THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED
US, 2006, 98 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Kirby Dick.
This is a very difficult film for someone who is not American to review. It is about a particular American institution that is very different from cinema institutions in other countries. The Catholic Church also comes into this film at the end which raises the same American difficulties in a Church context.
But, first, what is this film about?
The quick answer is that it is about the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). It is about who and what it is, its function in American society, its influence on the cinema industry and the cinema-going public, its ratings and the people who issue the ratings. That, in itself, is interesting. However, there is another questions.
Second, what is this film trying to do?
The quick answer to this one is that the director, documentary film-maker Kirby Dick, is trying to find out how the organisation actually functions, who are the members and the nature of their appointment, what are the criteria by which they rate the movies, how they conduct appeals against their ratings, to whom they are accountable.
Another question. Thirdly, how partisan is the enquiry?
The film is a mixture of objective presentation of information and data as well as strongly felt stances about the MPAA. There are many interviews with directors who have been given the rating NC 17 which many in the US consider a death blow to the distribution and commercial success of the film. Those under 17 are not admitted to screenings so big distributors tend not to take on these films. Interviewees include John Waters (A Dirty Shame), Kevin Smith (Jersey Girl), Kimberley Pierce (Boys Don’t Cry). There are also a number of industry names like David Ansen, reviewer for Newsweek, various journalists and writers on film.
Kirby Dick shows the processes he went through concerning the rating for this film itself.
Depending on where you stand on these issues, the film is either courageous or offensive.
What is this particularly American institution which was established in 1968 and, until 2004, was under the direction of Jack Valenti. The aim of the MPAA is to give a rating for every film to be exhibited in the US. The mandate is to rate the films according to their suitability for viewing by children. Options at the moment are G, PG, PG 13, R and NC 17. The R means that anyone under 17 is able to see the film as long as they are accompanied by an adult. This means that the maximum age rating that most film-makers want is R. The consequence is that every film submitted for rating must be edited so that any child can view the film, with the R (which so many films are in fact given) meaning that an adult has to be present.
It needs to be said that the MPAA is not a government body as such like Offices of Film Classification or Censorship Boards in other countries.
What Kirby Dick and others find unacceptable is that the MPAA works in fairly complete secrecy – as to who the raters are, what their criteria are for particular ratings, and how an appeal judgment is made. Their findings are not published.
I would like to reflect on this film from my own experience in Australia which is vastly different from the MPAA (and the classifications made by the cinema office that belongs to the American Bishops Conference).
The primary difference – which makes all the difference – is that in Australia, ratings or classifications are not primarily geared to providing information to parents as to what their children should see or not see, although this is readily available. The films are considered in themselves, as works of cinema art. The classifications given by the Office of Film and Literature Classification have sufficient legal backing to honour the integrity of the film as well as safeguard children. Consumer advice is offered for parents’ – and others’ – consideration: including films of dubious merit or controversial films.
Australia had a system up till the end of 1971 which did consider suitability for children’s viewing as the ultimate criterion. In 1968, the same year as the establishment of the MPAA, the then Minister for Customs and Excise (which had responsibility for imports into the country, which then included judging suitability of films) raised the issue in the federal parliament, the first debate on censorship since 1938. Over the following three years, his office consulted everyone who worked in any way in the cinema field. Personal interviews for collecting viewpoints were held. Examples of material cut from films were screened (one in the Houses of Parliament in Canberra in 1970 dubbed the ‘blue movie’ night). All reviewers and other interested parties were invited to sit in on a censors’ board screening and discuss the criteria.
What emerged for January 1st 1972 was a new set of classifications, one of which was the legal prohibiting of anyone under 18 from seeing films which received an R, Restricted classification. Films which had previously been banned (for example Ulysses) or cut (Midnight Cowboy) could now be screened for adults without cuts and children legally safeguarded. (This acknowledges, of course, that any law can be flouted.)
This process has worked well for over thirty years, sometimes modified to provide even more useful classifications. The office preferred using the word, classifications, rather than censorship. Along with the classifications, aspects of consumer advice were provided to be used on all advertising: indications of the main areas (language, sexuality, violence etc), intensity and frequency and an opinion (only) as to whether in context, the treatment was justified or gratuitous. This advice was geared to the particular classification with its age range. Current community standards are used for establishing the details of the criteria and for any changes.
In the light of this work, it was left to specific family and/or church groups to provide their own ratings if they wished in the light of the legal classifications.
All this information as well as the details of the criteria are published by the government. When an appeal is made against a classification by distributors, groups or individuals, there is a special appeals board and the details of the decision are also published. Members of each board are government appointees, made through applications and committees, and names and background of each member are readily available.
This provides information and advice, support of the classifications by legislation and accountability to the public.
Over the decades, there have always been discussions concerning community standards and language, depictions of sexuality and violence. This is true of Kirby Dick’s film.
It is clear that the American public seems to be more apprehensive about aspects of sexuality than of violence. Many European countries take opposite stances. (It can be said that for many Christians, they are puritanical about sex but permissive about violence whereas many ‘liberals’ (for want of a more accurate word) are puritanical about violence but permissive about sex.)
One of the features of this film is that it uses the MPAA’s tendency to permit scenes of graphic violence but be wary about anything related to sex. Examples are shown. There is a tendency, especially in ratings from the Churches, to mention specifically in their advice something like ‘fleeting rear nudity’, not helping parents and other readers to acknowledge the reality of the body and make the distinction for ‘sexualised nudity’ (a point made in this film). Once again, so many religious people tend not to discuss the implications of depictions of violence while ‘liberals’ tend not to discuss the implications of depravity and decadence and the distinction between love and lust. This is a limitation of this film, although Kevin Smith makes the point that the worst aspect of human behaviour is rape – something that could have been followed up to lead to more nuanced discussion about sexuality on screen.
Most Western countries seem to have a government body for classifications which respects both the protection of children and the integrity of a film. This seems to be a challenge to the mind-set of the MPAA and other bodies in the US which provide ratings.
