– 1:49A Little More Shit For Dick
As I wrote in today MCN Sundance column, I have a few issues with Kirby Dick’s new documentary on the MPAA rating system, This Film Is Not Yet Rated.
A couple more things occured to me.
A film that was balanced would not simply have made fun about how many times the word “shit” can now be used in a PG-13 movie, but it would actually consider whether that should be of concern to parents. As in other issues in the doc, the assumption is that no one needs to be protected from the word “shit,” so it can be reduced to a punchline. I am no great moralist, but it is a curiosity to me. It is also a great curiosity how the “Shit Episode” of South Park has run over and over with no FCC attention and in fact, the hard R South Park: Longer, Bigger & Uncut has run after 10 on Comedy Central uncensored many times… and again, no major protest. There is another side – similarly inexplicable at times – to this story.
Also, I am not entirely sure – this could be a lapse in my memory – but I don’t recall the film pointing out that Gunner Palace won its appeal for a PG-13. Even if it was mentioned, the emphasis on that part of the film was that the MPAA was hiding reality from kids while pushing unreality. Personally, I am still shocked that Gunner Palace got the PG-13 in appeal because even though I support every teen seeing this movie, it does fit the R standard to a tee. Still, for Palm Pictures and first time filmmakers Tucker & Epperson to win an appeal kind of flies in the face of the Super Size Me tone of Dick’s flick.
I will still be the first person to want to see what Kirby and his producer Eddie Schmidt do next. They are, to me, very important voices in a documentary community that is a little to anxious to become more commercial. But…
(Edit 1:49p – Forgot another point… Where is Kirby’s Bob Flanagan: Supermasochist in this film? Isn’t that a film that should have an NC-17? Wouldn’t that be an interesting perspective?)
I can say this. Parents care about the S bomb being used and don’t want their children hearing it.
Everyone knows the MPAA is a terrible organization. With no set rules it can’t be good. What’s the fun in seeing it on screen especially in docu form? I hope he at least interviews members of the MPAA who actually have some sort of power and shows both sides. That would at least be interesting. Showing how theres double standards and some stuff gets thru isn’t good viewing to me.
I believe South Park is protected by the safe harbor privision that allows indecent language to air after 10pm. Theatrical rulings are very different as they can kill a film with NC-17.
Mr. Poland, I thought you’d be more sympathetic to Dick’s premise as you were such a vocal opponent of excessively violent horror porn.
NC-17 in a theatre is the kiss of death.
Comedy Central is cable, so like HBO, it may not be as mandatory for them to answer to the FCC. (HBO has shown frontal male nudity and plenty of hard R rated activity for years now)
I still don’t buy Poland’s idea that getting rid of the rating system is a bad idea. Would it be unwieldy if individual state censor boards took over? Yes, a little. But that’s just an operational problem; Canadian censor boards are serviced quite adequately by U.S. distributors, so I can’t see why U.S. censor boards couldn’t be as well.
The bottom line is that studios and filmmakers already allow their films to be released with tiered content: Original theatrical, airline, DVD unrated cuts, TV edits, foreign edits, etc, etc. I see no problem with films being tailored in such a way to allow muliple edits that would satisfy various state censor boards in the future.
For some reason Comedy Central and plenty of other channels that are cable do answer to them. Maybe they have to. I don’t know. I always thought it was weird when they edited and cut movies on USA or TNT. Aren’t those cable? What makes them different than HBO? Because you pay extra?
The FCC has no jurisdiction over indecency on cable. That cable stations such as Comedy Central, USA, TNT and others have chosen to largely follow the decency standards the FCC has set forth was a strategic decision rather than one imposed upon them by governmental regulations.
There has been talk in Congress recently about extending the FCC’s indecency jurisdiction to include the cable networks, but that has yet to gain enough traction to be voted on.
Couple of comments (as I have seen the film, too): Kirby Dick is calling for some transparency to this starchamber like organization that controls the content of our films. Is that too much to ask for? – that we actually know who these people are. No, not their home addresses or phone numbers – just what their political and demographic make-up is.
How could he get their side of the story when he’s refused access to them? And do you really think that they would talk to him, one on one, or even as a group had he confronted them with a request? I’ve had personal dealings with the CARA and they are a stubborn, self righteous organization that believes “Daddy and Mommy knows best.” During the appeals process, a filmmaker is denied a basic legal right to quote precedent set by other cases. The MPAA refuses to allow (or even attempt to demonstrate) a standard for what each rating represents — and it especially gets worse as we approach the R and NC-17 ratings. They just make decisions by the seat of their pants and based on their own personal prejudices. And what’s up with “religion” having a place in the proceedings – as Kirby reveals in the film. Were you aware that there are two representatives of the church (catholic and protestant) on the appeals board and these guys weigh in with their opinions (and may even vote)? I, for one, certainly do not want any church censors having a whack at the films I see.
And here’s an interesting question? And, David, you mentioned something in your review about the MPAA doing something positive in keeping children out of R-rated films (making the assumption that kids over 14 often skirt ratings rules). Give me a break. These same films are available (in harder, more explicit versions) in about three months on home video, not to mention cable and video on demand – and you really think they’re not going to get easier access to the film at that point? This is an issue that is completely about parenting and being an informed parent. All that the harsher rating (especially the NC-17) achieves is keeping adults from experiencing these films in a movie theater — it’s not like these films are censored or made unavailable forever (after its theatrical run). Thinking that the MPAA is keeping your kid from seeing golden showers on the big screen is going to impede them from seeing the film is a joke. Trust me, if they want to see the thing bad enough, they will find a way to see it. Right in the comfort of their home eventually. I want to know why the MPAA is so afraid of the collective (theatrical) viewing experience that they demand frivolous cuts to R films that end up uncut and unrated on DVD in a heartbeat. If you want to really take on a moral issue, it’s about the PG-13 rating for me. Many R rated films are being cut down to PG-13 for the sole reason of getting the teenage dollar through the doors, never mind that half of them are genuinely innappropriate for these audiences. I’m talking gross bathroom humor and sugar-coated violence without the ugliness of what a bullet really does to a human body. Then these films are restored to their R-versions for home video and the same teens get to see an even harder version (as it was originally intended). And who has been protected by this system, I ask? The real victims are adult audiences who have to suffer through watered down, dumbed down films because of the collusion of Hollywood studios and the ratings system. I could understand if the unrated version were never made available – but who are you kidding? This entire system is so fucked up, from top to bottom, and I for one am thrilled that Kirby Dick has decided to take it on. His film may not be perfect, but at least it is the start of a serious dialogue and I’d love to see him do a follow up that incorporated more voices from the MPAA (if they have the balls to go on camera). Joan Graves certainly did not.
I’m all for unrated versions. They just come out on DVD three months later anyway. Parents should protect their own kids and not have agencies play mommy and daddy anyway.
^ Exactly. These unrated films need to be made available in theatres. If that requires state censor boards to spring up, fine. At least we can have a sincere open debate about state censorship then, instead of the current we’ll-police-ourselves-(wink-wink) mindlessness that currently goes on.
I’m torn about the ratings system because I am a parent. I don’t want my kids seeing and hearing things that I don’t want them to hear. I’m all for a rating system in theatres. And I’m all for unrated versions on dvd’s. It is hard to balance the need for artisitic expression and what should and should not be censored. I know a lot of it is mine and other parents responsibility but kids are wily. They’ll find a way into a theatre. We all did it. So I don’t mind having films rated so I can know what my kids are seeing.
I don’t understand how you can support rated theatrical and also unrated DVDs. In my opinion, it’s far more likely that a child will see inappropriate content at home than in a theatre.
It should be the opposite: theatres can be unrated (allowing theatre management to decide what’s appropriate for the community) and DVDs should all be rated (so parents will know what content is coming into their homes).
I really don’t care about ratings. I care about how they are and what is rated. What is the justification? You can show violence but not say “shit”? There is no balance.
Does seem like the unrated dvd’s are bypassing the MPAA anyway. Even if it’s only one or two scenes and is more of a marketing effort.
It’s all about business, that’s why ratings are important. Ratings have a large part in determining if a massive amount of people will decide to see your film. They will determine what kind of marketing is acceptable and unacceptable. And more importantly, it will determine what films are made and how they are written. That’s really powerful.
It’s better to be PG or PG 13 but R rated movies do well too. Not as well as PG and PG 13 though. For that I can see some suits telling them to cut movies. Plus you get to release the unrated ones on dvd and make another killing.
It should be the opposite: theatres can be unrated… and DVDs should all be rated (so parents will know what content is coming into their homes).” wrectum
yes I agree. Unrated at the Show…But I also think that age cutoffs should be made at PG-13 on up…to unrated. I’ve seen people take toddlers into “R” movies and this is insane to be allowed. “accompanied by a parent/adult” is meaningless usually.
^^ This is theaters usually not bothering with enforcing their own rules. There’s nothing worse than when parents bring their kids with them to movies because a child’s ticket is cheaper than a babysitter. There were two babies in the row in front of me when I went to see Wolf Creek. Fairly ridiculous.
“Canadian censor boards are serviced quite adequately by U.S. distributors, so I can’t see why U.S. censor boards couldn’t be as well.”
Don’t quite understand this statement. Canada has a system where every province has its own ratings board and they are government, not industry driven. Films are rated differently across the provinces and then again sometimes even more differently when they come to video. Up until a little over a year ago the Ontario Film Review Board still had the power to flat out ban films. They do not anymore.
As for the larger issue, the MPAA is a complex issue and this film does seem to just play to the choir who are at the other extreme of the issue.
A friend of mine keeps complaining that Hollywood does not make enough tough R-rated films anymore. I point out to him, as Dave P does in his review that modern day ratings are more liberal than ever. There are few hard R’s because there is not much more one can do to get a hard R. Perhaps if we make a film about bestiality starring Bobcat whoever we can push the limit?
Caddyshack was considered a hard-R comedy when it came out…now PG perhaps.
As for the NC-17 I understand the frustration of artists trying to be true to thier work but also trying to get it out. The problem with film however is always one thing…money.
Art is intensely personal. People need to be able to express themselves. But no other artistic medium (other than say architecture) costs millions and millions of dollars of other people’s money and once an ‘artist’ takes that money I also sympathize that the ‘producer’ will want a film that can make that money back.
This is where I think that artists like Scorsese know how to work the system where artists like Egoyan, (weened on the Canadian system which means he gets funding whether his film is seen or not) come off as indulgent children to me.
Having said that I find it will be difficult to get a workable adult rating. I do think that theatres that do not allow NC-17 are childish. It is not pornography. However…and this is the conflict, I also support their right of free speech to choose what they do and do not want to book into theatres.
This seems to be the little irony that filmmakers do not understand. There is no law that says any ‘artist’ has a right to spend millions of dollars to have their films seen by millions of people. This is why I so respected Penn Jilette about The Aristocrats. He respected the rights of the theatre owner to not show his film.
As for the issue of R vs. PG13 it does seem that nobody is satisfied. Adults think PG13 films are to watered down and should just ‘go for broke’ while parents think PG13 are too hard and should be R.
Much of the issue has to do with the lack of true art in Hollywood. If one really has a vision…make it regardless of the rating. But then…millions are at stake…and the whole thing starts up again like a circle.
In the end, no system will suffice but the MPAA does seem to be the lesser of all available evils. People who say to just abolish it really haven’t thought through the implications yet.
i cant stand anyone kid under 5 in any movie theatre. why are they there? who needs to bring babies to movies?
If artists really want to express themselves they shouldn’t worry about the all mighty dollar and release films however they want. If it comes back NC 17, so be it. But pigs may fly before that happens.
It is unfortunate that NC 17 has been branded the porn rating and brings with it all the hardcore porn thoughts. I know when I hear about a film getting an NC 17, I think hardcore porn.
I really don’t think the studio’s care about the MPAA and the ratings system. They’re probably all for itconsidering it gives them more cuts to release if they want to. Name me a comedy that hasn’t come out with an Unrated edition in the past few years. It’s great marketing. And kids are going to see it anyway. So, they look responsible while also getting the work out there.
There can be no system in place that does this job. It is way too arbitrary. What one thinks is over the line, another doesn’t.
“Don’t quite understand this statement. Canada has a system where every province has its own ratings board and they are government, not industry driven. Films are rated differently across the provinces and then again sometimes even more differently when they come to video. Up until a little over a year ago the Ontario Film Review Board still had the power to flat out ban films. They do not anymore”
What I meant by my original statement is that U.S. distributors work with Canadian provincial censor boards and have no problems with them. They could do the same with U.S. state boards as well, if we ever got to the point where we abolished the rating system.
For better or worse I think the Ratings Board ishere to stay. I wish they would tweek it a little and start having some guidelines. But that’s just too easy.
I think if you have trouble working inside the ratings system than you should find work outside of it and be content. You won’t make as much money and your budgets wont be as high but artistically you will be better off.
Wrecktum, I don’t understand, are you advocating the US adopt the Canadian system? Because that’d be awful – it is an arrestable offense to run a cut of a film not approved by the Canadian censor boards in Canada. David Cronenberg has mentioned having to travel to Buffalo NY to see his films uncensored in their initial theatrical run.
I’d take a voluntary system like the MPAA, which admittedly is a bit of a joke, over government censorship any day.
The last thing we need is gov’t getting involved in a movie rating system. Less gov’t the better.
The problem with Dick’s film isn’t his premise but his execution. As has been noted, the film clearly suggests the R for GUNNER’S PALACE was upheld, when it was in fact overturned by a wide margin. Secondly, the unidentified (wo)man says the clergy have a vote. They do NOT. The Landmark guy says this too, but by putting the disguised person after him, it plays as a refutation: that he’s lying or mistaken. Thirdly, following people around is just flat-out stalking, and could leave them susceptible to harassment or worse by disgruntled filmmakers who don’t like the rating they received. (And anyway, who cares what kind of house Graves lives in? How is this relevant?)Finally, the records show that many independent films have had their ratings overturned, while many big-studio releases have had theirs upheld. Dick is clearly trying to make a case that the opposite is true. There are indeed many problems with the rating system, but this film does nothing but pour gasoline on the fire.