American Politics & Pop Culture

I thought "This Film is Not Yet Rated" was a very well done, informative documentary which really showed how flawed the hollywood movie rating system really is. One thing that was interesting to me in the movie was how anonymous the raters had to be. It makes sense that the MPAA didn't want the raters opinions to be swayed by outside sources, but it seemed like even if their opinions WERE swayed it really wouldn't matter because whatever decision the raters made could be overturned by the MPAA anyway. I don't even know what they bother having raters anyway if the system isn't legitimate. Why don't' they just get random crowd of people (maybe volunteers) to review each movie? They could change the crowd every time, and this would make sure that there weren't any movie biases among the raters. For example, what if one of the long time raters just couldn't deal with certain types of violence, or certain sex scenes, etc, and they tended to rate whatever movie had either of those things more commonly because of their bias? It would make sense if a bunch of people could volunteer to rate movies, but they wouldn't know WHAT movie they would be seeing, then that would prevent a lot of either positive or negative biases. I think Hollywood still has alot of work to do to correct this system, and they should do it soon because there are probably alot of good movies not being seen by the public because they got an NC-17 rating, just because a small portion of a womans crotch was showing. It isn't fair to everyone who could EXPERIENCE these possibly good movies, and it isn't fair to the movie's creators who spend a ridiculous amount of time to make these movies, only to have it all go down the drain.

Posted by ruppx051 at 3:41 AM | Permalink

The documentary “This Film is Not Yet Rated� was an excellent movie regarding the rating system for movies in the United States. The difference in ratings can be a huge economical one. If a film is rated NC-17 instead of R, that could mean the difference of tens of millions of dollars. The one thing that the MPAA is criticized about is that they do not reveal openly who heads the panel of their board (the people who say that a movie is G or R). Since there is no directory of how a film is rated movie directors and producers must often walk a fine line and make constant modifications to their movies so it is “more acceptable� to the MPAA. What is ridiculous is that the MPAA will not allow films to reference previous examples of violence or sex in other movies to argue their cases.

The MPAA stresses that sexual activities are much more subversive than that of violence. They are also very biased, for example in a scene of American Beauty the main character who is a male masturbates in the shower and that is given an R rating, however in another movie a female does it over her clothes and this movie received a NC-17. Also themes such as homosexuality in comparison to heterosexual activities are looked down upon even more so. In general it is obvious that major changes need to be undertaken for the ratings system in America’s Movies, for it is one that is completely driven by the monopolistic movie industry, which in turn should not have the ability to censor movies.

Posted by dhill004 at 11:42 PM | Permalink

According to Daniel Franklin’s Politics and Film reading “the rating system is based on the number of and graphic nature of the acts of violence and explicit sex as depicted in a film.� I like the idea of having a rating system of some sort so people can judge whether or not they want to see a movie but the MPAA is inconsistent and unrealistic. The MPAA does an ok job on restricting movies that have extremely realistic and graphic violence. There is less emphasis on violent acts then on sexual content. However sexual content seems to have some different approach. If the movie has sexual explicit content then it is restricted but definition of sexual explicit content seems to be unclear. Heterosexual male focused sex is more frequently given a lower rating for its humor while those who were interviewed seem to think that female pleasure and homosexual sex are more restricted. The MPAA claims that this is not a deciding factor, but ratings given in the different film clips from PG to NC-17 suggest something else.
Also, the bias and treatment of films that are independent and big studio are different. Looking at the two films by Matt Stone we can see the bias of the MPAA. The independent film that was submitted was rejected and the MPAA suggested they would have to cut several scenes from the movie to give his film a marketable rating. The South Park movie that was submitted which was through a major studio was also rejected but was given guidelines on how the movie could be made “appropriate.� Some of the other film makers who were interviewed said they had similar experiences.
In general the MPAA is a good idea and a pretty good system. They just need to take a look at their rules and revaluate those that are important. I think it is more important for people to see sexual content than grotesque violence. –Grant Flatgard

Posted by flat0101 at 11:35 PM | Permalink

Franklin states that the MPAA rating system provides for “some fairly well-established guidelines to the assignment of ratings, [and thus] filmmakers can now predict with a fair amount of certainty what their film’s ratings will be. In addition it is a fairly simple matter to edit a film to conform to a particular ratings requirement� (153). Unfortunately, the individuals that were interviewed in “This Film is Not Yet Rated� would not agree with this statement. One of the filmmakers that was interviewed could not understand why she got an NC-17 rating on her film. In her film there was no nudity or violence, but a girl masturbating in full clothing and a story line indicating that it is okay to be a lesbian. The American Pie film, on the other hand, received an R rating and that film included one of the characters masturbating half naked in a pie. According to M. Hodgson, “there are those who oppose the entire idea of the rating system, contending it is a form of censorship� (1). The interviewers would agree with this statement because the films they produced have no real validity to be rated NC-17. MPAA on the other hand claims that the parents don not want their children to see such things and that they must alter it for a “more� appropriate viewing. The various interviews with the filmmakers do not really agree with Franklin’s second statement either. One of the filmmakers was asked to change the tone of the film. To change the tone of the film would require re-filming and filming a completely different film. How can one predict with certainty what the rating will be if there are no solid guidelines? It just cannot happen. The filmmaker discussed previously, about the lesbian girl, included no violence or nudity but still received an NC-17 rating. According to D. Franklin, “Make no mistake about it, American films are censored now and always have been� (143).

Posted by karp0040 at 11:25 PM | Permalink

Throughout the history of the American film industry, directors, screenwriters, and actors have strived to develop innovative and original techniques for editing, camerawork, performance styles and narrative with the goals of reflecting upon issues and creating an entertaining piece of art. However, many times individuals in the film industry are unable to accomplish these goals because of unclear MPAA guidelines regarding rating assignments for films. According to Franklin, the MPAA rating system provides “some fairly well established guidelines to the assignment of ratings, [and thus] filmmakers can now predict with a fair amount of certainty what their films’ ratings will be� (153). Although subjects such as extreme gore and explicit sexual content will automatically earn a film a highly restrictive rating, the definitions for explicit and violent content are poorly defined and often held to double standards. For example, independent film companies are held to a much higher and tougher standard than big wig studios. When Matt Stone, co-creator of South Park, released two films, the first independently released film was instantly rejected by the MPAA whereas the second film (South Park: Bigger Longer and Uncut), which was released by Atlantic Records, was rejected but given guidelines (including a title change) for how to make the film releasable. Holding lesser film companies to higher standards suggests that the MPAA is dishonest, secretive and hypocritical. The ratings system, established to protect audiences from graphic material that may be unsuitable, has become a political tool to appease major film corporations.

Ian Bell

Posted by bellx236 at 11:24 PM | Permalink

The MPAA is a controversial issue, because of the lack of continuity or explanation for the ratings, but not because there are ratings. Jack Valenti was very smart in creating the ratings board, because it was a preemptive way to address concerns the nation had about the content of films. It allowed for the movie industry to police themselves and allow themselves leeway where they see fit, instead of having the government try to define rigid and unchanging standards. The “moving goalposts� that are addressed by Cieply are the undefined standards against which movies are rated. The ratings and standards for comparison are very ambiguous, and sometimes it seems like they are applied unequally to the same issue at different times. This is frustrating for filmmakers, who may get a higher rating for something they had shown in a previous movie without any fuss. This ambiguous system of malleable standards is good, because it allows the film industry to change with the social and moral climate of the nation without too much trouble. It can become frustrating, however, when these invisible lines routinely move and are crossed unknowingly. Overall, self-regulation is a positive force in the industry, and will continue amidst the outcries of unfairness and inconsistencies.

Posted by schr0845 at 11:20 PM | Permalink

With all the censorship in today's popular culture, I actually believe it is quite hard to produce a film that could be considered "subversive" in the true meaning of the word. In my opinion, to successfully subvert the MPAA, the film would either have to be independently distributed, leading to an extremely small audience, or somehow produce a sensation for the viewer that is much more obscene or "adult oriented" than the actual visuals / audio would imply. Barring a technique like the one alluded to in the movie Fight Club, where he cuts frames of pornography into the middle of feature films, subversion is not possible. However, my opinion aside, I feel it is much more likely that subversive films would appear with relation to violence, as opposed to sex. There are very few physical acts of violence that have yet to be portrayed in some shape or form on the movie screen. Sex, on the other hand, is still a guaranteed "R" rating, minimum, with the more obscene movies (the obvious example being the small subsection of movies considered pornography) garnering the most extreme of ratings... something you don't see with violent movies.

Posted by hanse978 at 11:02 PM | Permalink

In this week’s film it is interesting to see the amount of industry influence on film ratings. In response to Franklin’s statement, “Films are censored in one of three ways: by the market, by industry, or by the government,� the presence of industry in film censorship is seen not only through the MPAA Board’s actions but also through the make-up of the MPAA Appeals Board. In the film it is shown that some of the raters have direct contact with studio personnel after movie screenings. Meetings are called for these individuals to commune after a movie showing. Given that these ratings have “great social significance�, one would assume that, to avoid any outside influence on the ratings, the persons involved and financially benefiting from the ratings would not be involved. Even if a rating has been decided upon for a given film, for what reason are the studio personnel involved anyway? What is more interesting is the roster for the MPAA Appeals Board. Comprised of studio and movie theater chain executives, it seems worthless to appeal to such a crowd when so many financial partnerships and company dependability are engrossed. Assuming that the rating process for a film has a significant weight on the potential for the amount of money a film can make, these MPAA Boards can doctor the market into one that has the greatest benefit for their respective studio or movie theater. The rating for a film should not be influenced by such financial criteria.

Posted by luli0004 at 10:52 PM | Permalink

The documentary we watched this week in class, This Film in Not Yet Rated was a very interesting because I had never realized the way films are rated is very bias. The biggest problem is that it is done privately and the public is not allowed to know who and how films are rated. I believe it is not fair and the general public should have the right to know the reasoning behind what can and can not be viewed. “There are those who find the ratings so vague- there is not indication whether an R rating is for sex, violence or language, and no indication why a PG has been awarded.� (Maria p.1) All this system does is make people frustrated and question the rating structure.
Over the years what is allowed and not allowed to be viewed has changed. Today you have movies and TV shows that make fun of the president all the time, which was something that was unacceptable in years past. Over time the rating of films has become less and less strict. If you were to take an “R� rated film from twenty years ago it would more then likely get a rating of PG-13.

Posted by white968 at 10:47 PM | Permalink

Censorship has always been an issue with any type of wide range of media. As an example it is only recent that the penis is an acceptable sight in certain aspects of film. Before the 21st century it is very rare to see any glimpse of the male form except the naked back, half naked front, the occasional butt, or an obscure refernce to male genitalia that is not real and over-enhance for comedy. This film is not yet rated does a good job of showing the way that our country does not accept sexuality or the human forms and tries to hide it. The MPAA is the last way that coporations can control art and in turn control that masses. Money drives the world, masses, and art. Although films accepted by the MPAA are easy to understand they tend to have little intellectual value and become pretty pictures on the screen. The only good thing is that if art wasn't censored or offensive then art would lose its edge and become a stagnant pool of creativity.

Posted by Chris Lewis at 10:34 PM | Permalink

Franklin states in his article that, “At least in the current environment, creative, thoughtful and even subversive films can get made� (147). Franklin is very socially-conscious with this statement. First, there has been a leftward push in the political realm during the last few years. With a strong liberal voice emerging in politics, it should come as no surprise that films are being more heavily regulated. With a loosening of censorship on TV, in film and in other media outlets, Franklin is correct in observing that films are being created in such a way that much of the red-flag content goes under the radar and is seen by mass audiences. I would tend to disagree with this sentiment. I believe that there are many more regulations as to what can or cannot be seen now than opposed to 10 years ago. I would say that the conservative players in the political sphere have a very tight grip on the controls of film and TV and work hard to control what makes it to the airwaves or the next blockbuster. It’s difficult to claim that either sex or violence is predominantly censored above anything else. However, violence is an everyday occurrence for people to see on the news or in the paper. Because of this, young adults and children have become completely desensitized to violent images. Furthermore, violence becomes less censored and regulated as result. Sex on the other hand is a complete red-flag concept that has been censored for years. Rules and regulations try to keep sexual images to a minimum or prepare to accept an NC-17 rating. Gratuitous violence would maybe receive an R-rating at the most, but heavy exposure to violence is often capped at an R-rating. Gratuitous sex, however, would lead to a higher rating, based on the fact that sex is a private issue that is hidden behind curtains and doors.

Posted by stap0069 at 10:30 PM | Permalink

From the film This Film is Not Yet Rated I saw a side of the MPAA that I have never seen before. I had no idea what film makers were being subjected to and how biased and ridiculously ran the MPAA was, and is. The film makers are unable to express their freedom of speech through films and their stories are being changed to please some fascist, conservative white man.
The MPAA was giving the message that it was ok for young people to see and experience horrific acts of violence, but god forbid that they see male or female genitalia or acts of sex. Instead of promoting creating human life, they are promoting taking human life among young people who are easily influenced by the media.
I do not understand how the MPAA has gotten away with their tactics for so long, perhaps it is our biased and easily paid off government officials… There needs to be someone in the government that steps up to the plate and brings action against the MPAA and forces them to breakup or change their ways. Directors and filmmakers need to have their Constitutional rights enforced. Their first amendment rights are being taken away by the ridiculous MPAA.
I thought it was awesome that they hired a private investigator to expose they MPAA’s ‘secret’ raters and appeals members. I truly enjoyed watching their faces being plastered all over the television.

Posted by hanl0083 at 10:19 PM | Permalink

After watching the movie This Film Is Not Yet Rated, I now have a new perspective on American films. Being somewhat unfamiliar with how movie ratings were established before I saw this movie, it was interesting to see how much influence very few people have in such an important aspect of the film industry. What this movie did very well was expose the flaws in the film rating system put into place by Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America. Although it is true that many Americans would rather have some kind of system to ensure that audiences view age appropriate material only, it seems that some standards of the system have been put into place arbitrarily. One example shown in the movie was the lack of restriction of violent content in films and the hypersensitivity to films with sexual content, especially if it is homoerotic in any way. Many feel that this imbalance stems from political tensions found in American society. One part of the movie in particular laid out how equally sexually explicit scenes featuring homosexual and heterosexual couples are rated differently, with NC-17 being the rating trend for films with “alternative� content and R for films whose characters are more “socially acceptable�. The lack of restriction of violence in movies has worried many Americans as well. At a very young age, children have a difficult time associating the “cool� death scenes in movies with the effects that those actions would have in real life, and with things such as school shootings and violence on the rise, Americans need to realize how film can effect their children. While I do agree that there should be some guidelines that filmmakers should follow, there needs to be significant change in the regulations that are used today.

Posted by colb0086 at 10:18 PM | Permalink

The MPAA is portrayed as an ambiguous judge and jury in This Film Is Not Yet Rated. While Franklin states that the MPAA rating system provides for “some fairly well established guidelines to the assignment of ratings, [and thus] filmmakers can now predict with a fair amount of certainty what their films’ ratings will be. In addition, it is a fairly simple matter to edit a film to conform to a particular rating’s requirements,� the testimony from film makers seems to contradict this statement (153).
In general there are some standard taboos that will automatically earn a highly restrictive rating such as explicit sexual content or extremely realistic and graphic violence. However there also seems to be a bit of a split between ratings for sexual content. While male focused heterosexual sex is frequently given lower ratings for humor or character development many interviewed suggested that female pleasure and homosexual sex earn higher ratings. Though the MPAA denies this is a deciding factor in ratings the various film clips from PG and NC-17 films suggests that it is.
There is also a marked difference in how independent production companies and big studios are treated. This is unequivocally demonstrated in the response from the MPAA to Matt Stone’s two films. While the one submitted from an independent firm was essentially rejected outright, with the MPAA suggesting that they would have to cut virtually every scene to receive a marketable rating; the South Park movie submitted via major studios was rejected but given step-by-step guidelines on how to make it suitable. Other artists interviewed suggested similar experiences.
Overall the film indicates that the MPAA is dishonest and unnecessarily secretive when it comes to film ratings. Ratings seem aimed toward placating the religious right and established corporations rather than morally protecting the average American child as the MPAA claims.

WORKS CITED
Franklin, Daniel P. “Movies, Censorship, and the Law� in Politics and Film: The Political Culture of Film in the United States (Rowman & Littlefield, 2006) pp. 143-160

Posted by shaw0139 at 10:14 PM | Permalink

The documentary this week was an investigation of the shadowy top secret cabal called the MPAA. For a long time i've seen those during previews or film trailers and never really thought much about it. I assumed that the ratings were prescribed by some technocrats that followed strict rules about what is and what is not allowed.

What is at issue is that the film industry, in the 20th century was under pressure by the government and social groups to cut down on the content in films to adhere to conservative standards of the day. So the film industry got together to create the Motion Picture association of America, in order to make it at least appear that they were regulating themselves. Perhaps this was to head-off government intervention.
Jack Valenti, the long time leader of the MPAA and former LBJ and Nixon underling, claims that the MPAA ratings are a transparent process where real parents of young children come to a general consensus about what is acceptable to children.

I was really surprised that instead it was a largely subjective endeavor that is done in the presence of elites within the industry that is supposedly self-regulating. The problem with the ratings is that the difference between R and NC-17 can be millions of dollars.
About a half dozen unelected raters watch every film released in the United States. The names and biographies of these people are kept top secret, as are their criteria and their processes. After much investigation we learned some information about those who rate the movies. It turns out that only one of them has young children, most were in their twenties and one apparently had none at all.

Over all the people interviewed in the film were all against censorship. One 1st amendment lawyer interviewed talked about a process with no precedents and only one appeal. Some suggested that the ratings be based on the criteria of Europe where less violence is tolerated and more sexuality is portrayed. I agree with that, violence destroys life, sex on the other hand might even create life.

Posted by gonza275 at 10:01 PM | Permalink

This weeks film, “This film is not yet rated�, a documentary was very interesting. Before watching this film I had know idea that there was a board of ordinary people that established the ratings for each film. I guess I may have been a bit ignorant, because I thought that there was just a general consensus of what was involved in the meaning behind each rating. I also did not realize the huge cut in funding and advertising a film takes if it gets rated NC-17. This film really made me think that the ratings board is a monopoly and really puts film makers in a difficult position, in terms of making the best possible film. However, Kirby Dick only interviewed people that got a rating they did not like, or did not agree with. He interviewed people that had cut scenes from their films in order to meet guidelines. Most filmmakers would be upset with the ratings board, if it suggested that they edit their film. I do think that we need a rating system. Parents do need to know what they’re children may be exposed to in a movie. Also, there should be guidelines that children need a parent’s permission to watch a certain type of movie, if they haven’t reached a certain age. However, I do think that the system is flawed as pointed out in the film with the review board inadequacies. I don’t really know what would be a more appropriate system; I do think that the board should not be unknown. People should know who is on the board; they have no more pressure on them than a judge, lawyer, police officer, or political leader. Life is pressure. Overall, I think this film was very funny and informative. I am glad it was shown in this class, because I have never heard of this film before, and most likely would have never seen it. Probably because it was given a NC-17 rating... is this right?... I don’t think so...

Posted by zabor005 at 9:59 PM | Permalink

I had never really given the MPAA ratings a second thought untill I watched This Film is Not Yet Rated in class the other day. The directors and producers interviewed in the movie had every right to voice their frustrations about the censorship system. Their films are art after all, work inspired by visions they and their crew conjure in their heads. To put a limit on what is and is not R rated strictly by the number of times a character says fuck or the severity of a sexual or violent scene is demeaning. As it says in the Franklin reading, the message of the film was what used to be capriciously judged as appropriate or not. Franklin goes on to say that "it is a fairly simple matter to edit a film to conform to a particular rating’s requirements.� Why would the film makers have to conform and thus supress their creativity?
One of the interviewees in the film argued a strong point that has stayed with me. He was talking about the purpose of war documentaries and how they reenacted actual events. However gruesome they were, they were reality and you can not put a limit on that by expecting soldiers not to swear or taking out the grotesque violence. The market, the industry, and the government are not protecting Americans by any means especially when censoring the truth. "That's reality and if you can't deal with that, then don't send people to war." The images of hysterical children running away from napalm bombs and the heaps of bodies that littered the streets are what we need to see. We need to see the uncensored truth.

Posted by kolsu002 at 9:57 PM | Permalink

This week we watched a movie called This Film is Not Yet Rated. The whole idea of this film was to talk about the design of rating films. Throughout the film you learn that movies get rated by a panel of member whose names and identities are kept secret in order to keep them from “influence.� A lot of people within the film industry wonder if this rating system is bias and unfair, because of the fact that some films that seem like they should be rated R are in fact rated NC-17 and vice versa. The bad thing about having your film rated NC-17 is that it can’t be played in theaters, which causes not a lot of people to see it resulting in very low profit.

According to Daniel Franklin’s Politics and Film reading “the rating system is based on the number of and graphic nature of the acts of violence and explicit sex as depicted in a film.� One of the interesting things that I learned in the movie is that when it comes to sex and violence the rating system is more likely to rate a violent movie R, while other films that depict graphic sexual actions are more likely to be rated NC-17. This tells us a lot about our society in the fact that we would rather have our children see a film where a man kills another man, than seeing a man and a woman having sex. The weird thing about this is that there have been numerous studies on whether movies and television effect children’s actions, and they have found that they have. So wouldn’t it be wise to rethink that “more accepting� view of violence that is held throughout society?

Posted by clay0115 at 9:57 PM | Permalink

This past week’s film, “This Film is Not Yet Rated� was genius. The entire concept makes me wish I had a better imagination. Not only was the movie calling out the MPAA, but it inadvertently shed light on the issue of homosexuality. For instance, it makes reference to a movie about lesbian teenagers. In this film a girl masturbates through her night gown and therefore it receives an nc-17 rating whereas in American Beauty Kevin Spacey’s shower masturbation scene goes completely unnoticed. The team of lesbian super sleuths and their daughter cracked open a jar of worms and poured it directly on the heads of the administration of the MPAA. It showed female homosexuals as strong members of society who legally take advantage of these so called “movie critics.� Not only did the film raise issues on homosexuality and fair treatment for everyone in the United States no matter your age, gender or sexuality, it raised issues on the free speech laws we have had in the constitution for hundreds of years. This small group of individuals who decides what each individual age group of people can watch is stifling free speech for artists and movie makers. Being an avid equal rights activist, this film got my attention. It is understandable why people might look down upon gay people because of religion, but it is hypocritical of Christians to look down upon another group of people because of their lifestyle which they did not choose in the first place. After all, isn’t the good book supposed to teach understanding and love for all kinds of people. Even if it is a sin what’s the difference between having homosexual tendencies and cursing? Nothing.

Posted by stor0245 at 9:54 PM | Permalink

“This Film is Not Yet Rated� was quite a humorous showcase of the mysteries behind the MPAA, which I found interesting enough to pay attention to, considering I knew nothing about the ratings process and how difficult it sometimes is to put out mainstream films. I never realized the complexities of what forms of censorship were in play for a film, and the politics behind each. Franklin describes how the film industry itself set in place a personal strict production code, “imposed by the movie studios on themselves and was made enforceable by the vertical integration of the industry… [and which] came about as a by-product of governmental pressure.� The film seems to agree with this self-censorship, but also support censorship by the market, as most of the filmmakers interviewed seemed to focus on what viewers would like to see in films. “This Film is Not Yet Rated� also gives reason for the strong governmental influence in film censorship, as we find out that the man behind the whole MPAA came as a lobbyist from Washington, D.C.

Cieply describes that Jack Valenti has some kind of “genius� by developing the ratings system. I don’t necessarily think it was genius material, but people simply thought it was because they had no previous guidance in the rating of films—simply, no one had done it before. Valenti’s ideas were innovative in this specific department, yes, but how could they have been perfect if they never changed according to a changing culture? Cieply also says of the system, “[f]or the major studios it has been a bulwark against outside interference, though it has often galled filmmakers and hasn’t done enough for many parents.� This implies that the system is not in fact perfect, however, it never will be possible to please everyone. Perhaps the fact that Valenti at least came up with a working system of this sort made him a “genius� in some respects.

Posted by joh02361 at 9:44 PM | Permalink

In the movie “This Film is Not Yet Rated� many of the filmmakers that were interviewed were upset with the rating given to their film by the MPAA. From what we see in the film the ratings are very arbitrary, and the ratings board wasn’t what they claimed to be. For one thing most of the raters had children that were out of their teens, and the majority were over the age of thirty. Also, on the appeals committee there were members from the church present. The most shocking thing about the MPAA to me was that when a film was rated and the filmmaker was unhappy they gave suggestions about how they could get their rating changed. Some of the suggestions were acceptable, but they were very inconsistent between films. For example they allowed a scene of male masturbating, but not a female. The rating committee was very concerned about sex scenes, but not as concerned about violence. Which was very odd according to some of those interviewed, because sex is much more accepted in film when compared to other countries.

The most interesting aspect to me was how everyone believed that these ratings are so helpful to parents, and they are necessary in order for them to make good decisions on films for their children. But, what the film looked at, and what no one seems to notice is that they are only helpful because there is nothing to compare it to. There has never been another nation wide system of rating films for language, violence and sex, so when this system was developed of course it was well liked. Because there is no competition this allows the MPAA to do whatever they want, more or less, without consequence.

For the most part this film showed the faults of the MPAA, and how they are so uncooperative when working with filmmakers. I think Kirby Dick and the other filmmakers in this movie would agree with the statement that the MPAA rating system is arbitrary and there is not good logic to deciding the film ratings.

Posted by elmxx014 at 9:31 PM | Permalink

In response to the first question, Franklin's statement does not hold true based on the information gained from watching the interviews in the movie. Making films is an art, and in my opinion art is not supposed to have any limitations. While clearly their has to be some sort of regulation, the rating system that is currently in use is faulty. Sure, its fair to say that film makers probably can predict the rating that their movie will probably receive. However, the fact that there is not a strict set of rules and regulations about how the rating works is completely unfair. The movie does a great job of showing that there are flaws. For example, the fact that the movie with the straight sex scene received and "R" and the gay movie that showed no nudity received "NC-17" is proof. Also, the fact that when film makers try and fight their rating they are not allowed to bring up other movies basically means that the MPAA concedes to the fact that they are wrong. They know that if film makers were allowed to make comparisons, the MPAA would be proven wrong and so they just make it un allowed. The experiences of the filmmakers make the Franklin statement completely un true because some know they should have received and "R" but since there was something in their movie that 8 random people did not like, it received NC 17. The system is completely subjective and hopefully the new leader will make some changes to the system.

Posted by cloy0004 at 9:30 PM | Permalink

The film we saw this week really made me question what is happening to our rating system as of late. It was quite an enjoyable documentary and I did like it but looking at the way movies are rated now compared to what was shown in the past and how times change. Things like Saw and Hostel are coming out and it is hard to believe they are actually considered "film" because of their content. The inefficency and lack of consideration that the board has within itself is a display of the inefficency of our society today and how things must go around in circles before they are completed. Also the fact that these board members have no teenage or younger children was quite interesting to me, and i think it helps them decide on ridiculous ratings for movies that are being made now. This also showed what the mainstream media thought of new subjects, the dislike of sex and homosexuals on film. It would seem that our culture isn't fully ready to accept these ideas even though they are so prevalent in our time.

Posted by leex2727 at 9:25 PM | Permalink

The documentary, this film is not yet rated, was an interesting film because it showed how the films were rated, but also it showed how the procedure in rating films weren’t efficient. From the documentary, I thought that the procedure of rating the films, which was done by MPAA, wasn’t organized at all. It seemed like they didn’t have any standard procedure in rating films and also they didn’t have any kind of training programs, which I thought it was very unusual. It was also interesting that they had completely different ratings in similar types of movies, which indicated the disorganized procedure to it. Obviously it is public’s concern to have their children watching films that contains inappropriate contents and when the films are released with the “wrong� ratings, I think it damages the relationship between the movie industry and the public. However, I also believe that the movie industry is mostly concerned with the profit, not much to the public’s attention. From one of the assigned readings, Koppes said that “the studios would stop at nothing to make a buck, not even censorship,� which shows that their priority is to make money (Koppes, 649). In today’s society, there are a lot of children who watches film just because there’s some sex scenes and other contents that are inappropriate to them. In some part, it is parent’s responsibility to not let those things happen, but obviously if the rating procedure was more organized, they wouldn’t be dealing with that kind of issue. Protection of the children is very important and it would be nice to see if MPAA and the movie industry make an improvement on the rating procedure in order to have the “proper� ratings for the films so that no one would be confused and harmed.

Posted by katay007 at 9:19 PM | Permalink

This weeks film really amazed me. I never knew that there were so much politics involved in the film rating system. This film shows how the MPAA has created an uproar with the movie producers. It shows us the inconsistencies that they have for rating films and how picky they really are when looking at how the films should be rated. Hodgson explains, “there is no indication whether an R rating is for sex, violence or language, and no indication why a PG (parental guidance suggested) has been awarded.� It's amazing the difference that a rating of NC-17 compared to one that is rated "R" makes. Franklin makes the point that “it is certainly true that many theaters will simply refuse to screen a movie with the rating NC-17� (153). In the long run this could mean the difference in millions of dollars at the box office. A film maker could make a film that he thought should be rated PG-13 and ends up being rated NC-17 and the producer can not go back and change scenes so that it fits into the PG-13 class. This could end up ruining a producers movie and make it drown at the box office. I think that it is ridiculous that only a few people can speak out for the World as a "whole" when rating a certain film. I think that the MPAA's ratings should not effect a film and therefore I believe that the way that they critique the films is not totally accurate and they should come up with a new rating system. This film showed how the MPAA picked different aspects of movies to create their rating and it showed that you never really can tell what type of a rating any certain film is going to receive.

Posted by kapla137 at 9:16 PM | Permalink

I was very impressed, surprised, and enlightened by the film this week. I was unaware of how the ratings board/system worked, and the film revealed it in a light that made it seem very biased, elitist, arbitrary, and monopolistic.

Franklin outlines the debate about what type of censorship should be occurring, primarily arguing between market censorship, industry censorship, and government censorship. The film mostly argues that any form of censorship other than the current method of industry censorship would be best. I agree with the filmmakers that the current system allows for very strict, unfair, and collusive results, providing the industry with a completely monopolistic system to output only what they want. The secrecy of the ratings board only stands to further complicate the issue, since nobody can even be sure that the raters aren’t the filmmakers themselves.

Franklin also claims that “at least in the current environment, creative, thoughtful, and even subversive films can get made� (147). I think it is widely understood among filmmakers and anyone who is familiar with the system that violence is easily used as a subversive tactic in films. Many complain that sexual themes are treated so harshly while violence is widely accepted and often glorified. One filmmaker offered an opinion which I found very interesting; that violence should be treated oppositely of how it is now, so that realistic violence which presents consequences should be given a more lenient approach, whereas bloodless killing and other fantasized forms of violence should be treated more harshly. The MPAA’s treatment of sexual themes is apparent in the rating of This Film Is Not Yet Rated as there are scenes of sexual activity, but no violence, in the film, and the documentary earned the harshest rating of NC-17.

Posted by dunh0037 at 9:15 PM | Permalink

In response to Franklin’s statement, “At least in the current environment, creative, thoughtful and even subversive films can get made,� I would have to say I agree to a certain extent. The reason I say to a certain extent is because even though sex and violence sell, some sex and violence doesn’t sell. The market itself determines this by excluding unpopular ideas (Franklin 145). Things that involve graphic depictions of rape and homosexuality normally wouldn’t sell, but then how do you explain the success of American History X which includes a combination of the two? This is where the MPAA comes in. Franklin states that, “A movie executive with an agenda beyond making money is cruising for a financial loss (144).� This leads me to the conclusion that the MPAA is in charge of determining what sells, since the leading Hollywood studios are actually members themselves. I find it hard to believe that the members of the MPPA wouldn’t have their own financial interests as their number one priority. So, in this environment, it would be very difficult for subversive films, from an independent film studio to receive a rating less than an NC-17. So, sex obviously sells but where does the MPAA draw the line? In This Film is Not Yet Rated one interviewee, the director of But I’m a Cheerleader, points out that her film received an NC-17 due to a female masturbation scene, but American Pie was rated as an R and had a more graphic masturbation clip. Some might say that the line drawn must include some sort of gray area to allow this, but besides blaming preferential treatment for the decision by the MPAA, the line is very clear. This apparent contradiction has its origins connected to women’s historical role in society. Just as adults tried to suppress the sexual protest of young women everywhere during “Beatle mania,� adult still try to oppress young women’s sexuality to this very day. Sexuality among young females is something that society detests and the MPAA’s decision about giving an initial NC-17 rating to But I’m a Cheerleader reflects that.

Posted by cros0189 at 9:14 PM | Permalink

This week's film, "This Film is Not Yet Rated" was a very eye opening experience. I had realized that ratings were off skew and not very constant, but i did not realize how biased they were. The fact that the committee is private and not accessible to the public is not right at all. The public deserves to know who is DETERMINING what they are able to view or not view, purchase or not purchase. It makes the public think that the picking of the committee is also biased and takes away all trust in the rating system. Another point, is that the appeal system is screwed up. the fact that you can not compare any other movie or fraction of a movie to your own is ridiculous. it just goes to show that the system they have for rating has no guidance or set of guidelines to go by. it is on complete movie by movie basis based on the committee's biased decision. the system the MPAA has set up is wrong in every way. who says that these people have the right to choose what we view in the first place? Their opinion could possibly be the opposite of the majority of the American population. The part of the movie that was very interesting was the comparison of the nudity or sexual scenes involving either gay, straight, or bisexual intercourse. Most scenes involving gay or bisexual sexual scenes were less inappropriate than most straight sex scenes, yet were more often denied playing on the big screen. This weeks film was a very inspiring eye opener for me to second guess some of the things that dictate my life.

Posted by mcgui149 at 9:05 PM | Permalink

It seems, these days, that the American attitude of what is "suitable material for all ages" and "what is not" is vastly different from the rest of the world, and of our past history. Not too long ago, it would have been unheard of to criticize the President in a film or on television. Nowadays, there are entire TV shows and box office films dedicated to criticizing and making fun of our Government officials, especially the President. It just goes to show how things have changed. Thirty or so years ago when "The Exorcist" came out, there were huge public outcries. People were passing out and throwing up during screenings of the film, the Church was calling out against it, and it was given an R rating. To be honest with you, if that film went through the rating system of today, it would probably only receive a PG-13. Films like "Hostel" and other snuff films like it only receive an R rating. I saw one scene from "Hostel II" and I can't even believe a studio would allow it to be made. I know that the sick, messed up society we live in will fork out the money to see this crap, and the studios will make a ton of money, but are you kidding me? Those movies should only be seen by people over 17, if any one at all.

America's filmmaking also is transported overseas to cultures wildly different from ours. Many of our films might go through extensive editing for sex, violence and language which may be offensive to some cultures. If you look on IMDB at different movies, they show the ratings of the film in different countries. In some movies, you will likely see something to the effect of "18+" or "banned", etc.

I'm not saying we need the government to ban movies like "Hostel". I'm not in favor of censorship by any means. What I do think is that filmmakers and studios should use a little more discretion in what they put out. If an impressionable kid sees a bunch of American backpackers getting hacked to bits in a dungeon in Eastern Europe and thinks it is a "SWEET!" as I thought the "3 Ninjas" were, our country, and the rest of the world, is not heading in a great direction!

Posted by smit1989 at 9:03 PM | Permalink

In response to Franklin statement saying "some fairly well-established guidelines to the assignment of ratings, [and thus] filmmakers can now predict with a fair amount of certainty what their films' ratings will be. In addition, it is a fairly simple matter to edit a film to conform to a particular rating's requirements" (153), I think Kirby Dick and those who were interviewed in the film totally disagree on Franklin's statement. Obviously making a film is a difficult task and to ask the directors and producers of the film to go back and simply edit or cut out certain parts of their film is no easy task! It could, and probably would, change what the film is all about. And for the movie with the gay and lesbian scenes in them, to cut out one scene where a girl is seen masturbating with her clothes on. Why should this be cut out, when in America Pie, a guy can been seen masturbating into a pie without his clothes on? To me, the MPAA is just trying to "protect" the American viewers from the real world where there happens to be homosexuals. I think that it isn't up to the MPAA to be able to limit these films from audiences, people can make their own decisions to see the movies they want to see. People can't live in a sheltered life forever. It is a fact that they will be introduced to these issues elsewhere, if not in the movies. Also what angered me about this movie was the fact that movies with brutal sex scenes of the way guys are treating women is allowed, and brutal murders are also allowed, but heaven forbid a teenage girl experimenting with herself be allowed on screen! And to a fellow classmates blog, I think that people who go see homosexual scenes aren't going to go home and want to experiment with the same sex, and if they do, who cares what people do on their own time? I think by simply seeing a movie of a homosexual sex scene isn't going to "make someone gay". I think all types of movies should be allowed on screen, and leave it up to the parents or the individual to decide the rest.

Posted by ruff0046 at 9:02 PM | Permalink

The filmmaker of This film Is Not Yet Rated and the people interviewed in the film would disagree with Franklin statement “some fairly well-established guidelines to the assignment of rating, [and thus] filmmaker can now predict with a fair amount of certainty what their films’ rating will be. In addition, it is a fairly simple matter to edit a film to conform to a particular rating’s requirements� (153) The film explains the MPAA rating guidelines are not disclosed to filmmakers. There is some basic understanding of what kind of films get an R rating vs. an NC-17. The MPAA are lenient on violence compare to sex but for the most part filmmakers don’t really have any guideline, they have to submit their film and wait for the rating. “There are those who find the ratings so vague- there is not indication whether an R rating is for sex, violence or language, and no indication why a PG has been awarded.� (Maria, 1)
Some films could be edited to getting certain rating but for some film editing is not an option. For example the movie America Psycho got an NC-17 rating because the MPAA did not like the tone of the entire movie, thus the film maker wasn’t able to go back make entire movie to get an R rating.
The assessment of the MPAA is very inconsistent. Films with similar content receive different rating, for example films like But I am a Cheerleader received a NC-17 rating because the sexual content in the film was with same sex and films like American Pie got R rating. This rating is based on what the MPAA considers to be normal for all Americans.
Overall I really enjoyed the film, I wasn’t aware that there was so much politic with the film rating system.

Posted by mula0013 at 8:57 PM | Permalink

Matt Hobbs
Weekly Blog #15

Franklin, when he states that there exists, “some fairly well-established guidelines to the assignment of ratings, [and thus] film makers can now predict with a fair amount of certainty what their films’ ratings will be…� (153), is both (generally) correct in this statement and misleading. We see this exemplified perfectly in the film when we examine the interviews with the directors.
On the one hand you have directors like Matt Stone (and Trey Parker), who filmed a scene they knew would be censored and so sent it off with an over exaggerated scene so it could be condensed down re-edited. This is often sued in Hollywood cinema right now, especially as it concerns Hollywood horror films. Every Saw film has been re-edited from an NC-17 cut, which if you watch the director commentaries they tell you that they knew it would occur. The director of American Psycho also comments that she expected problems with the MPAA over specific scenes in that film. However there is a flip side we see in the interviews with the directors. The director of the film Boys Don’t Cry expressed extreme shock and disappointment over the rating that film received, due to the fact that in our current industry, a rating of NC-17 is considered the ‘kiss of death’ to a film.
This is the problem with that statement from Franklin. While it is, to an extent true, it can be obvious when a director is crossing a line, it doesn’t define that line very well at all. When Jack Valenti states, “I don’t think parents are going to fret because they can’t see a sex orgy� (This film has not yet been Rated) we see the entire extent of the problem with the MPAA rating; there is no context for the ratings that are given. Is Valenti commenting that in every case an orgy is inappropriate and any person engaged in one is a deviant miscreant? Does he also mean to say that photographing an orgy, not only has no lace in cinema, but that there is no context for any cinematic meaning behind an orgy.
The entire problem with the rating system of the MPAA, and Franklin’s comment, is that the fundamental ideas behind the reason it was established and the actualities of what is going on has an incredible disconnect. It’s easy to say that this is done for the typical American parent, but then as David Ansen points out, “what is this mythical American parent� (This film has not yet been Rated). At that point we have to ask ourselves, who is this real American parent and what is the actual target goal of the MPAA?

Posted by hobb0041 at 8:49 PM | Permalink

Franklin’s claim that “At least in the current environment, creative, thoughtful and even subversive films can get made� (147) is naïve. In comparison to fifty years ago, films today are certainly far more “risqué.� However, so is society. There in lies the question: is society a reflection of the media or is media a reflection of society? In the 1950’s movie were more conservative and, in comparison to today, so was society. Our “current environment� in society and the world is a more “creative, thoughtful and even subversive,� – since the 1960’s freedom of … anything (!) has become the “way of the world.� Many filmmakers disagree that the current environment provides for complete artistic freedom. “Subversive� is, again, relative, especially in the filmmaking industry controlled by corporate, and MPAA, interests. What “sells� is made, not necessarily what is thought-provoking or artistic. According to the MPAA, sex is a more subversive topic, and thus violence would have a better chance at an “R� rating, and access to more money that a sexual film that would be given an NC17 rating. Sex, although more prevalent in today’s society, is still much less accepted worldwide. And since American films often receive a lot of global success, it is smarter financially to support and release a film with “gratuitous violence� than a film with abundant sexual content. Violence exists worldwide, even more so in some countries than in the United States, but much sexual content is still regarded on very conservative values in most parts of the world. Either way, violent and sexual expression in filmmaking has developed and increased with time, but is still controlled by the MPAA and corporate interests of the U.S., and ultimately, the world.

Posted by rinas001 at 8:48 PM | Permalink

This Film is Not Yet Rated, has created an argument between the MPAA and society. It has brought to our attention the inconsistencies that have been created throughout our history of film. We find that Mr. Kirby Dick promotes that the MPAA is out of line and attempts to bares to exemplify the inconsistency in Hollywood ratings. So to say the most he does not agree with the statement, “some fairly well-established guidelines to the assignment of ratings, [and thus] filmmakers can now predict with a fair amount of certainty what their films’ ratings will be. In addition, it is a fairly simple matter to edit a film to conform to a particular rating’s requirements.�
We find this in the fluctuation of the ratings, especially with female sexuality. It’s explained in the article through Mr. Goyer, The Rating System, It’s Built to Endure, that “The paradox is, the more realistically and more accurately you try to portray something, the heavier it becomes.� This statement basically tells us that if we tried to create a real life movie about college kids drinking, drama, and sex that it would be no doubted stamped with a large R or NC-17 on the cover. What is so wrong with bringing these things to the attention of the public…it’s real, it’s what’s happening. Just as long as we keep that age restriction on; people would watch it for the entertainment. I know I would.
As we know the rating system is here to stay and the government is to make sure of that. We no longer have a say over what is good entertainment or what is bad. It has kicked many films out of the industry and will continue to do so. So I guess if we want to create our entertainment we have to just conform and deal with through dumbing down the reality.

Posted by carr0445 at 8:41 PM | Permalink

Franklin states that the MPAA rating system provides for “some fairly well-established guidelines to the assignment of ratings, [and thus] filmmakers can now predict with a fair amount of certainty what their films’ ratings will be. In addition, it is a fairly simple matter to edit a film to conform to a particular rating’s requirements� (153). I think the filmmaker of "This Film Is Not Yet Rated, Kirby Dick would not agree with that statements. In the film, the MPAA is proved to have bias in their rating system. There is absolutely no certain "fair" scale for filmmakers to follow. The MPAA is found to have certain bias on certain type of movies they're rating. For example, the movies with straight sex scenes get rated R, while another movie with gay sex scenes get rated NC-17. In the film, it is proved that it's very difficult for filmmakers to predict the rating for their movies. For one of the movies mentioned in "This Film Is Not Yet Rated", the filmmaker was told that the MPAA had problem with the tone of the whole movie. How did they expect the filmmaker to edit the "tone" of the movie. It's like telling them to remake the whole movie from the beginning. Moreover, the MPAA may not have problem with giving a movie full of sex scenes, violence, and rape an R rating, but they would with a movie where girls masturbate without any nudity. It is clearly shown that there is no such thing as a "fair MPAA rating system". The raters are clearly bias and unfair.
In my opinion, no movie should be rated NC-17. If there are sex, violence in them, they should be rated R. That way, parents can decide whether or not they want their underage children to see those movies. Also, I strongly think that war violence should not be kept away from movies. War movies should bring the truth to the audience, like the particular one shown in "This Film Is Not Rated". Americans, adults and children, should know what it really looks like in the front line. War movies should not make wars to look like a phenomenon that create heroes with victories and glories. Americans should be reminded that wars are about shooting, killing, and death of innocent people, the ones just like themselves.

Posted by truon052 at 8:27 PM | Permalink

This Film is Not Yet Rated exposes the truth of the Motion Picture Association of America’s rating system and the corruption and forced self-censorship it brings. Jack Valenti, a former Washington official and president of the MPAA, set up a system that forces filmmakers to either edit their films to conform to secret raters’ guidelines or lose profits and audiences if they don’t make the changes raters only sometimes offer. These raters’ identities are not disclosed to the public. The MPAA tells the public that the raters have children of high school age or younger and cannot be a rater for more than seven years, yet the film disproves this. The raters are supposed to the average American parents, but who is the average American parent? Further, how can an agency run by financially powerful film companies fairly review films they are trying to make money off of?

Franklin makes the point that “it is certainly true that many theaters will simply refuse to screen a movie with the rating NC-17� (153). This means that while the movie has been made, it may not reach the audience who want to see it. The film goes on to note that the difference between the ratings R and NC-17 could be millions of dollars at the box office. Some retailers won’t sell NC-17 movies either. As discussed in class, even if NC-17 films are released in theaters they normally don’t receive much advertising or TV time.

Additionally, between a “sexually subversive� film and one with gratuitous violence, the violent film is more likely to get an R rating. The sexually subversive film would end up with NC-17. Some of the filmmakers in the movie argued that the raters see sex as destroying society. Yet, John Waters argues that kids are more aware of sex than their parents think. The male and female sexual experiences are held to different standards when they are rated. Some of the filmmakers assert that female pleasure is looked down upon and thought of as deviant, while men killing and committing rape are frequently seen in mainstream films. Gay and lesbian experiences are seen as subversive even if a similar scene involving heterosexuals is judged as okay.

Cieply’s claim that Valenti’s “genius� of creating the ratings system that allowed film restriction to change depending on the public climate does not seem to be true (2007). Since the raters cannot possibly represent overall public opinion of what is and is not acceptable in film for almost a decade’s worth of time, the beliefs and morals held by around 10 people decide the viewing habits of the rest of America. The raters have no training and no expert opinions. As raters are chosen by the MPAA and only two or three companies completely control the information in films dispersed to public, how accurate could films’ ratings truly be?

Posted by Candice Dehnbostel at 8:26 PM | Permalink

The film “This Film is Not Yet Rated� explains many of the problems and issues brought up by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) film ratings system. I was shocked to see how much control the MPAA has over movies. The MPAA provides the ratings to films before they are screened in cinemas. Many interviewed in the film have a variety of opinions that disagree with the rating system. It was clear throughout the film that there is not a very strict guideline to rate certain films. Hodgson explains, “there is no indication whether an R rating is for sex, violence or language, and no indication why a PG (parental guidance suggested) has been awarded.� It was clearly shown in the film that there is an inconsistency when it comes to rating sex and violence. The board seems to be more lenient on violence issues in films and more restrictive on sexual content. The film proves that there is a problem with this censorship. According to the MPAA Sex is more subversive. Couvares explains, “Determining what is legitimate to say and hear and see… is a central activity of all societies and social groups�. However today’s society has changed compared to forty years ago. The MPAA ratings definitions are not reflective on today’s society. Sex was frowned upon but today it is occurring at younger ages and is more acceptable. But why are ratings based on sex still very strict in America? America and the rest of the world are exposed to sex and violence but it seems in America the ratings are harsher towards sexual themes than violence, where the rest of the world it is the opposite.

Posted by campb503 at 8:00 PM | Permalink

I have two kids ages 6 and 5, so this film was interesting for me. I agree with many of the thoughts expressed by the directors and others who were interviewed that were dismayed by the MPAA's autonomy. It really is amazing that they are not held to a higher standard. Unfortunately, the topics discussed in the film won't reach the general public, and they will go on without any understanding of the MPAA's structure or ruling standards. Most just see a rating and thats the way it is, they don't realize how silly the standards for the rating system is.

My wife and I are pretty guarded when it comes to what are kids watch, because no matter what people say, kids are very impressionable. The sop in everything they see and don't have the judgement skills to understand that some of the things they see should not be repeated. We do use the ratings as a guide, but we also look to see why the movie received the rating. Pretty much anything rated G is ok, but we do restrict the PG films. In this respect the ratings work for us. G is for general audiences, everyone should be able to see the film, and for the most part this is accurate. PG is for parental guidance. We as parents take this into account and think a bit longer before deciding whether or not to let our kids watch a film.

The problems I think start at PG-13, R and X-17. I agree with most in the film that were anti-MPAA. Sex is way less damaging to a young mind than is violence. At somepoint you almost get numb to all the violence we are exposed to in this country. I don't want my kids watching hardcore porn, but as long as it doesn't show any violence towards women, I would rather have them see that then a movie like Hostel or any other movie with gratuitous violence. I agree with Kevin Smith, rape and violence against women should be an automatic extra rating in the system. Another director made a good point as well, the violence and gun play seen in Saving Private Ryan may be less damaging then the over the top gun play, no blood, James Bond never getting shot type of film.

Right now I am trying to manage what my kids watch nowing that someday they'll be able to make their own decisions. Hopefully they make good ones, but by that time maybe they'll have the judgement skills to understand that what they are watching is just a movie, and not something that should be repeated in real life. I still don't get parents that bring their young children into PG-13 and R movies. They'll have plenty of time to see that stuff when they're older and can better handle it. Why make them grow up so fast, I don't think it benefits anyone.

Posted by bela0003 at 7:45 PM | Permalink

I really liked the the way the film that we watched looks at the way that the MPAA sensors the films and how that has the overall movie industry and the way we look at films and society. Maria Hodgson discusses the way that films are rated and how they have changed over the years. She says that a "154 films rated R in 1980, 38 contained one single element, such as a word, that netted this rating" (Hodgson 2) This shows how the films used to be rated. They were very strict and did not except any indiscretion or anything bordering the line of being to severe. That was back in the late 60s. It has changed a lot more now. This shows how the MPAA have got a lot more lenient as the times have changed. Now the way movies have changed almost determines the way society is seen. For example if the MPAA lets censors say a sex scene but allows something else it says that society allows something and not sex. Couvares explains, “The more one looks at debates over discrete representations of sexuality, or ethnicity, or other controversial subjects in Hollywood, for example, the more it becomes clear that the attention of both advocates and opponents of censorship is focused on wider cultural and political tension"

Posted by culve018 at 7:44 PM | Permalink

I have always been struck by the nonsensical way in which films have been rated. I remember watching "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace" for the first time and being amazed at the fact that it had a PG rating, despite the near-constant violence. However, because there was no bad language or sex, I guess it's okay for children to witness the killing of dozens of people on screen. At least that's what the MPAA would have us believe. They definitely would consider sex and sexuality to be more subversive than violence, which is not surprising considering the conservative "family values" make-up of the board. Violence has become standard in film, and in a sense an essential part of the American film. Think for a moment about the most popular and successful movies of all time: The Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Jaws, Harry Potter, etc. They all have violence that is central to the plot of the film. I believe this "need" for violence in film is part due to the patriotic war films of the 1940s. Having the violence of war be glorified on the screen made violence in film a patriotic duty. Sex in film is rated much harsher. Part of this may be because of a belief that sex in film will unite the Hollywood film industries and the porn industries. More likely however, is the puritanical attitude that the board and other conservative groups have towards sex. I just find it horribly ironic that it is more acceptable to show violence and death on screen than sex, an act that brings life.

Posted by Melissa Green at 7:27 PM | Permalink

Christina Johnston –Blog popular culture Not Yet Rated
This film is not yet rated was a very sneaky-type of documentary highlighted by the INF. It exposed the corruption and hypocrisy that occurs within the Hollywood rating system and the in consistent rating criteria standing being held against preferred films and conglomerates. Kirby Dick essentially stalked filmmakers of large films, to find out the ins and outs of the filmmaking and subsequent film rating industries. I found in interesting when the interviewed the makers of “Boys Don’t Cry“to find that homosexuality in film was increasingly scrutinized against in terms of ratings strictness and obtaining an NC-17 , R, Pg-13, etc. this film shows the exploitation of independent films as they become even pickier with independent films in order to be more lenient on larger, less controversial, bigger box office films.
I think that it is interesting as we study different aspects of popular culture in the cinema, we see the recurring use of the drive for profit in the production of what actually ends up being manufactured and shown to the public. This brings up the question of why keep looking for “something new, and different, and forward� in thinking, when we will be inevitably fed an image that will appeal to most people instead of provoke the thought and growth of many people. It is for this reason that very few small, independent films succeed in an industry where the main goal in the entire production process, from ratings, to funding, to advertising, to establishing a target market audience is based on producing movies that perform in the box office. It is not to say that no one is interested in these small films and the new concepts that they predict, but when the people in charge of making these small films succeed (ratings, etc) are heavily motivated by the industries’ pocket strings.

Posted by joh03704 at 6:47 PM | Permalink

Kirby Dick’s documentary, This Film is Not Yet Rated, shows how films are given their rating. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) administers ratings to films by having a secret board watch each film. According to Michael Cipley MPAA rating system they, “devised an apparatus that is not bound by precedent, changes its definitions at will and, ultimately, serves the motion picture industry by becoming, at any given moment, as permissive or restrictive as the prevailing climate seems to demand (Cipley, 2007)�. MPAA hires parents and wants them to use their best judgments in rating each film, which seem unprofessional that these parents are not experts. While censorship is an important issue and must be present in society, the fact that the MPAA panel is compiled of average parents seems quite disturbing. This Film is Not Yet Rated shows how the film views are not trained by professionals and have no idea how exposure of certain explicated material will affect its viewers. Who’s to say that they know best for what my kids should or shouldn’t see? It seems that each movie the MPAA parents watch they use no set criteria for rating these films. There seems to be an inconsistency when it comes to sexual content and violence. Homosexual context is highly scrutinized compared to heterosexual content, there both sexual acts so they should have the same evaluation process. Violence is not highly scrutinized compared to homosexuality content because there is a bias on what is right and wrong.

Posted by towar003 at 6:09 PM | Permalink

In recent years, we have seen many controversial movies get developed and distributed around the world. For example, Death of a President is a fictional documentary of the assassination of President George W. Bush investigation. This film is an independent film and was only distributed in selected movie theaters, such as the Oak Street Theater. If this film was made by a Hollywood film studio, it would have gotten distributed all around this country and would have gotten more popular. Franklin believes that any movie can get made in today’s world. Movies and television from the past seemed much censored to the point where showing a woman’s leg was uncommon and wrong. I agree with Franklin’s statement; in today’s world we see couples have graphic sex (Monsters Ball – Halle Berry and Billy Bob Thorton), girls in the nude (American Pie), and violence galore (American History X). For a side note, I find it extremely odd that girls are more commonly naked in movies when compared to men. I believe Kirby Dick would agree with Franklin. American and much of the world are exposed to sex and violence in the big screen when compared to the past. Sex is more subversive according theMPAA. We have always experienced violence in the movie theater, television, war documentaries, and in the video games. Sex is still controversial to many eyes, especially for the young adults. When I went to go see Titanic with my mom, it was very awkward. It has been getting more graphic then ever before to the point where it can by questioned if it was actually necessary to display in the movie. Sex would be up for an R rating faster these days then violence.MPAA board of rater’s purpose is to protect families and children from scenes in which may seem too explicit. We are all use to seeing violence, especially since the Iraqi started and footage of the Vietnam War was being shown in news station. We have been exposed to violence more then we have been to sex. It is quite confusing to say as this country has been censored away from sex for such a long time where it seems violence should deserve a worse rating.

Posted by Anthony Zerka at 5:57 PM | Permalink

The mystery and extreme secrecy that has surrounded the worlds of movie rating systems throughout several decades raises many questions regarding the credibility and validity of such a system. This particular system has an abundance of weaknesses that hinders its effectiveness.

For example, the panelists, or individuals who are doing the actual ratings for the MPAA are never revealed to society and sworn to secrecy. Is there really a need for this? The film entitled, This Film is Not Yet Rated, reveals that out of all the numerous employees who have served as raters for the MPAA over the past few decades, only an astonishing two people have broken their silence and agreed to discuss their jobs. The fact that majority of society so willingly abides by these ratings without any question raises serious concerns in the ability of our society to question or resist authority. How can so many people trust the judgment of someone, or in this case group of individuals, when they are not even provided with the most basic background information such as a simple first and last name?

In addition to this, another weakness lies in the vagueness of these “ratings.� Moria makes a valid argument when she points out that, “PG rating alerts a parent to CARA’s decision that “parental guidance� is called for but gives no hint as to what specifically a concerned parent should be on the lookout for.� The vagueness and extreme secrecy of the movie rating system today is in no way trustworthy nor helpful to understanding popular culture and only makes one skeptical of the political aspects that may be playing a role in this system.

Posted by munoz047 at 5:18 PM | Permalink

The documentary “This Film is Not Yet Rated� explicitly talks about, and points out, the number of problems and issues brought up by the MPAA’s film ratings system. Many interviewed in this documentary have quite strong feelings opposing the ratings system. They feel there are no strict guidelines as to how a film gets rated. The board seems to be lenient on some issues (violence), but strict about others (sexual scenes). The film suggests there are a lot of problems with this kind of censorship. This type of censorship, in a way, prohibits free speech, because films that are rated NC-17, have little way of reaching the public. The film could be very artistically done and have meaning for any controversial topic within, but it is basically stopped by one group of ‘unidentified’ people. Many of the filmmakers interviewed seem to think the panel that determines ratings should be public information and there should be some kind of written criteria that determines all films ratings. Setting criteria as to how a film will be rated, and on what issues, will give film makers a better idea as to how to get the rating they want, instead of following ambiguous guidelines like filmmakers do now.

Posted by Martine Schroeder at 4:54 PM | Permalink

I personally found the movie from class on censorship we watched in class ridiculous. Using the argument that other films have immoral scenes in them and thus other films should be allowed to have them as well to me seems just wrong.

I have never been to an R rated film that I felt should have had any lesser rating, if anything they should have been rated NC-17. It seems that the movie industry grants their backing to too many films, not too few. I am personally very pleased that the industry attempts to limit what can be viewed by the public.

I personally do not think that sex scenes bring anything to a movie. Have you ever been to a movie and thought afterward “wow, that movie was so much better because of all that sex seen between so and so�. I think not. It is rather obvious that in going to a movie youth adopt beliefs on what is acceptable from the film. That means that films with large amounts of sex only encourage youth to experiment. For this reason I am very glad that the film industry is limiting gay and lesbian sex scenes in their films. The answer to why a film can have a sex scene between a man and a woman and not between a man a man or a woman and a woman obvious. The vast majority of America, especially parents, do not want their children watching things that would encourage them to experiment with the same sex. By keeping gay and lesbian scenes out of movies, whether right or wrong, the film industry making the majority of America happy. I would say in the very least that keeping gay and lesbian sex scenes out of movies is not hurting anything.

To me it seems logical that there be more limitations placed on sex than on violence in movies. It is simple to teach children that violence and killing are wrong, but much more difficult to do so for sex. Sex is something that is desired naturally by all people while murder is not. A person seeing sex constantly in films will start to believe they should have sex as well but this is not so for murder. It is much easier to separate movie violence from real life than it is sex.

From the readings we had the quote by Mr. Goyer that “The paradox is, the more realistic and more accurately you portray something the heavier it becomes�. By this he means that the more realistically a movie portrays something the harsher rating it will receive. I do not really find this a paradox. The more realistic a movie is the harder it is to separate it from real life and thus everything in the film takes on a stronger meaning. This is the reason that more realistic movies do, and should get harsher ratings.

Posted by andre368 at 4:42 PM | Permalink

Cieply mentions in the article “The Ratings System: Built to Endure� that “it was Mr. Valenti’s genius to have devised an apparatus that is not bound by precedent, changes its definitions at will and, ultimately, serves the motion picture industry by becoming, at any given moment, as permissive or restrictive as the prevailing climate seems to demand.� This governing body can, at will, decide the ultimate fate of movies by filtering what the public can see, without any outside influences or input from the public. As Cieply points out, the board says its dozen or so raters, all parents, are expected to judge films according to “factors that parents consider when deciding whether to allow their children to view that motion picture.� The irony that the film reveals, however, is that many ratings board members either have children 18 and over or have no children at all. In fact, many board's raters receive no training and are deliberately chosen because of their lack of expertise in media literacy or child development. The genius of the system is that these vaguely defined guidelines, or “moving goalposts�, basically let the board do whatever it pleases in assigning ratings. Because of what Cieply calls “muddled or moving boundaries�, film-makers face an uphill battle from the start, and those that try to go against the machine are crushed.

Posted by ande4849 at 4:22 PM | Permalink

I think it was a really interesting debate at the end of class regarding the issue of censorship. The question asked was, 'Do you think the current rating system is censorship?' Many people in the class thought it was, and that surprised me. While the system certainly limits the audiences that the movie can reach, it doesn't change any part of the movie. The MPAA doesn't filter inappropriate language or images. They don't change any part of the movie, only offer suggestions.
The people who thought it was censorship said so because a film rating essentially determines how mainstream it will be. Films rated NC-17 have a huge portion of viewing audiences banned from viewing them. Theaters will most likely not carry the film, nor will there be much advertising for it. Profits for the film will likely suffer as a result. While censoring certainly occurs in the MPAA, it's a necessary evil. I don't even feel that it's extreme censorship, as the MPAA doesn't physically change the film in the process. There need to be guidelines, and if someone can come up with a better system, best of luck to them.

Jeff Batts

Posted by batts002 at 3:30 PM | Permalink

I understand why there are ratings on movies, but at times I feel they are either too unrealistic or violating personal rights. What I mean by this is, there are movies that I agree with the NC-17 rating. No child 17 and under should see it. But then, there are others that I do think 17 year olds can handle it. Especially in today's world. At this point in time, children see and hear more and more vulgar things than many parents have even saw or heard. Kids have been exposed to so much, such as violent and/or sexual video games. Like the popular Grand Theft Auto 4 that just came out. It's filled with explicit language, actions and sights that kids shouldn't see, but that's the age that it's most popular with.

The ratings are somewhat unfair, on the other hand. I think it's up to a parent or the individual themselves to decide what they should and should not watch. Yes, five year olds more than likely can't make that proper judgement on their own, but that's where the parents come in. But then a 15, 16, or 17 year old should be able to make that decision. They are old enough to have their permit or driver's license, they should be able to see a movie if they want, regardless of the rating. The rating shouldn't prevent people from watching films, it should warn them. It can still be there for a suggestion, but in the end, I think it's all the person's responsibility of what they watch.

Posted by woehl007 at 3:27 PM | Permalink

This Film is not Yet Rated, is a documentary that discusses and opens the ideas of ratings, censorship, sex and violence which are exploited by Hollywood film makers. Couvares explains, “The more one looks at debates over discrete representations of sexuality, or ethnicity, or other controversial subjects in Hollywood, for example, the more it becomes clear that the attention of both advocates and opponents of censorship is focused on wider cultural and political tensions� (510). I feel the tensions that are brought on by censorships are questions about what is culturally acceptable. Do we as a society accept sex in films or do we try to hide them by censoring them? Also, the tension about who gets to decide. Where does one draw the line between what is too sexual or violent. I think these might be a few tensions the MPAA face. Movies can play a significant role in these tensions. The rating of a movie can dictate who will view it and how they will view it. Some movies can receive a higher rating, such as an R rating, if it will be viewed by the mass media. If it is an independent film it may have a lower rating because fewer people will see the film.

Posted by pelt0071 at 3:20 PM | Permalink

Founded by the major Hollywood studios to head off the threat of government censorship and run for most of its history by Jack Valenti, a former staff member in Lyndon B. Johnson’s White House, the association often seems more arbitrary and less transparent in its workings than any federal agency this side of the C.I.A.

-A.O. Scott, New York Times.

The most interesting thing about that statement up there is that the ratings system was designed to prevent censorship when through the film "This Film Is Not Yet Rated", the point seems to be that the ratings system, in a way, censors. Mostly the film looked at how films rated NC-17 were doomed to flail financially and die an obscure death. Then it compared nearly identical scenes from R-rated movies to scenes from NC-17-rated films, the only major difference being gender (e.g. pubic hair of one woman in one film leading to an NC-17 rating while male pubic hair in another leads to an R rating, or female masturbation in "But I'm a Cheerleader" leading to an NC-17 rating while Jason Biggs masturbating with a pie leads to an R rating) or heterosexual vs homosexual depiction, with the latter earning an NC-17 rating far more often. Of course it is dangerous to simply believe based on the scenes shown that the only reason for the differentiations in ratings are due to gender or sexual orientation as Kirby Dick chose which scenes to show and, unless we've seen the films ourselves, we have no way of knowing whether or not the NC-17 films are truly deserving of the rating for other scenes.

But regardless, the MPAA doesn't help itself much with its insistence on secrecy and arbitrary rating system. Kirby Dick focuses a lot on why can't he know the identities of the raters with Joan Graves' main argument being that it would put too much pressure on the raters. This is clearly a weak argument as many, many political figures are in the spotlight and have to deal with much more pressure (think of the president, for example). Furthermore, one incredibly annoying moment in the film has an MPAA lawyer telling Kirby Dick he cannot, during the appeal, mention other films and their ratings when defending his own. The movie makes the point that if the judicial system uses precendents, why shouldn't the rating system? All in all the rating system seems flawed in ways that are detrimental to many filmmakers and is in need of some refurbishment.

Posted by bergm150 at 3:12 PM | Permalink

After watching this film, I began to reconsider some past movies to try to understand how they got the ratings they did. Forrest Gump came to mind immediately, because I first saw it when I was about six or seven. Of course, on that viewing, much of the humor and some references slipped by me because I was too young. The movie was rated PG13, but contains some nudity, language, inappropriate jokes, and an entire war sequence in Vietnam. How could this be? But then I considered the context of all of these things: when a protest speaker (possibly Abbie Hoffman) says the "F word" in front of the Washington memorial, it sounds like the words were edited to be incomprehensible; in Vietnam, none of the soldiers are shown being wounded on-screen (except Forrest, in his buttocks); and when Jenny sings nude, the guitar covers most of her body. By considering this example, it is easy to see two things about the MPAA: first, that there is no firm rule as to what makes something Restricted or Adults only; and second, that context matters the most. When violence is not used, but simply occurs, it is not exploitive. When nudity appears, but doesn't bare all, it isn't distracting. Etc. The MPAA, though flawed, still understands that some movies deserve to be seen, and though the parts--had they appeared in altogether different movies--should garner more restrictive ratings, when put together in the right context, they can still be PG13. This is not a topic discussed in "this film is not yet rated" probably because most of the speakers are censored filmmakers. Their judgment is biased, as are those of the MPAA raters, who--as the movie tries to show--see themselves as representatives of the family unit. The most important undressed question brought up by the film, however, is whether or not the "traditional family" should be outdated; is it a good thing that we continue to push the limits and boundaries simply for art's sake, or to prove that we can? This conflict is behind the entire movie, and yet it seems neglected because the filmmakers would probably have a hard time realizing that maybe they shouldn't have gone so far; and that the raters might realize maybe that their telling-others-what-to-do is something that inspires them to break the rules.

Posted by aretz008 at 2:25 PM | Permalink

The genius in a MPAA ratings system that, “changes its definitions at will and, ultimately, serves the motion picture industry by becoming, at any given moment, as permissive or restrictive as the prevailing climate seems to demand,� is that at no time is it ever accountable or in need of answering to anyone (Cieply 2007). It is a governing body, minus the checks and balances, which can make decisions regarding what is acceptable for public viewing without guidelines or standards, or even having an air of consistency. This is the same principle that offers former movie-raters vague, undefined parameters as too what, in their experiences with the MPAA, is confidential. This ensures that any comments the rater makes in the future are suppressed or kept to a minimum, as the MPAA has total jurisdiction against those “rogue� raters who choose to spout-off.

The way these “moving goalposts� affect filmmakers is that they are constantly kept in the dark about what the guidelines are and are forced to work with a rating system that is not clearly defined. A common complaint amongst filmmakers in “This Film is Not Yet Rated,� is that, what is acceptable in one film may not be in another. Removing the ability for filmmakers to use past films as a benchmark, leaves them with no concept as to what will be permitted in the future. Because of these “muddled or moving boundaries,� filmmakers are put into a no win situation, they are set-up to fail from the onset (Cieply 2007).

Having a system with malleable definitions, often tainted with a particular political or religious viewpoint or enforced according to the whims of a rater, is definitely not a good thing. This type of unrestricted and unregulated censorship, as was mentioned in the film, displays a blatant disregard for the filmmakers’ constitutional rights. Despite this, however, the rating system, in all likelihood, will endure, but it is in serious need of an overhaul. I agree that a rating system needs to be somewhat flexible, thus it is understandable to change the standards in which a film is rated, over time; obviously, a film made today should not be held to the standards in place when the rating system was first implemented. Nevertheless, it is not fair to the filmmaker to be provided no framework for what constitutes a particular rating. The MPAA needs to come out of the shadows, create a viable set of guidelines, employ a diverse set of raters, and be accountable for the decisions they make.

Posted by palaz012 at 1:54 PM | Permalink

I was glad we were exposed to This Film is Not Yet Rated, as the subjectivity of the film rating system is not an issue I had given much though in the past. The insinuation that the process that the MPAA rating system surprises me little. Just look at many impurities within the current capitalist system of our country such as the corruptness regarding presidential elections and you will see that money is indeed, power.

Franklin discusses three forms of censorship-the market, industry, and government. While he points out the rationale of all three forms, I believe that market censorship is the most effective and reflective of our right for personal freedom. Franklin supports this position at the conclusion of his article when he states that “the market incentive is at work� (161). Yes, all three entities need to work together in order to have a system that works, yet in order for the free market to be effective the current MPAA system must be overhauled. Otherwise we are allowing the industry and government to interfere with our personal liberties, especially the right to free speech.

This Film is Not Yet Rated argues that industry censorship and government regulation hampers the creative process filmmakers have. The more rules created by government, the more expensive and bureaucratic it becomes to bring a product to market. This is true of any industry. The key is to create a system within the film industry that allows filmmakers a fair shot at having their product seen. Then, rather than allow a subjective rating system, allow for test screenings that are done by random sample audiences with the filmmaker present. This is the method most consumer products are tested under before release in the marketplace.

Some might argue that this would “water down� the film industry, but in the end, money is power. At least in this instance the consumer holds the key to keeping the film industry accountable by deciding whether or not they will view a film or not, rather than having to wait four years to cast their vote.

Posted by char0018 at 12:45 PM | Permalink

WOW what an interesting movie. “At least in the current environment, creative, thoughtful, and even subversive films can get made� as Franklin stated, I think that this means that there is no restriction when it comes to creating a movie. But I don’t agree with that statement (If it means what I thought it meant). I think there is restriction; giving a movie an NC-17 rating is just as good as cancelling the movie.
I don’t think Kerby would agree with it either. I feel like this is the same battle that we’ve been talking about this whole semester. It’s the conservative movie raters vs. the liberal movie producers. This is just like the hippie and hip hop issues. The rater’s arguments seemed like they came from conservative parents. Oh yeah, they were conservative parents. This is a poor choice in the selection process. The average person is not a parent, why should they be the one’s to pick what we are able to watch? The funniest part is that kids can get a hold of whatever they want through the internet.
This brings me to another point. Why is it that we have a pattern of giving movies with sexual content, a harsher rating than those that contain violence? When in Europe it’s the other way around. The raters think their doing a good job by keeping kids from seeing sex on T.V. when all it takes is a click and they can get it on the internet.
I think we should rate movies with violence harsher than movies with sex. There have been plenty of incidents when kids copy the violent scenes out of the movies. I think the reason why the U.S. is stricter when it comes to sex is because of the large number of citizens that are Christian. Being promiscuous is frowned upon. I think eventually we will get to be a more liberal country but for now old fashion values controls us.

Posted by robak003 at 5:42 PM | Permalink

I think one of the most interesting points discussed after the film is the tension between limiting the forum of presentation and regulating content for the protection of children. It seems like a difficult conflict to resolve because no one wants to deny that protection of children is important, but no one wants to advocate censorship. I think the bigger problem, which was touched on in class is that advertisers won't advertise for NC-17 films. So it is really the advertisers who promote the stigma against NC-17 films because film makers obviously don't won't to produce a film that they can't make money from.

Another troubling aspect of the ratings was the glaring inconsistency between films who had similar content but received different ratings. The MPAA seems to be unique in it's ability to be a non-governmental agency that has the power to limit the profitability of products without competition and thus isn't subject to this aspect of business competition.

Posted by vieir013 at 5:09 PM | Permalink

As the film, This Film is Not Yet Rated, exemplifies, Hollywood censorship only perpetuates the social and political issues that plague our nation. Couvares explains, “The more one looks at debates over discrete representations of sexuality, or ethnicity, or other controversial subjects in Hollywood, for example, the more it becomes clear that the attention of both advocates and opponents of censorship is focused on wider cultural and political tensions� (510). For example, the film placed a great emphasis on sex and ratings. It was evident that the majority of films that that featured any sort of gay sexual encounter, regardless of how intense the act was carried out, received an NC17 rating, whereas films featuring heterosexual sexual scenes with far more explicit content received a rating of R or less. This clearly demonstrates a major role in forcing social and political influence on the public because those films that receive a rating of NC17, most often by independent film makers, are hardly exposed to the public; they cannot be seen in theaters, cannot be sold/rented in major rental businesses such as Blockbuster, and therefore will have a more difficult time publicizing their film because of this forced social influence.

Posted by riva0067 at 4:35 PM | Permalink

Jack Valenti is a genius much in the same sense that Lex Luthor and The Joker were geniuses. Their power comes from their innate ability to create a system that dominates while at the same time remaining completely in their own control. He created both the greatest and worst thing about the movie industry, it's personal government. Jack had power over anything and everything and because of that he was able to control aspects of this country through censorship. He is probably to blame for everything wrong about the movie industry, its commercialism, its massive prices, and its lack of variety in content.
In a sense, Jack created a game, but a game that he could change anytime to fit his goals. He famously shut down TIVO's ability to block commericals by claiming that it was stealing, and that was just his most recent travesty. Ethically, and for the sake of all humanity, Jack not being bound by any outside rules and being allowed to do as he pleases in his own personally manufactured environment not bound by precedent, Jack is a sinister monstrosity of a human being. But in the business sense, and the sense of how things are usually run in American business, he is no doubt a hero to many.

Posted by kupp0012 at 3:33 PM | Permalink

This Film is Not Yet Rated was a very interesting and eye-opening documentary. I never really thought about the movie ratings business as being so political. It is actually very sad to think that the fate and success of extremely talented movie directors is in the hands of a bunch of conservative Republican ‘parents’, who think they know what is best for the American public. What makes them experts on the topic and who are they to determine the ultimate success of an outstanding film? What interests me most is that Jack Valenti and his Motion Picture Association of America board are playing God when it comes to the choices that the American people should be allowed to make for themselves – in the best interest of their children and families.

Let us take a look at Europe, shall we? They believe that on-screen violence is much more hazardous to children than nudity and they do not censor nudity with as much aggression as in America. Are European youths more sexually active than American youths because of the lack of censorship of nudity? I would be inclined to say that because European culture is so open to nudity and sexuality, that the youths are exposed to it and become used to it as ‘not really a big deal’. In contrast to America, where children are so sheltered from on-screen sexuality and nudity that they are more inclined to experiment sexually. I believe that the more sheltered one is from something, the more likely that their curiosity will get the better of them. This could also explain the high numbers of teenage pregnancies in the U.S.

What is even more disheartening is that movies with gut-wrenching violence are more likely to get permissive ratings than films with sex scenes. It seems that the American rating system is more concerned about their children having sex than they are about them shooting and killing each other in school. There was an interesting point made in the movie about films like Mr. and Mrs. Smith, for instance, which depict multiple scenes of shooting and violence as ‘cool’ and ‘sexy’, and is “Rated PG-13 for sequences of violence, intense action, sexual content and brief strong language� (MPAA, 2005). Then you have movies like Saving Private Ryan, which is “Rated R for intense prolonged realistically graphic sequences of war violence, and for language� (MPAA, 1998). Should we not want our children to see the reality of the consequences that result when using violence and shooting guns? I guess not because we allow a rating of ‘PG-13’ on films that give American children false images about using weapons, but then restrict them from seeing and learning about the reality.

-Hasti Fashandi

Posted by fash0016 at 1:36 PM | Permalink

In a time where movies are released every weekend, every day and nearly every hour of the day, increased censorship existed in what Franklin states exists in three forms (the market, industry or the government). I the Kirby Dick film This film is Not Yet Rated we see the documentary about the MPAA and their way of rating. This film is not an ordinary documentary, but one that I had thought was a Michael Moore type film. Kirby shows in the Franklins perspective of the censorship in the industry that the MPAA is somewhat of a corrupt organization of Spies. The people that work in the MPAA office are more than just people, they are unknown to the whole Hollywood industry as well as to the general public. Industries censor their films in order to comply with the MPAA to get a lower rating all the time. If they don’t comply with them on certain issues they are almost always given a film rating of NC-17 for some of the ideas they center around and this is not as good as what an R rating will do for them. I had no idea until watching this film that parts would be excluded because of the censorship that this MPAA enforces. I guess that it makes sense but I also feel that films in today’s society can still be released without a rating and still do very well. Also I feel that the enforcement of this rating system seems very miniscule and Franklin goes to tell the story that the FTC has done a great job of regulating films in the movie theatres but when it comes to rentals a high level of non-compliance existed. Therefore there is hardly a line sometimes for censorship that exists but it still is a problem that society faces today.

My favorite part of this week’s film was the fact that it was not rated. This film was originally submitted to the MPAA and it was given a rating of NC-17 and the film tells of this. Than it goes to show that when they contacted the MPAA they simply said reduce this part and this part in order to comply. That clearly went against the ideas of the film so it was released as not rated and did very well in the box office. It was even given a standing ovation at the Sundance film festival. All in all this film highlighted ideas that I did not even know about will still continue to question films as to if they were censored in order to comply to this rating system.

Posted by remy0004 at 12:54 PM | Permalink

Christina Johnston –Blog popular culture NYR
This film is not yet rated was a very sneaky-type of documentary highlighted by the INF. It exposed the corruption and hypocrisy that occurs within the Hollywood rating system and the in consistent rating criteria standing being held against preferred films and conglomerates. Kirby Dick essentially stalked filmmakers of large films, to find out the ins and outs of the filmmaking and subsequent film rating industries. I found in interesting when the interviewed the makers of “Boys Don’t Cry“to find that homosexuality in film was increasingly scrutinized against in terms of ratings strictness and obtaining an NC-17 , R, Pg-13, etc. this film shows the exploitation of independent films as they become even pickier with independent films in order to be more lenient on larger, less controversial, bigger box office films.
I think that it is interesting as we study different aspects of popular culture in the cinema, we see the recurring use of the drive for profit in the production of what actually ends up being manufactured and shown to the public. This brings up the question of why keep looking for “something new, and different, and forward� in thinking, when we will be inevitably fed an image that will appeal to most people instead of provoke the thought and growth of many people. It is for this reason that very few small, independent films succeed in an industry where the main goal in the entire production process, from ratings, to funding, to advertising, to establishing a target market audience is based on producing movies that perform in the box office. It is not to say that no one is interested in these small films and the new concepts that they predict, but when the people in charge of making these small films succeed (ratings, etc) are heavily motivated by the industries’ pocket strings.

Posted by joh03704 at 8:09 PM | Permalink

Franklin’s statement that the MPAA’s rating system has well established guide lines that allows the creators of films to estimate their potential rating is a claim that is shown to be flawed in the film This Film is Not Yet Rated. In the film Kirby Dick made great strides in showing that film raters where not trained in how to do their jobs and that no real system was devised for them to base their judgments upon. These facts show that the there is little devised in the form of a guide for rating but simply the opinion of a few untrained individuals, with potential biases. The film also bring up the point that the film reviewers are not comprised of or were never exposed to the opinion of professionals trained to understand the impact on exposure specific material to the mentality of the population. The overwhelming similarities between the heterosexual and homosexual sex scenes shown in the movies with different ratings shows an inconsistency in what is considered morally corrupting. The concept of the intent of the directors is something else that is not taken into consideration by the reviewer. The director of the film Love and Basketball, Gina Prince-Bythewood, is a perfect example of how confusing the rating system can be when the artist intent is overlooked. The sexuality is meant to help the audience understand the potential tenderness of the loss of virginity to one you love, in the eyes of the reviewer it is an extended scene of insertion, a meaning completely different from the intent. I really isn’t hard to see why the director had a hard time understanding the reason for the rating. If there are no direct guidelines as to what is acceptable for each rating intent must be considered, because it is not it is simple to see the rating system is flawed,

Posted by swanx058 at 6:10 PM | Permalink

While censorship is an important element and one that must continue being present in society, the mere fact that the MPAA panel is combined of “average� parents seems quite disturbing. As Couvares (1992) states, “determining what is legitimate to say and hear and see… is a central activity of all societies and social groups� (521). Although tensions may arise due to the offending images, statements, messages and characteristics of certain films, it seems rather unjust that certain filmmakers are not allowed to display their forms of “art�. As well, the board claims to be made up of “average� parents (whose identities are kept secret), giving them the ability to determine what is acceptable and not acceptable, however who is to say that those panel members are experts in this field of study?

As well, the MPAA seems to be rather bias in the sense of it being more restrictive of sexual content than violence. More specifically, Kirby Dick points out the rejection of many films that represent gay/lesbian sex scenes compared to heterosexual ones. The MPAA takes away the intellectual creativity of many filmmakers by destroying the films original intention. Although I believe censorship is important, there are plenty of other rating systems widely used throughout the country that American society should turn to in order to improve our own system.

Posted by eisl0005 at 1:53 PM | Permalink

Franklin states that the MPAA rating system provides for “some fairly well-established guidelines to the assignment of ratings, [and thus] filmmakers can now predict with a fair amount of certainty what their films’ ratings will be. In addition, it is a fairly simple matter to edit a film to conform to a particular rating’s requirements� (153).

According to the movie This Film is Not Yet Rated, the guidelines of rating a movie goes as following: Rated “G� means that it is meant for general audiences. This means no nudity, no sex, and no drugs. Also, villains must be cartoon like and minimal. Rated “PG� means parental guidance and that there can be some strong language, some nudity and light violence. To get rated “PG 13� means that parents are strongly cautioned to not let children under the age of 13 watch the movie due to more strong language, including the word “fuck� but it is limited to about one use. “R� means restricted. Children age 17 and under can not see it without a parent or guardian. This is due to sexual themes, frank sex talk, sexualized nudity, tough language, and tough violence. The final rating is “NC-17� this means that no child under 17 can see the movie. This is due to realistic baby making in a position other than missionary or unusual sexual behavior. (This film is not yet rated)

The problem with the rating system is that they are not consistent with the above guidelines. Some films have much more violence than sexual content and get lower ratings than movies with more sexual content than violence. There is no standard as to what should be considered more harmful to children. It appears that in the United States the ratings are harsher towards sexual themes than violence, whereas in Europe, it is just the opposite.

Throughout the film, the director and others interviewed shared their concerns about the inconsistency of movie ratings. These concerns were especially noted during appeals cases after a movie is given its final rating. During an appeal, a director cannot reference any past movie. This is because some movies in the past were given different ratings for the same material and the MPAA doesn’t want to admit how arbitrary the ratings really are.

Posted by kenne404 at 12:16 PM | Permalink

"I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed…I never intended for any of this to happen, and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about."
--Miley Cyrus

This statement came out last week in response to the public frenzy that came about from the publication of a “provocative� image that is scheduled to publish in Vanity Fair’s June issue. This whole ordeal is not new to American culture. Countless teenaged celebrities (recall Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen for example) have experienced the same outrageous reactions to their attempts at growing up and asserting their independence. While we can pick this apart from many different angles, it lends itself in a rather timely manner to this week’s discussion topic of Censorship.

In one of the assigned readings from this week, Daniel Franklin discusses three main drivers of censorship in American popular culture: market, industry, and government. The Miley Cyrus firestorm is a prime example of market driven censorship. With the financial stakes behind the Hannah Montana persona, the posturing we have witnessed coming from both Cyrus and Disney comes as no surprise. We know that of all things in this culture, money talks. Attempts to develop a more mature career moving forward will be made very carefully to avoid risking pariah status with their influential consumer base.

Kirby Dick’s documentary, This Film is Not Yet Rated (2006), explores the inner workings of a more insidious form of censorship that Franklin identified – the self-censorship of the MPAA. Tracing the evolution from the Hays Code in 1930, through the current ratings system implemented by Jack Valentini in the late 1960s, the film mainly focuses on the inane, arbitrary, secretive, oppressive nature of the system. While he touches on the financial impact that a rating can have on the success, or failure, of a given title, the main thrust of Dick’s argument is that realistic portrayals of gay and lesbian experiences are being withheld from mass distribution. If this is not censorship, I do not know what is. Whether the market would accept such viewpoints is a completely different story, and a completely different kind of censorship.

While I agree that film is an art form protected by the First Amendment and should not be subject to outright suppression of expression as is inherent in the current rating system. However, I do not believe that it should be abandoned, nor should government intervention become necessary. It is my duty as a parent to make proper choices on what I allow my children to view. I find ratings to be a useful guidepost in helping make these decisions. I do not have the time watch every movie that is released and I do not take the ratings at face value, but simply use them as a filter in the process.

Posted by skog0031 at 11:20 AM | Permalink

After watching This Film is Not Yet Rated I was shocked to see how much control the MPAA has over movies. Although there is still the freedom to create and release any type of material one wants, it isn’t possible to get the amount of exposure needed to be successful if you are given a NC-17 rating. Cieply’s article that discusses Valenti’s achievements and struggles makes an interesting point by calling Valenti’s malleable rating definitions “genius�. Although Cieply claims that it is genius in the means that it changes its definitions at will and serves the motion picture industry by changing for the climate, I think this actually does a disservice to filmmakers. I think it might seem “genius� in the fact that he got away with it, but at the same time it is completely against what our country stands for. This room of anonymous people are allowed to determine which films are going to be successful and marketed in our supposedly “free� country. Who are these people to say what is morally right or wrong? And beyond that, how is it fair to involve religion in this process? I was appalled that there are clergymen present on the appeals board for the MPAA. How do priests and a select group of parents of 20+ year-old children have any expertise on what it going on in the United States today? Also, I couldn’t believe that military movie scripts need to be approved by the pentagon first, and there has to be “military assistance� while making the movie. This sounds a little bit along the lines of the OWI during World War II, and it’s just not fair. Giving an inaccurate vision of the truth to create a false image of the military is unjust and wrong on so many levels.

I think having a malleable system would be appropriate to a degree – there are some things that are more common these days that weren’t socially accepted on most levels 20 years ago. I think this country is still so young and continues to evolve, and the regulation should be transforming with the times. However, I think the concept of not using precedence as a guideline is absurd. This is how our entire judicial system works, as it establishes a consistency and equality across the board. Just as all citizens are given equal rights, I believe that all film makers should be given equal rights to display their ideas. I thought we had come much farther than the times of the Office of War Information regulating all public forum, but really there is still heavy regulation going on behind the scenes and I think the MPAA system needs to be re-evaluated!

Posted by osbo0100 at 11:43 PM | Permalink

Filmmakers have an idea of what they want to make a film about and then proceed to make one. However, when they are done they have to send the film in to get a rating on it. Based on the film This Film is Not Yet Rated, I find it difficult to agree with Franklin in that these filmmakers should know what their film is going to receive. Looking at the director for Big Girls Don’t Cry, she seemed shocked at what the raters were telling her that she needed to get rid of. Also the filmmaker for But I’m a Cheerleader expressed how she felt because her film was coming out the same time as American Pie. These films with different contexts seem to be held to a different standard. The films that portray gay sex are continually graded upon harder than those with consensual heterosexual sex. These filmmakers seem to greatly disagree with what their films received and the reasoning as to why.
A lot of the films set up a relationship between two people in the films, which when then lead to a physical relationship. Jason Biggs, while they talked about a pie, did not have this same type of get to know ya thing. The raters did send back papers saying this is what you need to fix in order to get a lower rating, but it seemed like this would change the intent of the film. These filmmakers were showing their characters and what they went through, Hilary Swank and her rape scene. This was meant to give the film more feeling and emotion and when they had to eliminate it, it took away from the the movie intended. These restrictions are changing what is the filmmakers wanted to show, all so they wouldn’t get a NC-17 rating.
Based on the reactions, and what the filmmakers say are getting through, these ratings do not seem to be justified. Certain types of romances, violence and language in certain contexts is looked upon more crucially. Some of the films are not getting as far of a reaction as others. According to Cipely, “…the board says its dozen or so raters, all parents, are expected to judge films according to ‘factors that parents consider when deciding whether to allow their children to view that motion picture.� These raters are supposed to judge the films as a parent. For the parents different types of sex is more risqué then others. Some is being used for humor, others for a relationship. The raters are biased in what they choose is acceptable and the filmmakers, while they may have an idea, would have no way of actually predicting what the raters would give their film.

Posted by lile0005 at 10:57 PM | Permalink

No one in This Film is Not Yet Rated would agree with the statement that there are guidelines that are followed in rating movies, especially Kirby Dick. A large portion of the film was devoted to disproving this statement. Even those interviewed who were formerly on the ratings board, say that this is not the case and that things are kind of made up as they go. Many film makers who were interviewed also went against this statement by stating examples of things that other films, prior to their own films, got away with while their film did not pass with a similar scene.

The film, and those in it, does not agree to any form of censorship. However, they would be fonder of the ratings system if those on the board were known to the public.

Of course creative thought is allowed and subversive films can get made. However, getting them distributed is a whole other issue. Films that acquire an NC-17 rating cannot be distributed or advertised easily because no companies are willing to show those films or advertise them. The MPAA considers sexual content much more subversive than violence. Therefore, a violent film is much more likely to receive an R rating then a film with sexual content, which would most likely end up branded with a NC-17 rating.

Precedent is what makes America, America. To take that away is like taking away everything the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution stand for. It is un-American not to allow precedent and therefore is anything, but genius.

Movie ratings basically control the information we receive and understanding of that information. It can be twisted and manipulated into whatever those rating the films want the American public to know or understand about anything.

Posted by nels5175 at 10:43 PM | Permalink

Kirby mentions “In the current environment, creative, thoughtful, and even subversive films can get made� because the restrictions and judgements on the films by the MPAA occur when the films are submitted to the board for review. The films can still be made any way an artist desires to make them, but the artist’s ability to make money off the film which often times means paying off debt and sometimes just breaking even is contingent on being able to successfully market the product. Being able to successfully market the product is contingent on a rating of the film for certain audiences. That is however, very restricting and ensures that only films that have certain approval can be marketed successfully. In that sense, there is no economic incentive to create films unless one knows that it is going to pander to the standard of the board’s tastes, etc. The reason why Franklin said this was to defend the ideology of the board and their mission from criticism by filmmakers who are subject to their criticism and judgment which is totally done in secret in a deliberate fashion so as to disallow filmmakers to pressure board members. Violence as the film suggests has a much better chance of getting published with an “R� rating than sex does. I wonder if this has something to do with a Christian moral ethic. Somehow they may believe that murder happens less frequently than sexual promiscuity of course with justification. Perhaps they believe that if a person commits a murder it is black and white and of great offence immediately. Society won’t tolerate that. But sexual permissiveness could spread much farther much faster in a totally legally sanctioned way. As the film suggests, a woman who was filmed with some of her pubic hair showing the film she was in was given an NC-17 rating, whereas “Basic Instinct� also showed Sharon Stone’s pubic hair and it was given a rating of “R.� Also as the film points out time and time again, much violence is shown in films with several murder scenes and they are permitted an “R� rating if there is no blood. But there was a movie about lesbian teenagers with a girl masturbating over her clothes not showing any private parts was given an NC-17 rating.

Posted by dahme012 at 7:55 PM | Permalink

First off, is it peculiar to anyone else that Jack Valenti's eyebrows are
so dark and his hair is pure white?

I find the whole mystery of the raters quite amusing...like, is it really
that serious? Even with their names not released, they are still under
influence. I am pretty sure that they have discussed particular films with
family or friends at some point, even if they were not supposed to. The
fact that they don't have to be held accountable is unbelievable. Joan
Graves lied about the years they serve and the ages of their children. Who
can call them on their lies? On a side note, all the raters turned out to
be really old...where are the young parents, where are the parents of
younger children, etc? I was glad Kirby Dick did research and produced this
documentary. Movie ratings are something people just kind of accept without
much thought into how the decisions are actually made. It was good to learn
a little about the inner workings of them and at least to see how secretive
they are about the real inner workings.

in "The Ratings System, Built to Endure" Michael Cieply quotes Sidney Ganis,
a film producer and president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and
Sciences, as saying, “In the end, it endures because it works.� This point
was also made in the movie. One director was talking about the success
rates that Valenti quotes and said something like in a comparison between
the rating system and NOTHING AT ALL, yes, it works. Cieply additionally
comments that Valenti has successfully " devised an apparatus that is not
bound by precedent, changes its definitions at will and, ultimately, serves
the motion picture industry by becoming, at any given moment, as permissive
or restrictive as the prevailing climate seems to demand." It's so ambiguous that
it could potentially satisfy and dissatisfy everyone simultaneously.

I am sure that the system is of some help to parents, but a more transparent
system, with clear standards and training, that can utilize a system of checks and
balances would be much better. Personally, I feel either serious changes need to be
made or the government could create a new system that is more fair. Neither one,
the MPAA or the government taking over is super ideal, but I do agree that
some form of censorship is needed.

Posted by Jasmine Omorogbe at 2:09 PM | Permalink

Cieply states that “Yet it was Mr. Valenti’s genius to have devised an apparatus that is not bound by precedent, changes its definitions at will, and ultimately, serves the motion picture industry by becoming, at any given moment, as permissive or restrictive as the prevailing climate seems to demand.
This so called genius of Mr. Valenti’s is the MPAA’s rating board which he set up in 1968. Prior to this, movies were censored by the government and this determined whether or not they were allowed to be released to the public. As Jack Valenti was a former United States governmental official, he held a position of authority that allowed him to establish this new rating system.

This new rating board was comprised of average American parents who Valenti felt would be representative of the population at large in relation to the content they would allow their children to see on the screen. A new rating system was also established with the ratings G (general audiences), PG (parental guidance), PG-13 (parental guidance until age 13), R (restricted), and NC-17. Hopes of this system were to provide various classifications that would allow American parents greater autonomy yet specific guidelines in their children’s film choices.

With this system, however, the goalposts are continually moving as ratings are based on the opinions and feelings of the rating board. Subjective feelings of the rating board in relation to personal beliefs, sexual orientation, or age of children may vary daily or with changing of board members. Along with this, standards are rather loose in relation to the number of swear words and amount of sexual and violent content in each film. According to the movie This Film is Not Yet Rated, many filmmakers expressed that the board was more likely to grant a more family friendly rating to a movie with higher violent content as opposed to a film with little violence but a greater amount of sex and nudity. Another issue raised was that a film showing heterosexual relationships tended to receive lower ratings and was more accessible to the public than a movie with homosexual relationships. In this light, it is easy to see how filmmakers struggle with making movies “clean� enough for public domain as it is based primarily on personal beliefs and subjective feelings of the rating board.

In my opinion, I think that the malleable definitions and not being bound by precedent nature of the MPAA rating board is reflective of our society. Today in America, there are few set standards as individuals are encouraged to act on whatever feels right as long as it doesn’t cause bodily harm to other individuals. The rating board is also similar to this as it is based on individual opinion of what seems true as opposed to a specific structure. This has both positive and negative effects. On the positive side, it provides an overall picture of how mainstream America will feel about the movie. It also provides the opinions of fellow American parents that may be helpful to the general population in relation to movie choices for their children. Thinking of the negative side, however, it is subjective and difficult for moviemakers to recognize standards they should adhere to in order for their films to reach theaters.

Posted by basse044 at 1:04 PM | Permalink

Franklin defines market censorship as basing the needs of a film on what the consumers want. I disagree with this type of censorship for the most part because it shows lack of personality in a film. Although the main purpose of Hollywood films is to make money, which is accomplished by attracting viewers and censoring a film to appeal to these viewers, it shows that the director is willing to “sell out� to make a buck.

Next, Franklin explains that industry censorship is often self inflicted based on pressures usually faced by the government. This reminds me of the film when the MPAA does not allow names of the ratings board to be released because they do not want them to feel pressure while doing their jobs, but in fact many of them are in direct contact with the production companies. I disagree with some of the MPAA regulations set on films today, but I think there needs to be some order in the rating system so that people know what they are going to see. I liked the suggestion of one of the class members in the class discussion who said that to make the film ratings more “arbitrary� the rating could simply state explicitly what kinds of offensive things are in the movie. This would be preferable to the current system because it would not have to dictate what kind of advertising budget a film gets just by basing it on a one letter rating. The film, This Film is Not Yet Rated, did not necessarily portray the thought that all censorship is bad, but rather that the MPAA rating system needs to be reassessed. I agreed with some of the viewpoints of the film in that by having an extra word or a homosexual vs. a heterosexual sex scene would change a rating from one thing to another, which in turn can lead to much less funding and advertising abilities for the filmmaker.

Finally, Franklin defines government censorship as laws the government places on media tools in order to protect its citizens. Sometimes this can be a good thing, like the optional government mandated “V-chip�, which Franklin describes as a tool to allow parents to monitor what their children are watching on TV. I agree with this because it is up to the parent to decide what their children watch, not the government. The kind of laissez faire approach like this example is the best kind of government censorship in my opinion because it not too restricting, but still gives the control to the parents to say what their kids can and can’t watch.

Posted by kuni0018 at 8:42 AM | Permalink

As Couvares (1992) articulates, “determining what is legitimate to say and hear and see… is a central activity of all societies and social groups� (521). The MPAA has managed to create a corrupt system in which raters are “secret,� unaccountable for their decisions, and highly influenced by those with financial interests. The huge discrepancies between ratings from movie to movie are a result of 1) this lack of accountability and lack of any formal criteria and 2) the “wider cultural and political tensions� with which censorship is primarily concerned (Couvares, 1992).
A prime example is this nation’s societal tension around homosexuality. Religious dogma has shaped the horrendous, blatant discrimination toward homosexuality, correlating homosexuality with immorality. Tension between reality and bigoted “morality� results in movies like But, I’m a Cheerleading being rated NC-17, reportedly because of a scene in which a fully-clothed female masturbates, while the film American Pie, in which a young male masturbates/fornicates with a pie, receives an R rating. Reading this, one might be angry and confused at such blatant sexism, but don’t forget, she not only a female, she’s a lesbian female. God forbid anyone under 17 see that.

Posted by mayxx145 at 11:23 PM | Permalink

I find it puzzling that the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is so secretive. They do not disclose their board members names and they work in a gated building with guards and tinted windows. In addition, they sign a legal document, which makes them promise to never say or write anything about the MPAA without Valenti's (former President) permission.

By running such a secretive business, one can only assume they have something to hide. Their secretive ways leave filmmakers and avid moviegoers wonder, how exactly they determine the ratings of a film. A.O. Scott, author of "Some Material May be Inappropriate or Mystifying, and the Rating System May be as Well" agrees that the MPAA's rating system is nothing short of "mystifying."

After watching the documentary, "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" it seems there is no actual standards the raters reference when rating films. This is evident from the fact that no rater requires training or credentials going into the job, there are no child behavioral experts on the board, and in a tie breaker the "extra conservative" chairmen gets to vote twice. The board also tends to rate sex as worse than violence. Their lack of "standards" makes me wonder if the children's best interest is at heart.

The MPAA says they keep secret to avoid "outside influence." This is precisely why so many disagree with their system. No outside feedback is allowed, in fact when the P.I. tried to call the MPAA it went to an automated answering machine. If no feedback comes in or out of the MPAA there is no way to improve their corrupt system.

I am not opposed to the fact that the MPAA exists because some things should be censored for kids; however, I am opposed to the way in which the MPAA runs its entire rating system. After watching this film I realize how corrupt the film industry is with six leading conglomerates and a poor rating system.

Posted by dollx040 at 10:12 PM | Permalink

This film is not yet rated was a very sneaky-type of documentary highlighted by the INF. It exposed the corruption and hypocrisy that occurs within the Hollywood rating system and the in consistent rating criteria standing being held against preferred films and conglomerates. Kirby Dick essentially stalked filmmakers of large films, to find out the ins and outs of the filmmaking and subsequent film rating industries. I found in interesting when the interviewed the makers of “Boys Don’t Cry “to find that homosexuality in film was increasingly scrutinized against in terms of ratings strictness and obtaining an NC-17, R, Pg-13, etc. this film shows the exploitation of independent films as they become even pickier with independent films in order to be more lenient on larger, less controversial, bigger box office films. When Independent films tend to have more controversial plotlines anyway, it becomes an outlet for false justification of unfair rating practices.
In all outlets of media that we have studied, we see the ways in which politics interplay with censorship in order to drive a consumerist, marketed ideal. Unfortunately the portrayals put forth by the media have been proven to be damaging to the countercultures as they are shown biasedly and continually pushed towards the conservative mainstream’s level of comfort. The problem with this is that society misses out the truly unique and potentially progressive, fairly represented countercultural lifestyles, in exchange for a fabricated, profit driven, censored, “give them what they want to hear� version of popular culture.

Posted by joh03704 at 3:53 PM | Permalink