Dir. Kirby Dick, US, 2006, 97 mins
Cast (as themselves): Kirby Dick, Darren Aronofsky, Atom Egoyan, Kevin Smith, Matt Stone, John Waters
Review by Miles Paulley
Kirby Dicks’ latest feature documentary; This Film Is Not Yet Rated is certainly an original piece, but perhaps this is primarily because he is questioning an area of the infamous Hollywood domain that has never had a light shone so strongly upon it.
The focus of this film is the MPAA or the Motion Picture Association of America. He establishes a mysticism around the organisation which clearly places the audience on the side of the filmmaker. Through this, he questions the MPAA for their system for issuing viewing ratings for American audiences. These ratings range from G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17. Dick aims to highlight the MPAA’s suspicious rating system, which has an enormous effect on the economic success of any given film. However, what’s more suspect is the anonymity of the people who actually decide upon these ratings. Dick suggests that it is only the CIA and the MPAA who keep their members unknown. This seems very suspicious as there is a clear difference of importance between them, in respect of how essential they are for the nation, but I’ll let you decide on which is more significant to the people of America.
Dick has established a structure that consists of something similar to that of Michael Moore’s work, taking you through talking heads then backing this up with visual evidence, all of which is presented through the appearance of investigative journalism. This approach indicates a desire to create a tension between himself and his subjects.
The film mainly sticks to the subject of censorship, through which Dick is able to show patterns in the decisions of the MPAA. There is a particular concentration upon the acceptance of violence compared to that of sexual content. What’s more harmful for a child to watch? Violence, which promotes anger and aggression, or sex and love which, last time I checked, was a natural part of human life. From an Englishman’s perception, I get the sense that the American adults are embarrassed about telling their children about sex and would far rather show them how to blow things up. Dick backs up this theory throughout by interviewing directors, most of whom explain how their films were issued a NC-17 rating and thus killing the films chances of reaching a larger audience, particularly those teenage boys. Some of these stories are engaging and are insightful to the traumas of being a director. Kevin Smith talks about his problem with the MPAA after they had chastised him for a scene in his film Jersey Girl in which Liv Tyler’s character openly admits to masturbating three times a day. Kimberley Pierce talked about Boys Don’t Cry and how Chloë Sevigny’s orgasm was too long for it to be dropped down to an R rating. As stated, this has huge repercussions for the financial income of the films and thus their worldwide distribution. However, what’s more concerning is the fact that the directors creative freedom and vision is wavered by unknown people, AND what’s even more disturbing is that the filmmakers rarely are told what needs to be cut in order for their film to receive the lower rating (Dick suggests the MPAA are more helpful to the studios in this department, but some points are misleading). Therefore these people have a huge power over the success of a film. You can now understand why Kirby Dick felt this issue needs to be made more public. After all, the ratings are only suggestions for parents, but over the years they have promoted the appearance that these ratings are to be abided by at all costs.
With these issues and questions behind him, Kirby Dick hires a private investigator to find out more about the secretive raters. This approach makes the film more poignant and helps move the narrative forward.
This Film Is Not Yet Rated is not all about serious questions; in fact, you’ll find yourself laughing in your seat as Dick cleverly mocks the American culture. The director must be commended for this, as he successfully educates, frustrates and engages his audience in a film that flows very well.
With all this in mind, the film will certainly be more potent to other filmmakers and for a general public who likes its conspiracy theories. This film will undoubtedly fulfill its aims of shedding light on the MPAA, and the power they have over films, but the bigger question is what is going to be done about it? Anything? Or are we just going to do the same as when we finished watching Michael Moore’s The Big One and still buy our books in Borders? Or after Morgan Spurlock’s Super Size Me, did anyone really stop going to McDonald’s? I certainly didn’t.
Lets hope this film really is the catalyst in creating more creative freedom for filmmakers because, after all, it’s tough enough.
Discuss this film here
|
