Please Call And Report This Copyright Thief!
| September 7th, 2006There’s a good interview with Kirby Dick, director of the indy documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated, in the current issue of Bitch Magazine. The film is about the ratings board of the Motion Picture Association of America - the folks who decide if each film is “G,” “PG,” “R” or “NC-17.”
Three points of interest (including a chance for you to fight crime from your very own home!):
1) Homophobic & Sexist Double Standards In Movie Ratings
The MPAA uses a double-standard for films with queer content. For example, the same year that “American Pie” — featuring who-knows how many scenes of masturbation and one scene of apple pie-bumping — was rated “R,” the lesbian-themed “But I’m A Cheerleader” was forced to remove a fully clothed, “very tame” mastrubation scene to avoid getting an “NC-17″ rating. (For most movies, “NC-17″ is a commercial kiss of death.)
According to the blog Boy Culture, the MPAA is not only homophobic but also sexist: “The film convincingly argues that the MPAA discriminates against sexual pleasure, particularly female sexual pleasure.”
2) Conflict of What?
Here’s a negative review of “This Film Is Not Yet Rated.” The review is written by Harry Forbes, Director of the Office for Film & Broadcasting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. From Forbes’ review:
To uncover the identities of the MPAA ratings board — ordinary parents who quite logically are kept anonymous to protect them from pressures from the studios and filmmakers — Dick hires a private investigator, Becky Altringer of Ariel Investigations, to surreptitiously stake out MPAA headquarters in Encino, Calif., snooping around the guard’s station in front of the building, going through the garbage of board members at their homes and using other similarly questionable methods.
What Mr. Forbes neglected to mention in his review is that he, Harry Forbes, is himself one of the MPAA ratings board members whose identity is revealed by “This Film Is Not Yet Rated.” (This is pointed out on the film’s blog). It’s dubious for the subject of a film to write a review of that same film, but to do so without disclosing such an enormous conflict of interest demonstrates an appalling lack of ethics.
3) Take A Bite Out Of Crime!
Have you ever wanted to be a crime fighter? Well, here’s your chance! Check out this quote from the Bitch Magazine interview:
Before I submitted the film, I called up the administration of the ratings board, and I said, “Can you assure me that there will be no copies made of this?” And they assured me, in writing, in e-mail, and on the phone, that not only would no copies be made, but that only the raters would see it. Well, I subsequently learned that an MPAA attorney had seen it. I learned that [MPAA president] Dan Glickman had seen it…
I got a call from an MPAA attorney who said “Look, Kirby, I have to tell you, we have made a copy of your film. But you don’t have to worry, because it’s safe in my vault.” [Laughs.] I can tell you that wasn’t reassuring. In a way I wasn’t surprised, but on the other hand, there’s such hypocrisy there. The MPAA has launched this huge antipiracy campaign, and on their website they define even one act of unauthorized duplication of material as piracy. And that’s exactly what they did.
I checked out the MPAA website, and it is indeed crawling with anti-piracy messages. Fortunately, they also provide a free phone number to call and report piracy to the MPAA: 1-800-662-6797. Or, if you prefer, there’s a web form you can fill out.
I’m certainly planning to call and report that Dan Glickman, CEO and President of the MPAA, conspired to illegally copy a copyrighted movie. I strongly encourage all “Alas” readers to do the same.
[Crossposted at Creative Destruction, where the moderation is light as a feather, stiff as a board. If your comments aren’t being approved here, try there.]
September 7th, 2006 at 8:44 am
It’s no secret that the MPAA is sexist. Founder and until-recently-Supreme Leader Jack Valenti once admitted that they rate male nude scenes more harshly than female nude scenes, but that’s okay because we have a “heterosexual society”.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
September 7th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
Funny, I just read that interview last night. I was reminded of, on the DVD for Spartacus, there’s a letter from the MPAA on how the film can pass the “film code”. After reading that, I was baffled on how anyone was able to make a good film under the film code, causing me to become even more impressed with films like Dr. Strangelove.
I’m also going to report Dan Gluckman. That should be fun.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
September 7th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
[...] Ampersand points to a Bitch Magazine interview with Kirby Dick, director of the This Film is Not Yet Rated, now playing at a theatre near you. [...]
This comment was written by netZoo » Pirates at the MPAA?.Report this comment to the moderators
September 7th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
I saw this film in the Film Festival a month or two back and was really impressed with the way Kirby blended humour into it and avoided being too earnest. His recreated conversations with the MPAA staff, about the rating of the film itself, were hilarious but at the same time quite chilling. The double standards were clear - this anonymous group of American “parents” are having a massive effect on what the world watches and it’s important they are held to account.
This comment was written by span(ner in the works).Report this comment to the moderators
September 8th, 2006 at 12:21 am
Ampersand points to a Bitch Magazine interview with Kirby Dick, director of the This Film is Not Yet Rated, now playing at a theatre near you. The film lambasts the MPAA for its well-known rating system, first implemented in 1968 by Jack Valenti. But, in the Bitch
This comment was written by Set-Top Cop.Report this comment to the moderators
September 13th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Posted by Ann Bartow at 12:05 PM | Comments (0) That’s the title of a post by Amp at Alas, A Blog that discusses some interesting events related to the film This Film Is Not Yet Rated, which Liz Losh talked about here.
This comment was written by SIVACRACY.NET.Report this comment to the moderators
September 16th, 2006 at 4:32 am
surprised, but on the other hand, there’s such hypocrisy there. The MPAA has launched this huge antipiracy campaign, and on their website they define even one act of unauthorized duplication of material as piracy. And that’s exactly what they did. Ampersand notes that the MPAA has a number you can call to report piracy: 1-800-662-6797. Or you can fill out this this web form. Are we going to let Dan Glickman get away with this blatant act of piracy? Me, I’m filling out the web form, and I urge all of you
This comment was written by Raznor's Rants.Report this comment to the moderators
December 27th, 2007 at 2:48 am
[...] well, at least this is some sort of abberation. It’s not like the MPAA has previously displayed right-wing [...]
This comment was written by Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » The MPAA Bravely Protects Children From Disturbing Images.Report this comment to the moderators
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:11 am
[...] Oh, well, at least this is some sort of aberration. It’s not like the MPAA has a history of right-wing double-standards. [...]
This comment was written by AltGN.com - Alt. Geek News » Thank You, MPAA, For Protecting Children Everywhere!.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2008 at 4:18 am
[...] Oh, well, at least this is some sort of aberration. It’s not like the MPAA has a history of right-wing double-standards. [...]
This comment was written by MPAA double standard « Kenny’s Entertainment Blog.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Sorry, I think the makers of the film are idiots.
Cinema coitus should = NC-17
No and’s if’s or but’s. It’s adult content.
What about violence? They should take into consideration that it might be emulated, and how likely it is to be emulated. Then make the ratings based on preset criteria.
The makers of this film were branding the people who were rating their movies as “Republican” or “Right Wing” et al. Not only is this a juvenile argument, but it does not absolve the fact that they were producing celluloid rubbish unsuitable for the plastic minds of children. First of all, Republican refers to someone who wants smaller government with less control over the masses. Second of all, they were trying to make a mockery of this political affiliation in the archetypal Hollywood fashion by blurring Republican and “Religious Right.” The name, religious right, is a bit of an oxymoron since the “religious” half wants more government control while the “right” half opposes government control. It is this oxymoron that Hollywood has been waving around for the past thirty years. Nothing new here.
The producers of these movies complain about how sex in their movies gets a mature branding and the “kiss of death” (an NC-17 rating) then continue to produce more movies with questionable content only to complain again when it gets an NC-17 rating.
While I wont disagree that the MPAA is corrupt, you have to consider the source when viewing this joke of a documentary. This isn’t unbiased research on penguins living in the arctic. This is a tired movie of whining creeps complaining about their lack of common sense.
If it contains mature content, it gets an NC-17 rating. If it gets an NC-17 rating then it wont sell well. It shouldn’t take rocket science to see that their current business model is broken.
Meh, all the really creative and original movies come from outside Hollywood anyway.
This comment was written by Common Sense.Report this comment to the moderators