A film rant

Last night I finally got around to watching This Film Is Not Yet Rated. In case you don't know the story, TFINYR is a "gotcha" documentary that attempts to shine light on the secretive process by which the MPAA rates films. The movie especially focuses on instances of the dreaded NC-17 rating, a rating that essentially kills the commercial prospects for a film. I'd heard a lot of good things about this film, but I only saw it last night.

My judgement? I was greatly disappointed in the whole thing. I don't dispute that the whole rating game is a sleazy enterprise that smacks of hypocrisy and self interest. Further, I thought Kirby Dick's hook was very clever. He hired an LA private investigator to identify and track down the 10 members of the super secret ratings department. By far, the outing of the raters was the most entertaining part of the film.

What disappointed me was the rest of the movie. Various film makers (justifiably, in many cases) vented their ire at the MPAA, but no one offered an alternative. Kevin Smith, one of my favorites, complained that statistics such as, "78% of parents say the ratings system is useful," are meaningless because the survey question assumes the current system or nothing. Great point Kevin, but NO ONE offered an alternative system. Yes it's creepy and icky that these mysterious folks have so much power to kill an edgy film, but how should it be handled? TFINYR gave no suggestions.

I don't think I'd have even noticed this if it hadn't been for the segment with the director of Gunner Palace -- a war documentary about a company of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. The director was complaining about originally being given an R-rating. He went through why the MPAA said they'd given him an R (essentially repeated use of VERY crude language, violence, and drug references). "But," he kept saying, "this is how those guys really talk." He just kept going back to that point. Fair enough, I thought. It's an accurate film, but how is that an argument against an R-rating? Just because a film is an accurate representation of someone or something doesn't mean it's a "fit movie" for a 13-year-old, does it? I've not seen the film so I don't even have an opinion about whether it's too "mature" for a 13-year-old, but I just didn't think the director's argument, even if true, was a reason to give it a PG-13. Yet that was the whole tone of the movie.

As I watched TFINYR, I kept trying to think of alternatives. I couldn't come up with one. Of course philosophically I'm in favor of junking the ratings system altogether and just letting viewers go to the movies they want to see. That doesn't work, though, if we want some sort of "gatekeeper" function that limits what children can watch. [2 points: 1) Maybe we don't need a gatekeeper. 2) Saying "parents should decided" won't work unless the parents physically go to the movie with their teens.] Maybe a solution would be to keep the rating system, but remove the marketing restrictions that are placed on NC-17 movies. I didn't realize this, but those movies cannot advertise the way other movies can. Even if you'd enjoy such a film, the odds are good you'll never even hear about it -- much less get the opportunity to see it outside of a big city.

Of course I was also peeved by other things in the film. Perhaps the most annoying was the whole "gotcha" nature of the project. For instance, at one point he throws up a screen shot of a nice LA house and he points out that the head of the MPAA board lives in a MILLION DOLLAR HOME!!! How, I had to ask, does that lead to the conclusion that the ratings system needs to be overhauled? Again, Kirby didn't address that.

All-in-all I thought the movie was interesting and it revealed a lot about how movies are rated. I also agree that there's an awful injustice in some of the things that will get you an R (or NC-17) and what will not. I was disappointed, though, that the movie didn't even attempt to offer an improvement on the current system.