flexibility for filmmakers. Included in changes that went into effect this year was allowing filmmakers to cite other films and their ratings as part of the appeals process. Glickman also was quoted in Variety as wanting to work with theater owners to attempt to break down the barriers against exhibiting NC-17 films. "It's one of our ratings, and I'd like to see it used more," Glickman said.

Valenti was reportedly less than thrilled with the changes. In arguing against making changes to the system, Valenti said, "It was designed for parents, and it has worked for 38 years for the people it was intended for. Nothing lasts that long in this competitive and venomous marketplace unless it's doing something right." It's that kind of absolute certainty of righteousness and hubris that makes me think if there's any kind of justice or irony in the afterlife, at Valenti's passing, he's advised by St. Peter at the Pearly Gates that his fitness to pass through will be determined by a panel of unknown filmmakers who have the final say and will remain unknown.

It's not that I don't think he wouldn't necessarily get through. But god knows, maybe the man needed to have to sweat it out a little to know what it was like on the other side.

---

Tag this article:

Average user rating

   (0 vote)