list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around This Film Is Not Yet Rated on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated/275959/default.aspx Title: This Film Is Not Yet Rated
Year: 2006
Director: Kirby Dick
Plot: In a rare and refreshing reversal of roles, filmmakers put the powerful Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA for short) under the microscope for inspection in Academy Award-nominated director Kirby Dick's incisive look at stateside cinema's most notorious non-censoring censors. Compelled by the staggering amount of power that the MPAA ratings board wields, the filmmaker seeks out the true identities of the anonymous elite who control what films make it to the multiplex. He even goes so far as to hire a private investigator to stake out MPAA headquarters and expose Hollywood's best-kept secret. Along the way, Dick speaks with numerous filmmakers whose careers have been affected by the seemingly random and sexual-content obsessed judgments of the MPAA, including John Waters, Mary Harron, Darren Aranofsky, Wayne Kramer, Kevin Smith, Matt Stone, and Atom Egoyan. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 41
Number of Lists: 6
Number of blog posts: 8
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Tue, 12 May 2009 04:03:07 GMTThis Film Is Not Yet Rated2006Kirby DickIn a rare and refreshing reversal of roles, filmmakers put the powerful Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA for short) under the microscope for inspection in Academy Award-nominated director Kirby Dick's incisive look at stateside cinema's most notorious non-censoring censors. Compelled by the staggering amount of power that the MPAA ratings board wields, the filmmaker seeks out the true identities of the anonymous elite who control what films make it to the multiplex. He even goes so far as to hire a private investigator to stake out MPAA headquarters and expose Hollywood's best-kept secret. Along the way, Dick speaks with numerous filmmakers whose careers have been affected by the seemingly random and sexual-content obsessed judgments of the MPAA, including <a href="/players/P___116064/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>John Waters</a>, <a href="/players/P___201982/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Mary Harron</a>, Darren Aranofsky, Wayne Kramer, <a href="/players/P___111916/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Kevin Smith</a>, <a href="/players/P___231851/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Matt Stone</a>, and <a href="/players/P____88743/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Atom Egoyan</a>. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide41Tag Target (>10)683http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u12565kk9h8.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated/275959/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/risselada/archive/2008/10/16/36402.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 10/16/2008 2:01:11 PM
Body: This Film Is Not Yet Rated I think anyone who really loves film as an art form an a form of discovery that has so much more to be explored would find most acts of censorship as unfortunate. In the United States we have no official, government regulated legal censorship. But we do have a industry self regulated entity that essentially censors movies with the illusion that it doesn't. It's the ratings board that was created by the MPAA. The members of this board are anonymous. There are no official rules on how they even place one film into one rating or another. The people who are on the board don't even have any official training in child psychology or anything related to it. They are just supposed to be average parents of young children (it's later revealed most aren't). You may argue that even official government censorship would be better than this since at least then you have transparency and the ability to reform. Many people who speak in this documentary make such an argument. This film takes a great look at the MPAA ratings board. How was it created. What processes does a filmmaker go through. How do they pander to big studios while leaving actual artists out of luck when it comes to making real art readily available to the public. There is a lot of unmasking here of not only the practices, but of the actual identities of the people who are passing moral judgment on the films that you see in almost any movie theatre. And in a wonderful bit of meta-film the movie you are watching itself goes through the MPAA process. I can't imagine what the board members who thought of themselves as anonymous thought having to watch the movie to give it a rating and seeing their names and faces up on the screen for everyone to see. Of course they themselves had the power to regulate whether the film would be seen by a mass audience or not, but at least now the information is out there to anyone who really wants to seek it. The way these people are used and bullied by the MPAA and studios is astounding. Although they let themselves be put in these positions. It's such a place of control and fear that the MPAA and movie studios take. They are not protecting our children as they claim, but protecting the studios from protest and bad press. But in the meanwhile they have conditioned the American people to which types of things are actually offensive or not. And it has created a society where the natural reaction of many people is to feel like violence is wonderful and sex is offensive. I highly recommend this film. Show it to as many people as you can! Rating: 9/10
]]>Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:01:11 GMTRisseladaRisselada Blog10/16/2008 2:01:11 PMThis Film Is Not Yet Rated I think anyone who really loves film as an art form an a form of discovery that has so much more to be explored would find most acts of censorship as unfortunate. In the United States we have no official, government regulated legal censorship. But we do have a industry self regulated entity that essentially censors movies with the illusion that it doesn't. It's the ratings board that was created by the MPAA. The members of this board are anonymous. There are no official rules on how they even place one film into one rating or another. The people who are on the board don't even have any official training in child psychology or anything related to it. They are just supposed to be average parents of young children (it's later revealed most aren't). You may argue that even official government censorship would be better than this since at least then you have transparency and the ability to reform. Many people who speak in this documentary make such an argument. This film takes a great look at the MPAA ratings board. How was it created. What processes does a filmmaker go through. How do they pander to big studios while leaving actual artists out of luck when it comes to making real art readily available to the public. There is a lot of unmasking here of not only the practices, but of the actual identities of the people who are passing moral judgment on the films that you see in almost any movie theatre. And in a wonderful bit of meta-film the movie you are watching itself goes through the MPAA process. I can't imagine what the board members who thought of themselves as anonymous thought having to watch the movie to give it a rating and seeing their names and faces up on the screen for everyone to see. Of course they themselves had the power to regulate whether the film would be seen by a mass audience or not, but at least now the information is out there to anyone who really wants to seek it. The way these people are used and bullied by the MPAA and studios is astounding. Although they let themselves be put in these positions. It's such a place of control and fear that the MPAA and movie studios take. They are not protecting our children as they claim, but protecting the studios from protest and bad press. But in the meanwhile they have conditioned the American people to which types of things are actually offensive or not. And it has created a society where the natural reaction of many people is to feel like violence is wonderful and sex is offensive. I highly recommend this film. Show it to as many people as you can! Rating: 9/10 http://www.spout.com/blogs/kowalski76/archive/2008/10/12/36219.aspx Post By: Kowalski76
Post To: Rebellious Celluloid
Post Date: 10/12/2008 10:38:02 AM
Body: You've heard the saying "It could only happen in America?" I'd heard people bitching about the MPAA before but I had never read up on the organisation and had no idea just how dumb an idea the whole set up is. The KKK are a knitting circle compared to this bunch of numb-nuts. Interesting documentary though.
]]>Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:38:02 GMTKowalski76Rebellious Celluloid10/12/2008 10:38:02 AMYou've heard the saying "It could only happen in America?" I'd heard people bitching about the MPAA before but I had never read up on the organisation and had no idea just how dumb an idea the whole set up is. The KKK are a knitting circle compared to this bunch of numb-nuts. Interesting documentary though. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/8/1/33404.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/1/2008 2:01:40 PM
Body: Andrew Sarris may be one of the most influential American film critics, but here’s a claim, located within his recent review of In Search of a Midnight Kiss, that may not hold up to some of his better-remembered theories: “Even when we confront 40-year-old virgins of either gender, movies refuse to show them compensating for the lack of a sexual partner. There is lasting shame involved in this spectacle.” Not to ever, ever profess superiority over Sarris, but I’ve nonetheless compiled today’s list as a way of proving the man wrong. There are actually tons and tons of masturbation scenes found in non-porn movies, from the low brow to the high brow, from as indirect as the boy wizard playing with his wand under the covers in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban to as direct as the non-simulated masturbation in Michael Winterbottom’s 9 Songs and John Cameron Mitchell’s Shortbus (which would probably feature my #1 pick, from the sound of it, if I ever bothered to see it). The following 10 films are some of the most memorable masturbation scenes, excluding any movies that might be considered examples of, in Sarris’ words, “the fringe exploitation genres” (I’ve even gone so far as to leave out mainstream horror like The Exorcist, considering it’s crucifix masturbation is far from the self-pleasuring moments Sarris is clearly interested in). Oh, and I’ve attempted to chart these films artistically from lowbrow to high. 10. Fast Times at Ridgemont High - Everybody remembers this scene because of the fantasy: Phoebe Cates emerges from a swimming pool in slow motion and removes her bikini top. And then Cates’ character walks in on the fantasizer, Judge Reinhold, for one of the most awkward moments in the history of awkward comedy. There’s been plenty of uncomfortable scenes of guys being caught in the act, including those moments in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Little Children and the most obvious masturbation movie, American Pie. 9. Léolo - Speaking of masturbating with food, not even pie-fucking beats the scene in this French-Canadian gem in which our young titular hero decides that his real father is a man who jerked off with a tomato, which later impregnated Léolo’s mother when she fell onto it. There are other less memorable masturbation scenes involving liver and chicken, too. Yum! 8. Spanking the Monkey - I always found the masturbation scenes in this movie so interesting because of how clean a “job” Ray Aibelli (Jeremy Davies) does with his personal business. I guess when you’re probably fantasizing about your mother, your mind is dirty enough, and so (seemingly) uncomfortably jacking off while sitting on a toilet is the best way to go. But couldn’t he just do it in the shower, like Kevin Spacey in American Beauty? I’m surprised that Sarris forgot about this one, since the title alone refers to the act. 7. The Squid and the Whale - If I have to select one movie involving a little kid masturbating (and writing this sentence has already got me feeling immensely ashamed), I pick this one over Todd Solondz’ Happiness (”I came!”), because while both scenes in question are quite disturbing, the one featuring the real-life son of Kevin Kline and Phoebe Cates jerking off in a library and then wiping his hands off on some books is at least a little amusing. A lot amusing if you take into account his mother’s appearance in movie #10 above. And if you need another little kid masturbating movie to choose from (I’m not judging), Babel has one too. 6. But I’m a Cheerleader - That Natasha Lyonne sure loves to masturbate! is a quick response to the realization that she pleasures herself in both this film and the earlier Slums of Beverly Hills. The reason that this movie is the more significant of the two is because the masturbation scene is very tastefully done, and yet in its original form, it controversially garnered the film an NC-17 rating, only because, as argued in the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated, it deals with both homosexual desire and female sexuality. The main evidence: American Pie was released in the same year with an R rating. 5. Mulholland Drive - A less beautiful yet no less exploitive depiction of female masturbation occurs in David Lynch’s enigmatic film. Despite the fact that guys tend to enjoy watching a girl pleasure herself, only the most sadistic of men could be turned on by Naomi Watts crying and painfully attempting to get off. 4. Bad Lieutenant - When I first heard about the scene in which Harvey Keitel’s corrupt cop masturbates in front of two teens in a car he pulls over, I thought it had to be the most debauched scene in film history. Of course, I was only 15 when it came out and wasn’t yet familiar with a lot of cinema. By the time I actually bothered to watch the scene many years later, it was less shocking than I expected. Still, as far as depraved things a character can do in a movie — at least in theory — it’s up there, and it’s certainly one of the first scenes that comes to mind when I think of movie masturbation. 3. Amarcord - Oh, right, here’s another movie with little kids masturbating. But it’s a Fellini movie, so obviously it’s incomparable to the three referenced earlier. Although an amusing scene, featuring a bunch of kids masturbating in unison in a car, it’s much less disturbing, as it simply displays the act as a part of growing up. 2. Being There - “I like to watch.” Hopefully you’ve seen this wonderful film, and that’s all I need to say. But just in case you’re not familiar, here’s the scene: Eve Rand (Shirley MacLaine) attempts to seduce the rather simple Chauncey Gardner (Peter Sellers), who responds by saying, “I like to watch.” Of course, he means the television, but Eve takes the statement to mean he wants to watch her pleasure herself. And so she proceeds to humiliate herself on the floor while Chauncey hilariously takes enjoys an exercise show on the TV. 1. Adaptation - Really, the whole movie is one big masturbation scene. There is a literal masturbation scene, though, in which Charlie (Nicolas Cage) fantasizes about Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep), and it’s pretty good on its own. But it takes the top spot for affirming that screenwriter Charlie Kauffman created the literary equivalent of beating off. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:01:40 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com8/1/2008 2:01:40 PM Andrew Sarris may be one of the most influential American film critics, but here’s a claim, located within his recent review of In Search of a Midnight Kiss, that may not hold up to some of his better-remembered theories: “Even when we confront 40-year-old virgins of either gender, movies refuse to show them compensating for the lack of a sexual partner. There is lasting shame involved in this spectacle.” Not to ever, ever profess superiority over Sarris, but I’ve nonetheless compiled today’s list as a way of proving the man wrong. There are actually tons and tons of masturbation scenes found in non-porn movies, from the low brow to the high brow, from as indirect as the boy wizard playing with his wand under the covers in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban to as direct as the non-simulated masturbation in Michael Winterbottom’s 9 Songs and John Cameron Mitchell’s Shortbus (which would probably feature my #1 pick, from the sound of it, if I ever bothered to see it). The following 10 films are some of the most memorable masturbation scenes, excluding any movies that might be considered examples of, in Sarris’ words, “the fringe exploitation genres” (I’ve even gone so far as to leave out mainstream horror like The Exorcist, considering it’s crucifix masturbation is far from the self-pleasuring moments Sarris is clearly interested in). Oh, and I’ve attempted to chart these films artistically from lowbrow to high. 10. Fast Times at Ridgemont High - Everybody remembers this scene because of the fantasy: Phoebe Cates emerges from a swimming pool in slow motion and removes her bikini top. And then Cates’ character walks in on the fantasizer, Judge Reinhold, for one of the most awkward moments in the history of awkward comedy. There’s been plenty of uncomfortable scenes of guys being caught in the act, including those moments in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Little Children and the most obvious masturbation movie, American Pie. 9. Léolo - Speaking of masturbating with food, not even pie-fucking beats the scene in this French-Canadian gem in which our young titular hero decides that his real father is a man who jerked off with a tomato, which later impregnated Léolo’s mother when she fell onto it. There are other less memorable masturbation scenes involving liver and chicken, too. Yum! 8. Spanking the Monkey - I always found the masturbation scenes in this movie so interesting because of how clean a “job” Ray Aibelli (Jeremy Davies) does with his personal business. I guess when you’re probably fantasizing about your mother, your mind is dirty enough, and so (seemingly) uncomfortably jacking off while sitting on a toilet is the best way to go. But couldn’t he just do it in the shower, like Kevin Spacey in American Beauty? I’m surprised that Sarris forgot about this one, since the title alone refers to the act. 7. The Squid and the Whale - If I have to select one movie involving a little kid masturbating (and writing this sentence has already got me feeling immensely ashamed), I pick this one over Todd Solondz’ Happiness (”I came!”), because while both scenes in question are quite disturbing, the one featuring the real-life son of Kevin Kline and Phoebe Cates jerking off in a library and then wiping his hands off on some books is at least a little amusing. A lot amusing if you take into account his mother’s appearance in movie #10 above. And if you need another little kid masturbating movie to choose from (I’m not judging), Babel has one too. 6. But I’m a Cheerleader - That Natasha Lyonne sure loves to masturbate! is a quick response to the realization that she pleasures herself in both this film and the earlier Slums of Beverly Hills. The reason that this movie is the more significant of the two is because the masturbation scene is very tastefully done, and yet in its original form, it controversially garnered the film an NC-17 rating, only because, as argued in the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated, it deals with both homosexual desire and female sexuality. The main evidence: American Pie was released in the same year with an R rating. 5. Mulholland Drive - A less beautiful yet no less exploitive depiction of female masturbation occurs in David Lynch’s enigmatic film. Despite the fact that guys tend to enjoy watching a girl pleasure herself, only the most sadistic of men could be turned on by Naomi Watts crying and painfully attempting to get off. 4. Bad Lieutenant - When I first heard about the scene in which Harvey Keitel’s corrupt cop masturbates in front of two teens in a car he pulls over, I thought it had to be the most debauched scene in film history. Of course, I was only 15 when it came out and wasn’t yet familiar with a lot of cinema. By the time I actually bothered to watch the scene many years later, it was less shocking than I expected. Still, as far as depraved things a character can do in a movie — at least in theory — it’s up there, and it’s certainly one of the first scenes that comes to mind when I think of movie masturbation. 3. Amarcord - Oh, right, here’s another movie with little kids masturbating. But it’s a Fellini movie, so obviously it’s incomparable to the three referenced earlier. Although an amusing scene, featuring a bunch of kids masturbating in unison in a car, it’s much less disturbing, as it simply displays the act as a part of growing up. 2. Being There - “I like to watch.” Hopefully you’ve seen this wonderful film, and that’s all I need to say. But just in case you’re not familiar, here’s the scene: Eve Rand (Shirley MacLaine) attempts to seduce the rather simple Chauncey Gardner (Peter Sellers), who responds by saying, “I like to watch.” Of course, he means the television, but Eve takes the statement to mean he wants to watch her pleasure herself. And so she proceeds to humiliate herself on the floor while Chauncey hilariously takes enjoys an exercise show on the TV. 1. Adaptation - Really, the whole movie is one big masturbation scene. There is a literal masturbation scene, though, in which Charlie (Nicolas Cage) fantasizes about Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep), and it’s pretty good on its own. But it takes the top spot for affirming that screenwriter Charlie Kauffman created the literary equivalent of beating off. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/jj79/archive/2008/6/6/30795.aspx Post By: JJ79
Post To: JJ79 Blog
Post Date: 6/6/2008 4:51:54 PM
Body: Released: January 25, 2006 (Sundance)Director: Kirby Dick*****The board which doles out movie ratings, the Motion Picture Association of America, was founded in 1945 and the G-PG-PG 13-R-NC 17 ratings we all know and love came into being in 1968 as a way to head off government involvement in the film industry. Over the years, some ratings have changed (X morphed into NC 17), but one thing has remained the same: no one knows what goes on behind the Ratings Board doors.(Since this film was released, the MPAA has changed some rules on the appeals process and the transparency of their members. We'll talk about that in a minute.)Filmmaker Kirby Dick explores the mysterious ratings board in the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated, which includes interviews with various other directors who have seen their films go under the knife when faced with an NC 17 rating. In addition to being a quick history lesson on the evolution of the organization, it also becomes a pseudo-sting operation, trying to figure out the identities of these ultra-secretive people.Dick strikes the right tone here, between moments of comedic education (colorful screens pop up intermittently espousing history or statistics on the MPAA) and anecdotes from various filmmakers. However, too much time is spent with the private investigators hired to seek out the MPAA members and not nearly enough on history, like the Hays Code. Just who is Jack Valenti, the man who put ratings in effect for all intents and purposes, for example. The film highlights problems in the system; some have even been changed. (Filmmakers can now use other films in the appeals process) while others don't seem to be budging. Differences between a PG 13 and R rating are so minuscule; the ratings board is supposedly made up of parents with children between certain ages. Not so, according to the PI. The search for the MPAA board members is likened to a puzzle: one piece at a time, all leading to another piece. This Film is Not Yet Rated is biased in its own favor, which ultimately hurts it. There are few rebuttals or explanations from anyone in power. It is by default, though, as requests for interviews near the end are turned down. It would have been nice to see some good natured help from the organization, though.
]]>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:51:54 GMTJJ79JJ79 Blog6/6/2008 4:51:54 PMReleased: January 25, 2006 (Sundance)Director: Kirby Dick*****The board which doles out movie ratings, the Motion Picture Association of America, was founded in 1945 and the G-PG-PG 13-R-NC 17 ratings we all know and love came into being in 1968 as a way to head off government involvement in the film industry. Over the years, some ratings have changed (X morphed into NC 17), but one thing has remained the same: no one knows what goes on behind the Ratings Board doors.(Since this film was released, the MPAA has changed some rules on the appeals process and the transparency of their members. We'll talk about that in a minute.)Filmmaker Kirby Dick explores the mysterious ratings board in the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated, which includes interviews with various other directors who have seen their films go under the knife when faced with an NC 17 rating. In addition to being a quick history lesson on the evolution of the organization, it also becomes a pseudo-sting operation, trying to figure out the identities of these ultra-secretive people.Dick strikes the right tone here, between moments of comedic education (colorful screens pop up intermittently espousing history or statistics on the MPAA) and anecdotes from various filmmakers. However, too much time is spent with the private investigators hired to seek out the MPAA members and not nearly enough on history, like the Hays Code. Just who is Jack Valenti, the man who put ratings in effect for all intents and purposes, for example. The film highlights problems in the system; some have even been changed. (Filmmakers can now use other films in the appeals process) while others don't seem to be budging. Differences between a PG 13 and R rating are so minuscule; the ratings board is supposedly made up of parents with children between certain ages. Not so, according to the PI. The search for the MPAA board members is likened to a puzzle: one piece at a time, all leading to another piece. This Film is Not Yet Rated is biased in its own favor, which ultimately hurts it. There are few rebuttals or explanations from anyone in power. It is by default, though, as requests for interviews near the end are turned down. It would have been nice to see some good natured help from the organization, though. http://www.spout.com/blogs/mythman/archive/2007/12/1/22432.aspx Post By: mythman
Post To: Watch Everything and Still See ONLY What Is Good
Post Date: 12/1/2007 2:01:09 AM
Body: Watching This Film Is Not Yet Rated--a film complaining about the power wielded by the MPAA's anonymous rating-council (the supposéd "parents of children between 5 and 17" who collectively decide upon an American movie's 'G,' 'PG,' 'PG-13,' 'R' or 'NC-17')--and the complaint that stood out is that they are 'anonymous'—unlike any other parental-rating council in the world.My defense of that anonymity is "peer-pressure," like I mentioned in the title. It's not the raters' job to think about whether anyone would be "offended" about a movie, but rather "whether the typical American parent ought to allow his/her children to see the movie."Love the Sinner, Hate the SinOf course, the result is rather different ... the raters are like popular search-engines; they aren't there to decide what gets seen and what does not, but they end up deciding indirectly.So the anonymity is necessary to keeping the ratings purely-parental. The search-engines don't have the anonymity, so any anti-social scumbag can get advertised on the same page that lists "Care Bears," "Candy Land" and "Jesus" if he has enough money!If the MPAA didn't give the raters anonymity, then rich movie-makers would know exactly what to do to feed children all kinds of unfiltered garbage!But What Is Garbage?The film also mentioned that the way the ratings end up in America seems to be heavy ratings on sex with lighter ratings on violence, where it seems the other way-around in Europe (with heavy ratings on violence, light ratings on sex).Kevin Smith (comedy director, and I think he's Silent Bob of Jay and Silent Bob) mentioned that he thought films that show blood in their violent scenes should be seen by children before films that show no blood in cuts and gunshot-wounds, because the carnage make the violence unwanted.But We Need to Be Rid of Them Both!Why? Because hypnosis is very simple ... exposure of the senses to an event--again-and-again--exposes your subconscious to the "occurence" of that event. Whether you realize it and tell yourself again-and-again everytime that the event is 'not good,' it still 'occurs' and does not stop the world-at-large from spinning.(Oh, it stops the world for the person who is wronged and--eventually--for the person who does the wronging; but your subconscious feels it's "above" all that and doesn't really pay much attention to the 'not good!' with which your conscience tries to 'temper' it.)Your subconscious sees the bad event being perpetrated for the advancement of an individual (who does it on purpose), and doesn't stop you from doing that same bad event unless your conscience is experienced enough to stop it.And There Goes the Sex!That's why the raters focus more-heavily on sex; because no one wants to hurt anyone, but sex is a) immediately-enjoyable for all parties involved, yet b) is several-times as dangerous, because its possible aftereffects don't just kill you. They also follow you the rest of your life!See, people go see movies to get away from present reality. If we allow children to believe that the 'reality' in movies is just as real as real reality, then their moral structure is damaged beyond our repair!Why I Only Gave the Film Two (out of Five) StarsThis Film Is Not Yet Rated would not have sold me more popcorn. That is to say, I didn't care enough to see how it ended. That's partly because it was on so late; after an hour of it, it was time to mute the TV ... apparently the music had kept me watching beforehand. It just seemed like a bunch of whiny mud-slinging by film-makers who couldn't get noticed without unacceptable content. Originally posted on:The Enlightened Xombee
]]>Sat, 01 Dec 2007 07:01:09 GMTmythmanWatch Everything and Still See ONLY What Is Good12/1/2007 2:01:09 AMWatching This Film Is Not Yet Rated--a film complaining about the power wielded by the MPAA's anonymous rating-council (the supposéd "parents of children between 5 and 17" who collectively decide upon an American movie's 'G,' 'PG,' 'PG-13,' 'R' or 'NC-17')--and the complaint that stood out is that they are 'anonymous'—unlike any other parental-rating council in the world.My defense of that anonymity is "peer-pressure," like I mentioned in the title. It's not the raters' job to think about whether anyone would be "offended" about a movie, but rather "whether the typical American parent ought to allow his/her children to see the movie."Love the Sinner, Hate the SinOf course, the result is rather different ... the raters are like popular search-engines; they aren't there to decide what gets seen and what does not, but they end up deciding indirectly.So the anonymity is necessary to keeping the ratings purely-parental. The search-engines don't have the anonymity, so any anti-social scumbag can get advertised on the same page that lists "Care Bears," "Candy Land" and "Jesus" if he has enough money!If the MPAA didn't give the raters anonymity, then rich movie-makers would know exactly what to do to feed children all kinds of unfiltered garbage!But What Is Garbage?The film also mentioned that the way the ratings end up in America seems to be heavy ratings on sex with lighter ratings on violence, where it seems the other way-around in Europe (with heavy ratings on violence, light ratings on sex).Kevin Smith (comedy director, and I think he's Silent Bob of Jay and Silent Bob) mentioned that he thought films that show blood in their violent scenes should be seen by children before films that show no blood in cuts and gunshot-wounds, because the carnage make the violence unwanted.But We Need to Be Rid of Them Both!Why? Because hypnosis is very simple ... exposure of the senses to an event--again-and-again--exposes your subconscious to the "occurence" of that event. Whether you realize it and tell yourself again-and-again everytime that the event is 'not good,' it still 'occurs' and does not stop the world-at-large from spinning.(Oh, it stops the world for the person who is wronged and--eventually--for the person who does the wronging; but your subconscious feels it's "above" all that and doesn't really pay much attention to the 'not good!' with which your conscience tries to 'temper' it.)Your subconscious sees the bad event being perpetrated for the advancement of an individual (who does it on purpose), and doesn't stop you from doing that same bad event unless your conscience is experienced enough to stop it.And There Goes the Sex!That's why the raters focus more-heavily on sex; because no one wants to hurt anyone, but sex is a) immediately-enjoyable for all parties involved, yet b) is several-times as dangerous, because its possible aftereffects don't just kill you. They also follow you the rest of your life!See, people go see movies to get away from present reality. If we allow children to believe that the 'reality' in movies is just as real as real reality, then their moral structure is damaged beyond our repair!Why I Only Gave the Film Two (out of Five) StarsThis Film Is Not Yet Rated would not have sold me more popcorn. That is to say, I didn't care enough to see how it ended. That's partly because it was on so late; after an hour of it, it was time to mute the TV ... apparently the music had kept me watching beforehand. It just seemed like a bunch of whiny mud-slinging by film-makers who couldn't get noticed without unacceptable content. Originally posted on:The Enlightened Xombee http://www.spout.com/blogs/oocarolinaoo/archive/2007/10/2/20314.aspx Post By: oOCarolinaOo
Post To: oOCarolinaOo Blog
Post Date: 10/2/2007 3:58:16 PM
Body: All I have to say is the MPAA are a scary bunch and until watching this film I had no idea they operated the way they do. I reccomend this to anyone who loves movies it is definetly a great insight into the way some our precieved freedoms are trampled over by an underwraps organization.
]]>Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:58:16 GMToOCarolinaOooOCarolinaOo Blog10/2/2007 3:58:16 PMAll I have to say is the MPAA are a scary bunch and until watching this film I had no idea they operated the way they do. I reccomend this to anyone who loves movies it is definetly a great insight into the way some our precieved freedoms are trampled over by an underwraps organization. http://www.spout.com/blogs/jezcab/archive/2007/4/16/7159.aspx Post By: Jezcab
Post To: Jezcab Blog
Post Date: 4/16/2007 3:55:12 PM
Body: I really had no idea what the MPAA was up to. Despite the stalker type element, this was an enlightening documentary. I felt as though I was a spy along with the creators of the film. I am fairly disgusted with the MPAA at this point, I knew they were trouble for film makers when it comes to 'mature themes' but not with violence, but this really puts it all out there!
]]>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:55:12 GMTJezcabJezcab Blog4/16/2007 3:55:12 PMI really had no idea what the MPAA was up to. Despite the stalker type element, this was an enlightening documentary. I felt as though I was a spy along with the creators of the film. I am fairly disgusted with the MPAA at this point, I knew they were trouble for film makers when it comes to &#39;mature themes&#39; but not with violence, but this really puts it all out there! http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2007/3/14/6525.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/14/2007 11:30:08 AM
Body: Our regular guest writer, Dodd (moviedodd at spout.com), tells us what's the latest in movie rating news, and shares his mixed feelings about the proposed changes. Dodd is finishing up a Master's degree in Film Studies at Ohio University. Recently, there has been a lot of discussion about the current film rating system implemented by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Filmmakers have raised hell about it all on their own for the past few years, but now the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated has served as an expose on the selective standards of MPAA members. The film seems to have had an affect already. Since its release, MPAA head honcho Dan Glickman has admitted to the organization's vague guidelines for what sets an R picture apart from an NC-17 one, and that proper actions would be taken to fix that problem. It seems that Glickman was not just throwing words around for publicity purposes. According to a recent Variety article, Dan Glickman has announced that the MPAA is developing a "hard R" rating, which is not to be confused with the original "soft R." In other words, films like Little Miss Sunshine, with its occasional F-bomb and sex joke, will be branded with a regular R. However, movies with blood-spurting decapitations, hardcore sex scenes, and f**k thrown into every sentence will be awarded the new, hard R rating. Not only will there be a new R-rating, but the NC-17 rating may be eliminated. The hardcore rating limits film distribution and advertising on television, so the organization wishes to lump anything that is extremely graphic in nature under the new hard R-rating, with hopes that audiences, exhibitors, and advertisers will embrace it more than the much-feared NC-17. I feel a little torn on this issue. Apparently, the new hard R-rating is the result of parents complaining that their children are being exposed to graphic content in R films. First off, the film is rated R, which means that the content is not appropriate for those under 17. Parents who choose to allow minors to watch these films have been warned to be cautious. Secondly, R-ratings currently contain little descriptions indicting the nature of the content--anything from drug use to angry sex to graphic conversations. Finally, if these descriptors prove to be too vague, there is a wealth of information about the graphic content of movies on the Internet, from movie reviews to the MPAA's website to Yahoo's Movie Mom. Therefore, my question is whether or not a new R-rating will stop parents from complaining. Teens will be teens, and they will always figure out ways to see hardcore content. While the rating system is useful, it will never magically babysit kids. On the other hand, I am happy to see the elimination of the NC-17 system. Yes, it can be affiliated with the cult disaster known only as Showgirls, but the rating has also sunk potential pictures like a rock for miniscule details. It has also locked its sights on unconventional sex rather than violence. It will be nice to see art house gems such as Bad Education not being ostracized like a sleazy snuff film. What do you think? Does the MPAA need a new R categorization, or will people complain about it anyway? Are you ready to see NC-17 get tossed aside, or does it still serve a useful purpose? Syndicated Feed From:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:30:08 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/14/2007 11:30:08 AMOur regular guest writer, Dodd (moviedodd at spout.com), tells us what's the latest in movie rating news, and shares his mixed feelings about the proposed changes. Dodd is finishing up a Master's degree in Film Studies at Ohio University. Recently, there has been a lot of discussion about the current film rating system implemented by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Filmmakers have raised hell about it all on their own for the past few years, but now the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated has served as an expose on the selective standards of MPAA members. The film seems to have had an affect already. Since its release, MPAA head honcho Dan Glickman has admitted to the organization's vague guidelines for what sets an R picture apart from an NC-17 one, and that proper actions would be taken to fix that problem. It seems that Glickman was not just throwing words around for publicity purposes. According to a recent Variety article, Dan Glickman has announced that the MPAA is developing a "hard R" rating, which is not to be confused with the original "soft R." In other words, films like Little Miss Sunshine, with its occasional F-bomb and sex joke, will be branded with a regular R. However, movies with blood-spurting decapitations, hardcore sex scenes, and f**k thrown into every sentence will be awarded the new, hard R rating. Not only will there be a new R-rating, but the NC-17 rating may be eliminated. The hardcore rating limits film distribution and advertising on television, so the organization wishes to lump anything that is extremely graphic in nature under the new hard R-rating, with hopes that audiences, exhibitors, and advertisers will embrace it more than the much-feared NC-17. I feel a little torn on this issue. Apparently, the new hard R-rating is the result of parents complaining that their children are being exposed to graphic content in R films. First off, the film is rated R, which means that the content is not appropriate for those under 17. Parents who choose to allow minors to watch these films have been warned to be cautious. Secondly, R-ratings currently contain little descriptions indicting the nature of the content--anything from drug use to angry sex to graphic conversations. Finally, if these descriptors prove to be too vague, there is a wealth of information about the graphic content of movies on the Internet, from movie reviews to the MPAA's website to Yahoo's Movie Mom. Therefore, my question is whether or not a new R-rating will stop parents from complaining. Teens will be teens, and they will always figure out ways to see hardcore content. While the rating system is useful, it will never magically babysit kids. On the other hand, I am happy to see the elimination of the NC-17 system. Yes, it can be affiliated with the cult disaster known only as Showgirls, but the rating has also sunk potential pictures like a rock for miniscule details. It has also locked its sights on unconventional sex rather than violence. It will be nice to see art house gems such as Bad Education not being ostracized like a sleazy snuff film. What do you think? Does the MPAA need a new R categorization, or will people complain about it anyway? Are you ready to see NC-17 get tossed aside, or does it still serve a useful purpose? Syndicated Feed From:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/documentary/MemberTagFilms.aspxdocumentary
Number of films tagged: 402

Number of people who tagged: 127

Number of times used: 496

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:11:06 GMT402127496Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sex/MemberTagFilms.aspxsex
Number of films tagged: 2414

Number of people who tagged: 126

Number of times used: 548

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:50:42 GMT2414126548Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/film/MemberTagFilms.aspxfilm
Number of films tagged: 657

Number of people who tagged: 82

Number of times used: 190

]]>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:35:41 GMT65782190Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/violence/MemberTagFilms.aspxviolence
Number of films tagged: 952

Number of people who tagged: 82

Number of times used: 240

]]>Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:34:09 GMT95282240Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hollywood/MemberTagFilms.aspxhollywood
Number of films tagged: 623

Number of people who tagged: 40

Number of times used: 86

]]>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:03:15 GMT6234086Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/homosexuality/MemberTagFilms.aspxhomosexuality
Number of films tagged: 41

Number of people who tagged: 19

Number of times used: 52

]]>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:37:11 GMT411952Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/director/MemberTagFilms.aspxdirector
Number of films tagged: 472

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 26

]]>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:03:08 GMT4721726Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/SXSW/MemberTagFilms.aspxSXSW
Number of films tagged: 213

Number of people who tagged: 14

Number of times used: 274

]]>Thu, 02 Apr 2009 02:26:40 GMT21314274Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/censorship/MemberTagFilms.aspxcensorship
Number of films tagged: 91

Number of people who tagged: 10

Number of times used: 10

]]>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:17:12 GMT911010Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/filmindustry/MemberTagFilms.aspxfilmindustry
Number of films tagged: 368

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 6

]]>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:01:34 GMT36866Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Sneaky/MemberTagFilms.aspxSneaky
Number of films tagged: 6

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 7

]]>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:54:16 GMT657Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/filmmakers/MemberTagFilms.aspxfilmmakers
Number of films tagged: 7

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 7

]]>Thu, 28 May 2009 22:20:03 GMT747Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/2005/MemberTagFilms.aspx2005
Number of films tagged: 6

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 6

]]>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:13:05 GMT636Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/lawyers/MemberTagFilms.aspxlawyers
Number of films tagged: 4

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 4

]]>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 06:28:57 GMT434Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/american-nationality/MemberTagFilms.aspxamerican-nationality
Number of films tagged: 295

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 2

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT29522Tag