Ben Woit on Film Censorship
Franklin assessment that the MPAA is fairly transparent and filmmakers can adapt their films to gain an acceptable rating is not entirely accurate, but it does conflict with the ultimate conclusion that Kirby draws in his film. Kirby shows that the ratings board essentially uses an entirely subjective means of evaluating films and that any film, regardless of the similarity of its content to other, already-rated films, may not be judged with the same criteria. For example, the film cited the fact that there is no precedence of films considered when appealing a rating; no one can compare their film to films with similar content or messages as an argument they should receive a similar rating. Also, the film noted that MPAA raters are typically much more tolerant of violence than sexual content when assigning ratings. Anecdotally from the interviews in the films, However, it is important to note that those directors interviewed in Kirby's film made films that were quite outside the mainstream of what could be considered "standard fare" as far as sex and violence go in films. Therefore, for the vast majority of filmmakers, it is conceivable that they are able to get the rating they desire by sticking to time-tested content that falls within MPAA standards for different ratings, and paring certain content as necessary if they wish to achieve what they want. Ultimately I think it is hard to judge the reaction of the majority of filmmakers to the procedures of the ratings board because Kirby simply doesn't offer their perspectives. Instead, he gives us interviews with a few directors/producers of some edgy and often controversial films as evidence of a censorship conspiracy, but fails to put these tales of creative roadblocking and a secret agenda in the perspective of the larger industry and filmmakers at large. Certainly his point was to say that these minority or independent viewpoints are being stifled, but along the way he certainly provided evidence that all sorts of crazy, offensive, or what-have-you material can be worked into movies by using the right channels. It often seemed that the films that were slapped with the harshest rating were those whose directors refused to budge on seemingly miniscule issues, such as refusing to parse explicit scenes for more subtle implications, different angles, etc. From a filmmaker's perspective, this kind of stuff probably makes a world of difference, but for your average movie-goer, their cinematic experience is probably not enhanced much by actually seeing someone perform a sexual act as opposed to seeing it from another angle or seeing footage that strongly implies that it is happening. So, while Kirby's film did a lot to expose the censorship culture of the MPAA and their shadowy, closed-doors dealings, I don't think it made the strongest overall case that independent and alternative filmmakers are at the total mercy of vile bureaucrats intent on destroying their films.