Kirby Dick has fired a massive cannonball in the war against censorship. It's called This Film Is Not Yet Rated, and it came into being when the Oscar nominated documentary filmmaker decided to call the Motion Picture Association of America out on their bullshit lies. He hired a private investigator to determine who the MPAA ratings and appeals boards are actually composed of. It turns out that almost nothing the MPAA has said about their members is true.
Check out the official website for This Film Is Not Yet Rated
Daniel Robert Epstein: Its nice to see a documentary that actually investigates something because they dont really do that anymore. Its more like they present their opinion or even present no opinion.
Kirby Dick: Fortunately even no opinion is an opinion.
DRE: Was what you accomplished with the film what you wanted to do?
Dick: Oh absolutely. In the film business we all knew how absurd the MPAA system was, how biased it was toward independent film, toward films with adult sexuality, toward films with gay sex and how absurd it was to have it a process so secretive. Were not dealing with national security so theres no reason to keep this process secret. So I knew that was going to be covered here which is what I wanted to do.
DRE: I was surprised there were no Jews on the MPAA appeals board.
Dick: Thats a good point.
DRE: Does that mean anything?
Dick: I dont want to generalize here, but I could. Maybe Jews wouldnt put up with being in that subservient position on the rating board.
DRE: Did you have any fear going into this movie?
Dick: No, but maybe Im nave. A lot of the filmmakers that I tried to interview were very afraid. Its hard to be interviewed even if theyre very supportive of the film because they were afraid that their future films would be more harshly rated. Some were afraid theyd be branded as troublemakers and wouldnt be able to get projects off the ground within Hollywood. It is very practical for the MPAA to have this paranoia around this rating system because it suppresses criticism. Its astounding to think that the people who are actually impacted by the system are afraid to speak out about it.
DRE: What did your lawyer think of this film?
Dick: This was very tricky because we had to do this 100% legal otherwise we would have had our asses whipped and sued by the MPAA. Also were documenting everything we were doing. So we were basically handing over the evidence of a crime to the prosecutor to deal with it and move on.
DRE: Is everything that you put on the screen legal?
Dick: People have that question a lot.
DRE: Well Im sure people think, what if he found out who I was and put me up there?
Dick: You can film anyone in public basically. You can put people from this board in a film because what they are doing is in the public interest. Then there are First Amendment rights for me to put out this information so thats completely legal. Also going through the trash is legal in Los Angeles. As long as you put it out onto the street, then its no longer yours. You dont own it. Anybody can take it.
DRE: Do you see this movie as the first shot fired in the war to end the MPAA?
Dick: I would start with them trying to change the system. Will they? I dont know. It works so well for them. But thats what I would hope would happen. One of the ideas I had was having a three or five person independent appeals board. When an independent or foreign film gets a rating that they dont agree with and theyre going to appeal to the MPAA appeals board, prior to going to the appeals board they go to an independent board that makes a judgment first. That decision will put pressure on the appeals board to respond to. So thats one idea.
DRE: I'm surprised that alternatives to the MPAA werent included in the movie.
Dick: We shot stuff like that little bit so we tried to put it in but it didnt work. The things I would like to see are obviously transparency. In Western Europe, the whole process is open. Id like to see it professionalized because its incredibly unprofessional. There are no professionally developed standards; there are no written standards. How anyone can judge a hundred movies a year without some reference to written standards is beyond me. They cant and thats one of the reasons its so screwed up. Theres no training at all for the raters and there should be. There should be experts on the board like media experts, child psychologists. You need to have resources to make those judgments. But [former president of the Motion Picture Association of America] Jack Valenti has successfully fought to keep those people off the board. That is because those people would come in and have more stature and naturally start to question the whole structure. In fact, thats what happened with Jay Landers, who was the ex-rater in our film. He came out of academia. As soon as he came into the board he said, What? No written standards? He started advocating for that and he became such a nuisance that they terminated him before his term was up and then threatened to sue him if he spoke about it.
DRE: Im just going to assume youre a liberal because youre in Hollywood. I found the idea of these rating boards very George W. Bush-like with in terms of, I do this from the gut, I dont talk to any experts.
Dick: Secrecy is good, because its good for you.
DRE: Why do you feel like right now was the time to make this film?
Dick: I was stymied by the fact that there was such secrecy around this. This film could have been me interviewing filmmakers and throwing in some film clips, so it would become a clip film. Those are fine but I dont do them. So, along with my producer Eddie Schmidt, I hit upon the idea of hiring a private investigator. Then I realized that I have this very dramatic arc with a real statement about the secrecy and then I came up with the idea of submitting the film to get a rating and I realized that would be another way into the system, so I could follow my film through the system. Then I realized I had a much more complete film. Also theres such a history of humor around this because you have what we call the Funny Men of Censorship, Matt Stone, Kevin Smith and John Waters.
DRE: With the some of the people on the ratings board being theatre chain owners how can they not be biased? They want the films in there that are going to make the most money.
Dick: Exactly. It raises all kinds of questions.
DRE: Also there are studio film executives on the board as well.
Dick: I dont know if youre allowed to attend screenings about films you are connected to but you can go quid pro quo with someone else on the board like Ill vote for your film if you vote for mine. Of course the independent films have almost no representatives. Isnt it surprising that independents get the most NC-17 ratings?
DRE: Now that youve caught Jack Valenti and the MPAA in lies, will they go down?
Dick: Well the government gets caught in lies all the time but nothing changes. These guys lie over and over and over again. But hes considered a man of principle if he sticks by his lies even though its wrong.
DRE: How has it been making documentaries since the documentary boom?
Dick: Ive been making them for 20 years and for all that time they were viewed as totally uncommerical.
DRE: The fact that they make any money now is astonishing.
Dick: Im astonished too but its a good thing. But Im still getting used to it a bit.
DRE: So raising money has been easier?
Dick: Its much easier. I dont want to disparage another art form that I like but I think American independent film is getting a little stale. The heyday of the 70s through the 90s with those certain issues many of them hit on has been played out. I think they have been really investigated. I think documentary is a much more unpredictable form because as a filmmaker you dont know whats going to happen. Now that a lot of documentaries include the filmmakers experience in the filmmaking, the audiences are right there with them. The audience can see the filmmaker doesnt know whats going on. So I think thats part of the reason the documentary is working right now. Also the polemical documentary is working right now and you can thank George Bush for that, because hes got the whole Karl Rove idea of dividing the electorate. Theres this whole clearly defined left wing film audience that polemically left filmmakers can target.
by Daniel Robert Epstein
SG Username: AndersWolleck
Check out the official website for This Film Is Not Yet Rated
Daniel Robert Epstein: Its nice to see a documentary that actually investigates something because they dont really do that anymore. Its more like they present their opinion or even present no opinion.
Kirby Dick: Fortunately even no opinion is an opinion.
DRE: Was what you accomplished with the film what you wanted to do?
Dick: Oh absolutely. In the film business we all knew how absurd the MPAA system was, how biased it was toward independent film, toward films with adult sexuality, toward films with gay sex and how absurd it was to have it a process so secretive. Were not dealing with national security so theres no reason to keep this process secret. So I knew that was going to be covered here which is what I wanted to do.
DRE: I was surprised there were no Jews on the MPAA appeals board.
Dick: Thats a good point.
DRE: Does that mean anything?
Dick: I dont want to generalize here, but I could. Maybe Jews wouldnt put up with being in that subservient position on the rating board.
DRE: Did you have any fear going into this movie?
Dick: No, but maybe Im nave. A lot of the filmmakers that I tried to interview were very afraid. Its hard to be interviewed even if theyre very supportive of the film because they were afraid that their future films would be more harshly rated. Some were afraid theyd be branded as troublemakers and wouldnt be able to get projects off the ground within Hollywood. It is very practical for the MPAA to have this paranoia around this rating system because it suppresses criticism. Its astounding to think that the people who are actually impacted by the system are afraid to speak out about it.
DRE: What did your lawyer think of this film?
Dick: This was very tricky because we had to do this 100% legal otherwise we would have had our asses whipped and sued by the MPAA. Also were documenting everything we were doing. So we were basically handing over the evidence of a crime to the prosecutor to deal with it and move on.
DRE: Is everything that you put on the screen legal?
Dick: People have that question a lot.
DRE: Well Im sure people think, what if he found out who I was and put me up there?
Dick: You can film anyone in public basically. You can put people from this board in a film because what they are doing is in the public interest. Then there are First Amendment rights for me to put out this information so thats completely legal. Also going through the trash is legal in Los Angeles. As long as you put it out onto the street, then its no longer yours. You dont own it. Anybody can take it.
DRE: Do you see this movie as the first shot fired in the war to end the MPAA?
Dick: I would start with them trying to change the system. Will they? I dont know. It works so well for them. But thats what I would hope would happen. One of the ideas I had was having a three or five person independent appeals board. When an independent or foreign film gets a rating that they dont agree with and theyre going to appeal to the MPAA appeals board, prior to going to the appeals board they go to an independent board that makes a judgment first. That decision will put pressure on the appeals board to respond to. So thats one idea.
DRE: I'm surprised that alternatives to the MPAA werent included in the movie.
Dick: We shot stuff like that little bit so we tried to put it in but it didnt work. The things I would like to see are obviously transparency. In Western Europe, the whole process is open. Id like to see it professionalized because its incredibly unprofessional. There are no professionally developed standards; there are no written standards. How anyone can judge a hundred movies a year without some reference to written standards is beyond me. They cant and thats one of the reasons its so screwed up. Theres no training at all for the raters and there should be. There should be experts on the board like media experts, child psychologists. You need to have resources to make those judgments. But [former president of the Motion Picture Association of America] Jack Valenti has successfully fought to keep those people off the board. That is because those people would come in and have more stature and naturally start to question the whole structure. In fact, thats what happened with Jay Landers, who was the ex-rater in our film. He came out of academia. As soon as he came into the board he said, What? No written standards? He started advocating for that and he became such a nuisance that they terminated him before his term was up and then threatened to sue him if he spoke about it.
DRE: Im just going to assume youre a liberal because youre in Hollywood. I found the idea of these rating boards very George W. Bush-like with in terms of, I do this from the gut, I dont talk to any experts.
Dick: Secrecy is good, because its good for you.
DRE: Why do you feel like right now was the time to make this film?
Dick: I was stymied by the fact that there was such secrecy around this. This film could have been me interviewing filmmakers and throwing in some film clips, so it would become a clip film. Those are fine but I dont do them. So, along with my producer Eddie Schmidt, I hit upon the idea of hiring a private investigator. Then I realized that I have this very dramatic arc with a real statement about the secrecy and then I came up with the idea of submitting the film to get a rating and I realized that would be another way into the system, so I could follow my film through the system. Then I realized I had a much more complete film. Also theres such a history of humor around this because you have what we call the Funny Men of Censorship, Matt Stone, Kevin Smith and John Waters.
DRE: With the some of the people on the ratings board being theatre chain owners how can they not be biased? They want the films in there that are going to make the most money.
Dick: Exactly. It raises all kinds of questions.
DRE: Also there are studio film executives on the board as well.
Dick: I dont know if youre allowed to attend screenings about films you are connected to but you can go quid pro quo with someone else on the board like Ill vote for your film if you vote for mine. Of course the independent films have almost no representatives. Isnt it surprising that independents get the most NC-17 ratings?
DRE: Now that youve caught Jack Valenti and the MPAA in lies, will they go down?
Dick: Well the government gets caught in lies all the time but nothing changes. These guys lie over and over and over again. But hes considered a man of principle if he sticks by his lies even though its wrong.
DRE: How has it been making documentaries since the documentary boom?
Dick: Ive been making them for 20 years and for all that time they were viewed as totally uncommerical.
DRE: The fact that they make any money now is astonishing.
Dick: Im astonished too but its a good thing. But Im still getting used to it a bit.
DRE: So raising money has been easier?
Dick: Its much easier. I dont want to disparage another art form that I like but I think American independent film is getting a little stale. The heyday of the 70s through the 90s with those certain issues many of them hit on has been played out. I think they have been really investigated. I think documentary is a much more unpredictable form because as a filmmaker you dont know whats going to happen. Now that a lot of documentaries include the filmmakers experience in the filmmaking, the audiences are right there with them. The audience can see the filmmaker doesnt know whats going on. So I think thats part of the reason the documentary is working right now. Also the polemical documentary is working right now and you can thank George Bush for that, because hes got the whole Karl Rove idea of dividing the electorate. Theres this whole clearly defined left wing film audience that polemically left filmmakers can target.
by Daniel Robert Epstein
SG Username: AndersWolleck
VIEW 10 of 10 COMMENTS
SRBuell said:
Hey Kirby, try making movies in China, y'know, where censorship actually exists. The MPAA ratings process is voluntary. The only reason one would have their movie rated is to increase their chances to get it into a theatre, so that they can make more money, which, of course, it what art's all about, right?
why would he make movies in china? he lives in America.
See you are commenting on something you dont know about. one of the points of the film and something that is pretty obvious is that MPAA may be voluntary but you cant get an unrated film into most theatres and certainly cant get any ads for it.
SRBuell said:
Hey Kirby, try making movies in China, y'know, where censorship actually exists. The MPAA ratings process is voluntary. The only reason one would have their movie rated is to increase their chances to get it into a theatre, so that they can make more money, which, of course, it what art's all about, right?
It's not really voluntary if you have to submit to the process in order to have your movie play on any non-arthouse screen.