We rented "This Film is Not Yet Rated" - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Solon · 04-15-2007, 01:39 PM

Don't waste your time.

I've had a grudge against the MPAA for a long time, since my teenage years when my conservative mother decreed that the rating (not the content) of a movie determined if I could see it. I think most are familiar with certain LDS members' beliefs vis à vis R-rated films.

So, I thought this film would be easy to like. Instead, it was pretty dull and completely one-sided. It mostly consisted of a bunch of filmmakers complaining about the NC-17 ratings their films received and how receiving this rating was effectively censorship. Since NC-17 movies are not heavily advertised or widely released, it's a big financial hit to receive this rating.

The documentary showed several scenes from these NC-17 movies, with the directors and actors saying "Can you believe this scene merited an NC-17 rating?"

To which my wife and I responded, "Um. . . . yes." The graphic three-way sex scene or the anal rape really shouldn't be seen by children, in my opinion.

Occasionally, the film touched on the issues I consider to be key, such as inconsistencies in the ratings, lack of transparency in the ratings process, and the stigmatization of sex (but not violence). But it was a struggle to endure the intervening sections. It's hard for me to take these directors seriously when they're accusing Blockbuster Video of censorship because it doesn't carry NC-17 movies. Maybe I'm the idiot, but I have a different understanding of censorship. I bet Blockbuster would carry them if it were financially advantageous.

Essentially, this was a good idea for a movie/documentary, but poorly executed. The MPAA is worth investigating and should be open to some type of review process. But the financial, sociological, and legal contexts are so poorly explained that I had trouble understanding why the NC-17 rating is so bad for a film, or why a film has to be rated at all. It seems to me that these filmmakers should work to de-stigmatize the NC-17 rating or look for alternate release venues if they're unwilling to compromise their artistic integrity. Instead, they preferred to whine.

On the bright side, I got to see how my significant other reacts to brief snippets of soft-core porn. (She wasn't into it.)

Did anyone else see this film, and can you talk me out of disliking it?

BlueHair · 04-15-2007, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solon

On the bright side, I got to see how my significant other reacts to brief snippets of soft-core porn. (She wasn't into it.)

The dream is shattered.

SteelBlue · 04-15-2007, 10:08 PM

I caught about 1/3 of this film on IFC a few weeks back. I had the same reaction you did. Seemed like a bunch of pretentious whiners who were shocked when their graphic 5 minute 3 way with a farm animal was bumped from R to NC-17. I just couldn't relate to the majority of their complaints.

I thought the "recon" work they did was pretty entertaining though. I didn't realize how secretive membership on the board was.

Speaking of the MPAA there is currently a strong movement in the anti-smoking crowd to pressure the MPAA into an automatic R rating for any film in which a character smokes. That would seriously degrade an already laughable ratings system.

il Padrino Ute · 04-15-2007, 11:05 PM

For some reason, Hollywood is baffled that films made for the entertainment of families have larger audiences than films that are not. I don't believe anyone from Hollywood who says that he/she makes a movie for artistic reasons. It's all about the money; otherwise, they wouldn't whine when their film has a limited audience because of the rating.

If it was about art, the rating wouldn't matter one bit to them.

SteelBlue · 04-15-2007, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

For some reason, Hollywood is baffled that films made for the entertainment of families have larger audiences than films that are not.

Is this actually true? I find the majority of "family" films to be disappointing for the same reasons I find Mormon cinema to be disappointing; they take the audience for granted. The exceptions being Disney/Pixar films at times.

il Padrino Ute · 04-16-2007, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

Is this actually true? I find the majority of "family" films to be disappointing for the same reasons I find Mormon cinema to be disappointing; they take the audience for granted. The exceptions being Disney/Pixar films at times.

You're correct that the animated films are the ones that are good. I need to be more specific, eh?

04-15-2007, 01:39 PM	#1
Solon Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Happy Valley, PA Posts: 1,866	We rented "This Film is Not Yet Rated" Don't waste your time. I've had a grudge against the MPAA for a long time, since my teenage years when my conservative mother decreed that the rating (not the content) of a movie determined if I could see it. I think most are familiar with certain LDS members' beliefs vis à vis R-rated films. So, I thought this film would be easy to like. Instead, it was pretty dull and completely one-sided. It mostly consisted of a bunch of filmmakers complaining about the NC-17 ratings their films received and how receiving this rating was effectively censorship. Since NC-17 movies are not heavily advertised or widely released, it's a big financial hit to receive this rating. The documentary showed several scenes from these NC-17 movies, with the directors and actors saying "Can you believe this scene merited an NC-17 rating?" To which my wife and I responded, "Um. . . . yes." The graphic three-way sex scene or the anal rape really shouldn't be seen by children, in my opinion. Occasionally, the film touched on the issues I consider to be key, such as inconsistencies in the ratings, lack of transparency in the ratings process, and the stigmatization of sex (but not violence). But it was a struggle to endure the intervening sections. It's hard for me to take these directors seriously when they're accusing Blockbuster Video of censorship because it doesn't carry NC-17 movies. Maybe I'm the idiot, but I have a different understanding of censorship. I bet Blockbuster would carry them if it were financially advantageous. Essentially, this was a good idea for a movie/documentary, but poorly executed. The MPAA is worth investigating and should be open to some type of review process. But the financial, sociological, and legal contexts are so poorly explained that I had trouble understanding why the NC-17 rating is so bad for a film, or why a film has to be rated at all. It seems to me that these filmmakers should work to de-stigmatize the NC-17 rating or look for alternate release venues if they're unwilling to compromise their artistic integrity. Instead, they preferred to whine. On the bright side, I got to see how my significant other reacts to brief snippets of soft-core porn. (She wasn't into it.) Did anyone else see this film, and can you talk me out of disliking it? __________________ I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free. - Epitaph of Nikos Kazantzakis (1883-1957)

04-15-2007, 11:05 PM	#4
il Padrino Ute Board Pinhead Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the basement of my house, Murray, Utah. Posts: 15,941	For some reason, Hollywood is baffled that films made for the entertainment of families have larger audiences than films that are not. I don't believe anyone from Hollywood who says that he/she makes a movie for artistic reasons. It's all about the money; otherwise, they wouldn't whine when their film has a limited audience because of the rating. If it was about art, the rating wouldn't matter one bit to them. __________________ "The beauty of baseball is not having to explain it." - Chuck Shriver "This is now the joke that stupid people laugh at." - Christopher Hitchens on IQ jokes about GWB.

04-15-2007, 10:08 PM	#3
SteelBlue Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Norcal Posts: 5,821	I caught about 1/3 of this film on IFC a few weeks back. I had the same reaction you did. Seemed like a bunch of pretentious whiners who were shocked when their graphic 5 minute 3 way with a farm animal was bumped from R to NC-17. I just couldn't relate to the majority of their complaints. I thought the "recon" work they did was pretty entertaining though. I didn't realize how secretive membership on the board was. Speaking of the MPAA there is currently a strong movement in the anti-smoking crowd to pressure the MPAA into an automatic R rating for any film in which a character smokes. That would seriously degrade an already laughable ratings system.