|
This Film Is Not Yet Rated | 
| Director: Kirby Dick
Actors: Kirby Dick, Kimberly Peirce, Darren Aronofsky, Atom Egoyan, Matt Stone
Studio: IFC Films
Category: DVD
List Price: $19.95
Buy New: $12.99
Rating:  65 reviews
Sales Rank: 18719
Format: Color, Dolby, Ntsc, Widescreen
Language: English (Original Language)
Rating: Unrated
Region: 1
Discs: 1
Aspect Ratio: 1.78:1
Number Of Discs: 1
Running Time: 98 Minutes
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.4
Dimensions (in): 7.6 x 5.4 x 0.6
MPN: 79867
UPC: 796019798679
EAN: 0796019798679
ASIN: B000JGWD64
Theatrical Release Date: 2005
Release Date: January 23, 2007
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
Tell A Friend
Add to Wishlist
Add to Wedding Registry
Add to Baby Registry
| |
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
As it turns out, Kirby Dick's eye-opening documentary isn't rated. When he submitted it to the Motion Picture Association of America, they slapped it with an NC-17 (though he had always intended to release it unrated). This is fitting since he sheds much-needed light on the inner workings of a secretive organization that wields great power over the movies the public gets to see (since most mainstream media won't touch the dreaded NC-17). It's just as well since This Film Is Not Yet Rated focuses on the more controversial films of the past three decades. Aside from the stories of filmmakers who have tussled with the MPAA, Dick hires a private investigator to determine who sits on the board, since this information isn't in the public domain. With her assistance, he solves the mystery. Directors include Darren Aronofsky (Requiem for a Dream), Mary Harron (American Psycho), and Kimberly Peirce (Boys Don't Cry). Though frequently humorous, This Film Is Not Yet Rated should be required viewing for serious film fans, because the MPAA doesn't just affect what gets seen--but what gets made. If it has a flaw, it's this: In his attempt to generate transparency, Dick (Twist of Faith) arguably crosses the line. It's one thing to identify the board members; it's another to divulge their vital statistics. Whether or not these "guardians of morality" are working for the common good, they're still entitled to a little privacy. That said, this is vital stuff for anyone concerned about First Amendment issues. --Kathleen C. Fennessy
Product Description
Documentary filmmaker Kirby Dick delights in uncovering the hypocrisy and political corruption that are inherent in the ratings system employed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Gay icon John Waters is also on hand due in no small part to the MPAA's consistent treatment of gay cinema in harsher (NC-17) tones than straight / violent movies.System Requirements:Run Time: 97 minsFormat: DVD MOVIE Genre: DOCUMENTARIES/MISC. Rating: UNRATED UPC: 796019798679 Manufacturer No: 79867
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 60 more reviews...
Smart, entertaining documentary for film fans August 25, 2008
Joseph P. Menta, Jr. (Philadelphia, PA USA)
Interesting, entertaining documentary that presents a variety of opinions on the concept of movie ratings in general and the current MPAA system in particular.
We hear from people who think there shouldn't be any kind of ratings system, as, in their view, it's the job of parents to police the kind of movies that their kids see.
We hear from other people who believe that the current ratings system can be a valuable guide to help parents make viewing decisions for their kids, but that the system definitely needs a few tweaks. Violence, for example, often gets a free pass while sexual content- whatever the context- almost always lands a harsher rating.
We hear from people who, interestingly, think that the MPAA should actually go even easier on violence, so that young filmgoers can more readily see the real-life consequences of gun violence and wars. These folks feel that film violence shouldn't have to be sanitized (by removing blood and other messy visuals, for example) to assure a softer rating. Let the kiddies see all that blood and guts so they won't think guns are fun, the thinking goes.
There's much discussion about the idea that, while there isn't any direct censorship in the film industry, a film getting slapped with an NC-17 rating essentially won't get any kind of real distribution or promotion. So film-makers are often put in the awkward (and some say, art-killing) position of haggling with the MPAA to get a more marketable rating.
Along that line, transparency is probably the biggest issue this film addresses. The MPAA's ratings deliberations are held in secret and feedback to filmmakers is often vague and frustrating. Sometimes the MPAA will point to clear, printed guidelines to justify a rating but other times will say something like "there's just a constant overall tone of potentially offensive material" in a particular film, which isn't helpful to a director who wants to know what changes have to be made to get a desired rating.
Again, this is an interesting film about an interesting topic. There's a little bit of goofiness during the segments that show a private detective and the director trying to uncover the identities of the MPAA movie raters in a semi-parodying "Mission Impossible" tone, but I guess that stuff served to lighten the mood a little. After all, while definitely a serious topic, this is the movies we're talking about, not life and death.
 An important film about censorship ... and fun for the whole family June 9, 2008
Amazon Reviewer (Seattle, WA USA)
This is an absolutely excellent film about one area of censorship we don't hear much about. To think that ALL movies that we see in theaters or for sale in retail chain stores have to be approved by Jack Valenti (now Dan Glickman) and his band of fundamentalists is scary, scary stuff.
Not only is this a great subject, the filmmaker also made it very fun. It's a good mix of interviews, funny (and sexy) edited movie scenes, and of course, the private investigators chasing around the MPAA raters was very exciting. It really had me on the edge of my seat.
Seriously, I would approve this film for teenagers - if you're old enough to take a civics class, and old enough to think (maturely) about censorship issues, you should see this film. I am going to recommend this film to journalism, film, and arts professors - anybody going into the arts as a career should give serious thought to the issues raised here. Additionally, the documentary briefly discusses government (Pentagon) censorship of movies as well.
Our media and government censors what we see and hear every day. Bush doesn't want us to see the funerals of dead soldiers for "national security" reasons, or the news will drop a story because it offends their sponsor (or their parent company, or one of their sister companies). This film shows us another active example of censorship, through a private, corporate-owned committee. It's almost impossible to believe that, in the 21st Century, we are at a point where all films must go through this vetting process before they can be sold in stores, shown in a theater, or before a commercial can be played on TV. Again, scary stuff. Our freedoms are just an illusion.
If anything, watch it to find out what movies to watch. June 6, 2008
Deadhouseplants (Tualatin, Oregon, United States)
I watched this documentary after seeing a preview for it online. In the preview, it featured Matt Stone, one of the creators of South Park. I am a huge fan of South Park: The Movie, and knowing the struggle Matt Stone and Trey Parker went through with the MPAA, I had to see this documentary. I say documentary, but really, it falls more under the new genre heading of docutainment. A documentary that has been scripted to be more entertaining than informative, a la Super Size Me or any Michael Moore piece. With that said, all things considered, two things you should know when you buy or rent this film; one, there is nudity and violence abound. If that kind of thing turns you off, then you should probably avoid this. However, if were sitting around, and asking yourself what does Maria Bello's pubes look like, then hey, you're in luck. Second thing you should consider, this movie is produced by Netflix. I wondered at first why Netflix can or even would produce this. Then I realized at the end of the movie why, because at the end, I wanted to watch every movie featured in it. Seriously, I even found myself wanting to watch Boy's Don't Cry, to see why the MPAA thought it was so bad.
I don't want to give too much away, just note the two main thoughts above, know this documentary is more entertaining than informative, and at the end, you'll want to make time to watch more movies.
MPAA, be gone! April 18, 2008
LARRY (Capitol Heights, MD)
I got this documentary because I thought this was going to focus on films that have been "unrated", which seems to be the latest trend these days. However, this film is more about the MPAA and their subjective ratings on movies.
Wow! I've learned a lot more about the MPAA than any other mediums. Just who exactly are these people and what criteria do they use when rating movies? Naturally, suspicion arises when you find out that there's no public information released as to who's on the board. In addition, there are no known criteria on how films are given a rating. In other words, filmmakers do not get a form detailing how their particular film earned such a rating.
This doesn't sit well with Kirby Dick. He's determined to expose to the public just who work for the MPAA. With the help of a private investigator, the mystery unfolds.
Kirby Dick includes interviews of different filmmakers and their reactions of the ratings. What really bugs me the most is when Dick showed a comparison of films on certain topics and each received a different rating. For example, gay films are more likely to get an NC-17 as compared to the mainstream films, even when the topic is the same, such as masturbation, orgasm, full frontal nudity, kissing and the like.
Overall, I thought that this was a good documentary. I do wish that there were more clips of other movies or a comparison of movies that have been edited and the originals. Nonetheless, very educational!
|
|
|
| |
E-Books kindle
