The Film Is Not Yet Rated: Unsuitable For Minors

I wonder if the MPAA is just pissed off they were busted for illegal movie copying when this movie was submitted to them or what?

The documentary that is critical of the MPAA was given an NC-17 rating by the MPAA. In their own words, it means this:

This rating declares that the Rating Board believes this is a film that most parents will consider patently too adult for their youngsters under 17. No children will be admitted. The reasons for the application of an NC-17 rating can be excessive violence, sex, aberrational behavior, drug abuse or any other elements which, when present, most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children.

I can’t wait to see this movie now… Something critical of the MPAA, and we might get excessive violence, sex and drugs thrown in there as well (I’m hoping for all of the above). Either way, it surely will be interesting to see what’s in there that the MPAA is trying to protect our youth from. 😉

While I can’t be 100% critical of the MPAA since I haven’t seen the movie (for all I know, maybe 50% documentary and 50% porn), from the description it sounds like every other PG-13 Hollywood flick to me…

We’ve had investigative documentaries about Wal-Mart, about Enron, about burgers and newspapers and the whole military-industrial can of worms. So it was high time we had one about the corporate world of Hollywood moviemaking, and that is what Kirby Dick has given us, indirectly, with this extremely watchable study of the Motion Picture Association of America, or MPAA: a bureaucratic creature of the Hollywood studio system which enforces self-regulatory censorship.

Dick reveals it to be a bizarre institution: secretive, cantankerous and paranoid, high-handedly slapping certificates on movies ranging from G – all ages allowed – up to an R (under-17s need parent or guardian present) and then an R-17 (no under-17s allowed at all). This last rating is the equivalent to our 18 certificate, less strict by one year, but still commercial catastrophe for film-makers hoping to get their product out to the all-important youth market. The MPAA never discusses its reasoning, and never reveals the identities of its “raters” or members of its absurdly pompous “appeals board” which, in certain cases, will grandly condescend to reconsider its verdict, prior, in the vast majority of cases, to solemnly announcing that the original decision was correct.

Maybe the fact that it’s a documentary and not a work of fiction makes it more damaging to our youth or something. If that’s the case, then I guess the MPAA more or less confirmed the movie’s validity that the MPAA’s rating system is whacked out. {shrug}

//film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian_review/0,,1862074,00.html

A trailer for the PG-13 “Teaching Mrs. Tingle” was rejected when a shot of a dog licking a wine bottle was said to promote teen drinking.
Update

Maybe the MPAA shouldn’t press the internal “red alert” button if someone is critical of them. It’s actually quite fun to see what people *really* think about you (at least IMO). This guy thinks I’m an ‘egocentric homosexual’ for example. And a ton of environmentalists have no love for me over here as another example. See? It’s fun. 🙂

Plus it would be super lame and boring if everyone in the world liked you.

2 thoughts on “The Film Is Not Yet Rated: Unsuitable For Minors”

  1. I *said* I’m not being 100% critical of the MPAA since I haven’t seen the movie. It’s got me all excited now. Maybe we’ll see some full frontal nudity!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.