By Ray Pride Pride@moviecitynews.com
Broken English: is the MPAA still all smoke and p.r.?
When This Film is Not Yet Rated preemed at Sundance 2006, producers Kirby Dick and Eddie Schmidt knew they’d be doing more research and editing before its release, and they said it might be an ongoing project. Voila! While the MPAA’s execs are in Sundance to announce a number of alterations to the ratings system, Dick and Schmidt in town as well. From the press release about their continued adversary role (in its entirety in extended entry): “The MPAA’s reforms simply address the public’s perceptions of the system, rather than affecting real change in the system itself,” says “Rated” director Kirby Dick. “All the basic problems of the ratings system remain: its secrecy and lack of accountability; its bias toward independent and gay filmmakers; its excessively harsh rating of films with adult sexuality.” [Bulletpoint pro-con at the jump..]
MPAA REFORMS DON’T SOLVE THE PROBLEMS OF A BROKEN SYSTEM
This Film Is Not Yet Rated Filmmakers, Kirby Dick and Eddie Schmidt, Weigh in on the MPAA’s Ratings Reforms
Los Angeles, CA (January 18, 2007) – Director Kirby Dick and Producer Eddie Schmidt are pleased that their IFC documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated has put pressure on the MPAA to make changes needed for nearly 40 years. Unfortunately, they find that the MPAA’s changes, as announced yesterday, are all cosmetic except for one – that in the appeals process, filmmakers can refer to scenes from other films.
“The MPAA’s reforms simply address the public’s perceptions of the system, rather than affecting real change in the system itself,” says “Rated” director Kirby Dick. “All the basic problems of the ratings system remain: its secrecy and lack of accountability; its bias toward independent and gay filmmakers; its excessively harsh rating of films with adult sexuality.”
Dick also notes the unprofessional nature of the board and its lack of adequate written standards; and finally, the fact that the NC-17 rating will continue to play a significant role in the censorship of films made and exhibited in this country. At the root of the problem is the built in conflict of interest between the profit motive of the MPAA studios and the MPAA’s responsibility to filmmakers and the public to fairly and effectively oversee the ratings system.
Outlined below are a list of the specific MPAA changes and responses to them from Dick and Schmidt:
MPAA: Most members of the ratings board will remain anonymous, although CARA will describe the demographic make-up of the board, which is composed of parents. The names of the three senior raters have always been public; now, they will be posted online.
RESPONSE: It will still be a secret ratings board because “most” of the raters will still be secret. Anonymity still = unaccountability. The MPAA says its rating system is for the public. If it’s for the public, it should be public, and the entire rating process and all the raters should be known to the public. Also, it is untrue that the senior raters were ever known to the public – until This Film Is Not Yet Rated, they were known only to members of the film industry.
MPAA: For the first time, CARA will post the ratings rules on the MPAA Web site, describing the standards for each rating. The ratings and appeal processes also will be described in detail, along with a link to paperwork needed to submit a film for a rating.
RESPONSE: CARA has never given enough information to parents and has consistently resisted giving out any more. Even the current descriptors such “some horror violence” came about only through intense pressure and criticism – and those are still useless to parents. Meaningful details? We’ll believe it when we see it.
MPAA: A filmmaker who appeals a rating can reference similar scenes in other movies, although the appeals board still will focus heavily on context.
RESPONSE: We are pleased they have finally removed this absurd restriction. However, there are quite a few other excessive restrictions that unfairly limit filmmaker appeals, such as a 2/3’s majority vote to overturn and not allowing an attorney of the filmmakers’ choice to be present.
MPAA: CARA will formalize its rule that a member of the ratings board doesn’t stay on the board after his or her children are grown.
RESPONSE: Joan Graves has stated that the senior raters’ positions are permanent. These three senior raters, and chairwoman Graves, all have adult children. Are Joan Graves and the senior raters all going to step down, or will the MPAA continue to allow its most powerful raters to violate its rules?
MPAA: CARA also will formalize its educational training system for raters.
RESPONSE: According to former raters interviewed in our film, there is no educational training. And since the MPAA has consistently avoided “expert” opinions from child psychologists, etc, who will train them and to what standards and sensitivity?
MPAA: When the CARA rules are implemented later this year, the MPAA and NATO will designate additional members to the appeals board who don’t come from the MPAA or NATO fold. (Indie filmmakers might be one possibility.)
RESPONSE: Most appeals board members will still be from the major exhibitors and studios. With a 2/3 vote to overturn the rating, it is unlikely that a few “additional” members will be enough to level the playing field for independent and foreign filmmakers. There is still a huge built-in conflict of interest in this process. Also, apparently they still plan to keep the names of the appeals board members secret, which means that the only people who know these names will be people within the studio film industry.
MPAA: NATO and MPAA will occasionally be able to designate additional observers from different backgrounds to the appeals board.
RESPONSE: The MPAA has been shamed into opening their doors in response to quiet arrangements revealed in our film that allowed Catholic and Protestant religious representatives into the appeals process. *Adding MORE religious representatives *wouldn’t necessarily solve this problem. What are they doing there in the first place? The MPAA needs to give full disclosure as to the nature of these “observers,” their role in the proceedings, and the process by which other observers will be selected.
“With the MPAA continuing to conduct its business in private, yet pretending to operate in the public good, they are still doing a disservice to parents and filmgoers, never mind filmmakers themselves. We’re grateful that they’re listening, but they should be trying much harder,” concluded director Kirby Dick.
This Film Is Not Yet Rated debuted at the Sundance Film Festival in 2006, and will be released on DVD January 23, 2007 from Genius Products and air on IFC TV in March.
