This Film Is Not Yet Rated

I just watched this documentary today about how films in Hollywood are rated called This Film Is Not Yet Rated by Kirby Dick. Truly a captivating picture.

Reason #1 - It's funny. Hilarious animations and sarcasm, along with jaw-droppingly shocking yet endlessly amusing conversations between Kirby, the filmmaker, and the board members/film raters of the M.P.A.A. Possibly the funniest bit was when the film counts out how many 'humps' there are in various sexually exploitive films, aka, the most evil films on the planet. I mean that only in the sarcastic sense; the fact that sex is viewed as something so much more harmful to our psyches than violence or rape (NOT sex, thank you very much) is something I've always found revolting. But ya, the flick is funny.

Reason #2 - It's shocking. Even though said conversations are funny, they are first and foremost fucking unbelievably secretive and at times, flat out ridiculous. Sometimes you feel like you're watching a flick dealing with something actually important like Bowling For Columbine or something like that (think the Charlton Heston scene in Bowling only have the conversation focused in on whether or not Kirby can use precedent in his own ratings appeal, meaning 'can he reference other films?'). Not to down Not Yet Rated in anyway, it's just that Bowling dealt with school shootings and revealed many horrible truths about gun control, while Not Yet Rated is only dealing with how a flick is fucking rated. The fact that it does feel like a CIA thriller is what makes the flick shocking, and really shines some serious light onto the M.P.A.A.'s rating system and how it's run. To summarize, you'll probably start comparing Jack Valenti to Sergeant Major Dickerson from Good Morning Vietnam by the time the flick's 97 minutes wind up.

Reason #3 - He brings in real filmmakers to tell of their adventures with the M.P.A.A. I know only a handful of us even saw Jersey Girl, but if you have, than you'll be just as floored as I was when Kevin Smith reveals that they tried to smack that flick with an R rating! That movie fuckin' played out as a father/daughter picture the entire way through, and they were gonna rate it R all because of a little sex talk, that basically innuendos its way through the whole scene anyways? And meanwhile a motion picture classic like Die Another Day or even a REAL collection of masterpieces like the The Lord of the Rings can come out with PG-13, just becasue they don't show blood when someone is shot or stabbed? Don't get me wrong, I'm stoked that kids were able to be introduced to the brilliant mind of Tolkien, but if those battle scenes aren't too violent, than a little talk about touching ourselves shouldn't be too sexual.

To say the least, this flick'll get any self-proclaimed film aficionado such as myself passionate and in an uproar about how they know more about film than the people at the M.P.A.A. and how if they could rate movies, they'd do it the right way, leaving out any true kind of censorship and only give those harsh ratings such as an R (18A in Canada) or a dreaded NC-17 (of course, to confuse us all, R in Canada) to the films that actually merit them, i.e. any graphic rape scene in a flick gets an NC-17 in my mind, as it is quite literally the combination of violence and sex (if you want to call it that) whilst victimizing in an extremely horrific way the weaker member of the rape. Especially women, which is all kinds of overused bullshit.

And so I started this blog, This Blog Has Not Yet Been Rated, so that I can discuss the flick's I want to discuss passionately and get into an uproar every once in a while about how I know more about film than the people at the M.P.A.A. and that if I could rate movies, I'd do it the right way, and leave out any true kind of censorship and only give those harsh ratings to the films that actually merit them. I hope you enjoy!