Review: "This Film Not Yet Rated"

This past weekend I watched This Film Not Yet Rated, a documentary on the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) rating system and rating panel. Certain aspects of the documentary were interesting and spoke to deeper prejudices of American society. The academy is stricter with sexuality, particularly "deviant" sexuality (and conversations about sexuality)than violence, homosexual relationships than heterosexual relationships, female sexuality than male sexuality. They are also hypocritical, fail to follow their own protocols for rater eligibility, and frequently are more generous with studio productions than independent film productions.

What I found less relevant was the frequent bandying about of the word "censorship." For one thing, no matter what rating the MPAA gives a film, this rating is in no way a public ban on the film. Though many theaters refuse to show NC-17 rated films, this is a decision of the theaters, not the MPAA. The other issue is that the MPAA describes the goal of its rating system as a guide for parents deciding what is appropriate for their children. This means that yes, a documentary on soldiers in Iraq that features violence, sexuality, and prolific use of the "F" word, should not be rated for a general audience, regardless of the fact that it is all unscripted footage. Now, it probably does not deserve the NC-17 rating, as most teenagers are developed enough to be educated on political issues, and probably coarsened enough to know profanity anyway. Especially if they have a parent with them.

The movie also featured interviews which talk about the fact that in order to receive military assistance, the film has to be approved, from screenplay to final production, by the military. Once again the spectre of totalitarian censorship was raised. However, I find the idea that the military owes assistance to film makers, particularly of fictional films, to be ridiculous. Frankly, I'm more upset that the military gives assistance at all, given the expense of this stuff, than that they demand editorial approval over movies.

So, basically, much of this documentary was interesting, but it was a very self-involved investigation which was mostly relevant to the film industry, rather than the movie-going public.