Kirby Dick's documentary will be hated by the Motion Picture Association of America
When was the last time a movie rating truly helped you decide what to see or avoid? Was it the PG-13 that exposed your kids to the zombified gore of ``Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest"? The R that kept them out of the feel-good ``Little Miss Sunshine"? What about the NC-17 that prevented a film like Atom Egoyan's ``Where the Truth Lies" from playing at a multiplex near you?
Most parents and filmgoers would agree that the Motion Picture Association of America ratings system, in existence (with tweakings) for almost 40 years, is an absurdly fuzzy guide to what's actually in a movie. Less well known is that the process by which films are awarded ratings by the MPAA is amateur by design, cloaked in secrecy, and institutionally punitive to independent films.
Enter guerrilla documentarian Kirby Dick. A filmmaker with a knack for addressing hot-button topics (``Sick: The Life and Death of Bob Flanagan, Super masochist," ``Twist of Faith"), he has now made ``This Film Is Not Yet Rated," a gleeful impaling of MPAA follies and their impact on American culture. Outraged by a process in which filmmakers submit their work to anonymous raters -- only to be shunned by distributors, exhibitors, and chain stores if the film is awarded the dreaded NC-17 -- Dick decided to blow the organization's cover.
It required a novel approach, one that the filmmaker, 54, was happy to discuss on a recent rainy afternoon in downtown Boston. ``The fact that there was so much secrecy, that the MPAA wouldn't reveal the process, prevented me from moving ahead at first," says Dick. ``I knew I'd be left with a clip film and interviews with directors, and that's not the kind of movie I make."
The answer? Creative stalking. Hiring a team of Los Angeles-based private investigators headed by Becky Altringer, Dick staked out the board's Encino headquarters and gradually put together a list of MPAA raters, following them as they left the office and snapping their photos outside homes and at local eateries. ``I realized it would be a very interesting dramatic arc," says Dick, ``at the same time it would be quite a coup to find out who these people were -- something no news organization has been able to find out for the last 30 years."
Thus we learn of the existence of people such as Tony Hey, Scott Young, and Joann Yatabe, MPAA raters who are meant to represent typical parents. All three have children in their 20s and older. More to the point, they are part of an opaque star chamber for which there are no written standards and to which an individual filmmaker has no access. A film goes in, a rating comes out. If you don't like it, you can appeal, but while the MPAA appeals process is headed by the organization's attorneys -- and includes two members of the clergy -- you can't bring your own lawyer.
``It's shocking how unprofessional the system is," says Dick. ``There's never been any developed standards. The raters receive no training. They're just hired one day, and the next day they're rating films. There are no experts involved in the process: No media experts or child psychologists are part of the process. I think you would be very hard put to find any other board anywhere in the country that is this unprofessional."
Cory Bernards, vice president of corporate communications for the MPAA, responds that the process is voluntary on the part of the filmmakers and that the ratings board ``has a pretty simple goal, which is to provide parents with information so they can make decisions about what their children see. Every year we do an independent survey, and in this year's survey, almost 80 percent of respondents said that the board does a good to very good job."
``This Film Is Not Yet Rated" includes interviews with directors such as John Waters (``A Dirty Shame"), ``South Park" co-creator Matt Stone (``Team America"), Wayne Kramer (``The Cooler"), Kevin Smith (``Clerks"), Kimberly Peirce (``Boys Don't Cry"), and Darren Aronofsky (``Requiem for a Dream"), all of whom have fallen afoul of the MPAA at one time or another. That they are part of a wave of independent filmmakers whose work often challenges notions of mainstream sexuality, or uses on-screen violence to critique a culture of violence, only makes it harder for them to get a fair shake, says Dick.
``The MPAA is the lobbying arm and trade organization for the six major studios that control 95 percent of the movies released in the U S ," says the filmmaker. ``The ratings system is just a small part of what they do; their major presence is in Washington, lobbying Congress to pass laws that benefit the studios. And since the right has been in control of Congress for the last 10 years or more, it's not surprising that the MPAA is giving NC-17 ratings to films with adult sexuality. As a result, audiences lose out, filmmakers lose out, and even parents lose out."
John Waters still can't figure out what happened with ``A Dirty Shame," which initially was rated NC-17 before the director watered it down. ``That didn't even have any sex, just a lot of talk," he says, ``but you can't talk about sex? In a comedy with Tracey Ullman ? What's scary to me about the MPAA is that they're nice. I'm used to dealing with evil censorship: They burned one of my films in Canada. With the MPAA, there is no fight -- they win. Then they tell you they liked the movie!"
``This Film Is Not Yet Rated" is hardly sobersided in its approach. The film's style is anarchic and prankish; where Dick can't get face-to-face interviews with MPAA staffers, he animates their phone conversations. ``There are so many comedic elements to this," he says. ``The fact that 10 parents in Los Angeles are cloistered together anonymously counting the number of thrusts and `[expletives],' and then coming up with a rating that protects children all across the country -- that's funny in itself."
According to the MPAA's Bernards, the raters didn't find it very funny. ``A lot of them thought they were being stalked," she says. ``We actually called the police at one point. One of the raters had his picture taken on the freeway, which would scare me." She also considers the film's depiction of how the board deals with filmmakers to be a ``real inaccuracy. If filmmakers are looking to get a less restrictive rating, they can get notes and they can appeal. Our job is not to make creative decisions, it's to rate a movie."
Eventually Dick's film had to go through the ratings process, and since ``This Film Is Not Yet Rated" includes the very clips that earned other movies an NC-17, it was unsurprisingly awarded the most restrictive rating. Watching the filmmaker navigate the appeals process makes for fine corporate comedy, but ultimately Dick and distributor IFC elected to release the movie unrated, even though that limits where it can be shown. It opens in Boston Sept. 15.
IFC can release unrated films because it hasn't signed the MPAA's agreement, says Dick. ``The issue is that when a film has an art-house release, it is impacted some. But if it becomes a hit and breaks out, that's when the box office becomes limited, and that's why very often investors demand filmmakers deliver an R rating. It hampers business otherwise."
It's common practice, too, for studios to stipulate directors turn in an R-rated film, and Dick sees this as further stifling creativity. ``A lot of filmmakers want to make films with adult themes and explore sexuality," he says. ``Because they're not contractually allowed to make an NC-17 film, they're limited. It serves to corral the talent."
Adds Waters, ``The MPAA is selling a faulty product -- an NC-17 that can't get stocked in Blockbuster or
What does Dick, the father of a 15-year-old and a 20-year-old, think would work better than the current system?
``First and foremost," he says, ``what's important is that information be gotten to the public about what's in a film -- a comprehensive list of the sex, violence, nudity, smoking, drug use -- and then let parents across the country decide what they want their children to see.
``At least the current system helps some," Dick continues, ``but I don't think that's good enough. This system could be improved within months to be three or four times as good as it is now, and everyone knows this. That's what's appalling to me. I really think it's the responsibility of the film industry to make it as easy as possible for parents to make the best decision they can."
Ty Burr can be reached at tburr@globe.com. 
