MPAA Rates Film About MPAA Ratings As NC-17

from the this-film-is-now-rated-nc-17 dept

Thu, Aug 31st 2006 4:00pm — Mike Masnick

Back in January we noted the MPAA's double standard, when it came to unauthorized copies of movies. The same MPAA that goes around telling schoolchildren if you haven't paid for it, you've stolen it and once said that fair use doesn't exist. Well, it turns out (of course) they meant for other people. That's why they made unauthorized copies of the movie "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" -- a documentary about (aha!) the MPAA itself. You see, when it's about them, suddenly things like fair use and unauthorized copies are perfectly fine. Well, not surprisingly the MPAA wasn't too happy with the movie, and has given it an NC-17 rating.

Salon has a piece reviewing the movie and shedding a little light on the secretive MPAA as described in the movie. Movie ratings, despite what many people believe, are a voluntary thing -- and not government run. However, it's pretty difficult to find a theater or a studio who doesn't feel compelled to live by the MPAA's rating system. With so much power, it's interesting to note that the people on the MPAA's ratings board have all been secret, until the movie "outed" them. The movie also discovered that the MPAA's "appeals board" is made up a combination of movie execs and two representatives from religious groups. For a group so powerful, you would think they'd have a bit more accountability. Unfortunately, as the review points out, there are some weaknesses and somewhat dishonest parts to the movie as well -- which take away from its overall credibility. However, it still sounds like it sheds a lot of light on how the MPAA goes about its movie ratings business. Of course, it may be difficult for you to see, since very few movie theaters will actually show NC-17 movies... which pretty much explains why the MPAA rated it that way.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

21 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2006 @ 4:04pm

hey now, i patented giving biased movies extreme ratings so they wouldn't reach a large audience back in the 30s... wtf mpaa... you're gonna get sued :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh, 31 Aug 2006 @ 7:00pm
  
  Re:
  Your patent has expired. Sorry.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beefcake, 31 Aug 2006 @ 4:56pm

South Park to the MPAA
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/06/17/-memo-from-matt-stone-of-south-park-to-the-mpaa-/?url=h ttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.mcnblogs.com%2Fthehotblog%2Farchives%2F2006%2F06%2Fpreparing_for_t.html&frame=tr ue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sean, 31 Aug 2006 @ 5:39pm
  
  Re: South Park to the MPAA
  Thanks for the link, but why in the *world* did you link the blog post through the Netscape site?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2006 @ 5:19pm

is there a link or a source for the rating? perhaps something from the RIAA themselves justifying the rating? Thanks...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2006 @ 5:29pm

It will get on the scene in no time flat, I'm not worried about not seeing it, evean if its a CAM =D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPAA Hater, 31 Aug 2006 @ 5:48pm

They think this help's thier cause?
So they're trying to come off as friendly and understanding to the common consumer, yet they blatantly lable a movie as not appropriate for the common consumer based solely on the grounds that it has material the MPAA dissagrees with? As previously stated, with the intention of making it less appealing to anyone that might see it on a store shelf. Sickening. Since when did the Chinese take over? Will we start seeing people who badmouth the MPAA and RIAA on large public scales, like websites, start to get executed? If this keeps up, I actually think so. Remind me to knock out the first MPAA employee I meet while having it videotaped, so I can make it into a movie for them to rate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2006 @ 6:09pm

Re: South Park to the MPAA
lol... that has to be the funniest memo ever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ERic Martin, 31 Aug 2006 @ 7:16pm

Religous Groups.
That is news. Where is the media to report this ?

What a joke.

What seperates us from IRAN ????????

Nothing !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- rated ARGH, 31 Aug 2006 @ 8:00pm
  
  Re: Religous Groups.
  What separates us from Iran is that we can technically still bear our arms in public, women don't have to wear veils, and we're not obligated to pray multiple times a day. ... I'm much more worried about the US being like the PRC, with censorship.
  The other day I was told at school: be careful what you say and do, 'cause you don't want to get in trouble. (this was after I was caught talking about male-male romance comics in the (girls') locker rooms, and it offended some of the christian girls.) The US is like the new PRC, to me. >_
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Neal, 31 Aug 2006 @ 8:20pm

Re: Get real
Come on, let's get real now. How many people in the U.S., no... make that the world, would even bother to watch this movie on tv at their leisure much less go to see it at a theater?

If anything the nc-17 rating will boost the number of viewers, because some slightly more greater number of people will think there's something worth seeing in a movie with that rating.

No matter the rating, for a movie like this the number of viewers will be statistically insignificant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Krum, 31 Aug 2006 @ 9:33pm
  
  Re: Re: Get real
  I totally agree. A documentary with the same rating as Ogazmo or a porn-flick? I'm there. BTW has anyone had any luck finding a CAM on any torrnt sites? Since the MPAA distributed copies they should have no problem with me downloading it!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad Neal, 31 Aug 2006 @ 9:32pm

The Reality Is...
The people that jump at NC-17 ratings aren't those that already know the message being made by this very movie, and aren't likely to be those that would somehow be enlightened by it. Furthermore, if you examine those who are drawn to NC17 ratings, you'll tend to find a lot of under-educated people that don't know the "Start" button from thier a-hole, and sure, they might rent it, but then stop it 5min later because it's not all tits and ass.

I still see your point, if you add shock value by a lable (NC17), it will draw a crowd, but that won't make it memorable to that crowd, and in this very case I would wager it would bore the hell out of the NC17 crowd. Either way, you said it best yourself....

"No matter the rating, for a movie like this the number of viewers will be statistically insignificant."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2006 @ 7:26am
  
  Re: The Reality Is...
  I don't think they wanted an NC-17 raing for their documentary. From what I can tell, they submitted the movie to be rated and got NC-17 because the MPAA didn't want the people who would care to see it. I highly doubt that a documentary about the MPAA would be "DVDs Gone Wild"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pat Aufderheide, 1 Sep 2006 @ 4:30am

fair use
Kirby Dick's film is terrific, and it's also terrific that he employed fair use to clear the more than a hundred film clips in the film! He did so with the help of the Documentary Filmmakers' Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use (at centerforsocialmedia.org/fairuse). Finally, doc filmmakers are able to know what the standards in their profession are, and that makes it possible for them to actually use their rights insteading of having to live in fear!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2006 @ 7:20am

It's rated NC-17 because it depicts how F***ED up the MPAA is.

But in all seriousness how are they going to explain why it is rated NC-17. Underneath or next to the rating, there is usually a list of what "bad things" the movie has:

|------------------------------------------------|
| | No drugs, no violence, |
| NC - 17 | no sexual content, |
| | truth |
|------------------------------------------------|
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sanguine Dream, 1 Sep 2006 @ 8:48am

Hold on...
I bet I know the answer to this but I have to ask is it even legal to rate a movie NC-17 when it has none of the content that fits the description of NC-17?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rose M. Welch (profile), 29 Mar 2012 @ 7:33am
  
  Re: Hold on...
  The answer is that the ratings system has nothing to do with the law, and anyway, there's plenty of sex in this movie.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tyshaun, 1 Sep 2006 @ 9:04am

Did anyone actually read the article?
The movie got an N-17 rating because it contains scenes that were NC-17 rated originally. That kind of follows logically, not some MPAA conspiracy.

Don't get me wrong, the current rating system is horrible inacurrate, biased toward accepting violence and limitiing sexuality, but in this case the explanation isn't conspiracy, just the doumentary writers getting duped by their own zeal. If you're going to write a critique of the ratings systems, don't be surprised if you include NC-17 rated clips and your documentary gets an NC-17 rating.

BTW, I wish people on techDirt would start reading the linked articles and not just the techDirt bloggers summations, because those summations have been getting more and more off center lately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2006 @ 9:15am
  
  Re: Did anyone actually read the article?
  I'd read the article if i could find the right link. These techdirt posts always have multiple links and I don't really feel like going through all the links to find the right one. The title of the post should be set to link to the source.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Larry Wilson, 7 Sep 2006 @ 4:21pm

Who didn't see that one coming...
The MPAA is a total joke. They're only a slight improvement over the old Hays Office, and the way things are going, we may be headed back to those days.

He should really consider releasing his film unrated, and use the MPAA's actions as part of the ad campaign. That'd really piss them off.

Then again, I suspect the majority of people don't even know what the MPAA is for, other than going after pirates.

As a beginning director, I personally think that the MPAA should either make the ratings system mandatory or get out of the way of films that decide to bypass it. Wouldn't this be considered restraint of trade?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]