It wasn't surprising that Neil Ortenberg and Daniel O'Connor's Obscene had difficulty securing a distributor. After all, it's a documentary that deals with obscenity. Still, as hard a sell as that sounds, it also sounds like an easy sell to the right markets. Also, the film is nearly as entertaining as similar-themed docs like Inside Deep Throat and This Film is Not Yet Rated. Of course, even with Universal distributing, Inside Deep Throat was not very profitable. And neither will be Obscene, which is sure to likewise receive an NC-17 rating. The funny thing is, that rating would be completely for archive footage, stuff that should be long since deemed tame by today's standards. It does feature John Waters, though, and I think the MPAA has a stipulation that if he's involved in any way, shape or form, the movie gets an automatic NC-17.

Anyway, it's a shame the film couldn't sell to a more familiar distributor when it premiered at the Toronto Film Festival a couple months back. Instead, according to The Hollywood Reporter, worldwide rights for Obscene have finally gone to Arthouse Films, a company that has released a number of small films you've likely never seen, or even heard of. I can't imagine that Arthouse could afford the music rights for all the tunes in Obscene, so hopefully they're already paid for.

For those of you who don't know, which is probably for the best since you may not get to ever see the film anyway, Obscene is a biographical documentary about Barney Rosset, a publisher and film distributor who fought many a legal battle regarding his alleged distribution of obscene literature and cinema. By no means did I love Obscene, but I enjoyed much of it and thought only bits and pieces really didn't work. As a whole, I guess I'd recommend it if it makes it way to you, because it's an interesting look into what defines a person's life, which is noteworthy for a biodoc these days. In my review, I said the film, "reminds us that most often is the case that the product -- in this case the thousands of titles released by Grove and Rosset's other enterprises -- is about the person, without whom none of it would have existed in quite the same way."

Over at Offsprung.com (who snagged the list from allmovie.com), there's a humorous collection of ten of the most ridiculous reasons the MPAA has ever given for film ratings. You know, the list of offenses they put underneath a "PG" or an "R," to give parents a better idea of what exactly their child will be subjected to. (And then the parent can say, "Hmm, 'extreme pervasive graphic violence, including shootings, stabbings, beheadings, disembowlings, and castrations?' Oh well, as long as my son won't see a boob!"). I personally love it when the MPAA has to go all out with their rating descriptions, when it's clear that they just find a movie wrong on every level. When I see a full paragraph under that "R" rating, I know that it's probably a film I need to see. Take Grindhouse, for example. Rated R for "strong graphic bloody violence and gore, pervasive language, some sexuality, nudity and drug use." A grand slam!

My favorite MPAA reason on the allmovie list is probably the one for Twister, which was Rated PG-13 back in 1996 for "intense depiction of very bad weather!" The 1994 Jamie Lee Curtis thriller Mother's Boys was Rated R for "language and a mother's sociopathic behavior." Number one on their list is the Nick Nolte snoozer Jefferson in Paris, which was rated PG-13 in 1995 for "mature themes, some images of violence, and" -- get this -- "a bawdy puppet show!" That's fine and good, but while we're on the subject of hardcore marionette action, I prefer the reason given for Team America: World Police's R Rating -- "graphic crude and sexual humor, violent images and strong language - all involving puppets." The allmovie list is a solid one, although I'm fairly certain I've seen even funnier rating descriptions elsewhere. If you guys know of any, please share in the comments.

MPAA leader Dan Glickman had a lot more to say about the ratings system this week during the ShoWest film exhibition and distribution convention. As you remember, the MPAA unveiled revisions to its system earlier this year, and since then it has had to continually explain, clarify, defend and fine tune its changes due to confusion and dissatisfaction. One thing that continues to be unclear, though, is if the MPAA is more interested in removing the stigma of the NC-17 rating or in altering the perception that an R-rated film is perfectly suitable for all ages. On Thursday the Classification and Ratings Administration, which operates the ratings system for the MPAA and the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO), revealed a new advisory for the R rating that it hopes will be a better warning to parents. It will read: "Generally, it is not appropriate for parents to bring their young children with them to R-rated motion pictures."

Additionally, some theater chains are looking to go further and ban very young children from R-rated movies, a practice already observed by many art house cinemas. NATO head John Fithian also spoke about the ratings system at ShoWest, and it is apparent that theater owners have their own ideas regarding the subject. First he stressed the importance of having theatrical releases rated by the MPAA in order to perform well. Even though the NC-17 rating has a stigma attached, movies released with that rating earn more money than those released without a rating. He also claimed that without the ratings system we'd possibly have to deal instead with a government-run system of censorship.

Finally he made a request for Hollywood to stop releasing special unrated editions of DVDs -- or at least stop marketing them as being better because they are uncensored. He said that this practice undermines the authority and purpose of the ratings, plus it emphasizes the idea that for some movies it is better to avoid the theater and to wait for the more complete DVD. I guess we'll have to see if the studios abide by this request, but just be warned there may only be one version of Knocked Up, so you might as well just go see it in the theater. Grindhouse, on the other hand, will probably need an unrated DVD no matter what.

According to an article in today's Variety, MPAA chairman Dan Glickman is trying to find a new rating that will group together the movies that currently tip the dirtier scale of the R-rating -- the 'hard R' films that contain copious amounts of nudity, the f-word every three seconds, or gruesome torture-horror imagery, for instance. The move is apparently being motivated by outraged parents who can't believe what is allowed under today's R-rating and demand there be something new between PG-13 and R to let parents know whether they are allowing their teenage children to see a 'soft R' or a 'hard R.' The article reminds us that this debate has been had over and over throughout the years, and that X-rated films like Midnight Cowboy even won Academy Awards before the rating was 'overtaken' by the adult film industry.

The MPAA is also under pressure from the studios to get rid of the NC-17 rating, because its association with heavy sexual content has made it almost worthless -- Blockbuster refuses to carry any DVDs rated NC-17, for example. Many daily newspapers also refuse ads for NC-17 films, even though unrated films with similar content can sometimes skirt by, the article notes. Cinematical recently interviewed Kirby Dick, director of This Film Is Not Yet Rated, about the pros and cons of the current ratings system, if you want to know more.

Brokeback Mountain -- Last year's controversially Oscar-snubbed romance drama earns itself a brand-new 2-disc special edition. Word is that this re-release contains only a trio of new featurettes, so don't be so quick to give in to that double-dip sensation. On the positive side, this edition DOES come with eight Brokeback Mountain postcards ... for that special someone.

The Guardian -- Kevin Costner and Ashton Kutcher star in a water-logged remake of An Officer and a Gentleman ... or any other military drama of the past 25 years in which a brash and headstrong recruit butts heads with a grizzled old veteran only to rely on the old guy's help when his lack of experience does indeed catch up with him, (Insert yawn here.) Extras include a director's commentary from Andrew Davis, a few deleted scenes, an alternate ending, and a pair of featurettes, one on the production and another focusing on the Coast Guard.

Jesus Camp -- Some people called it a stick in the eye to religion; others called it an impressively objective look at religious zealotry. I call it a pretty fascinating documentary either way. This eye-opening look at one particular religious camp may warm your heart or it could chill your blood, but it's a pretty compelling look at a section of people I don't normally come across, and that's generally a worthwhile way to spend 90-some minutes. Extras include a filmmaker commentary and some deleted scenes.

Some of us were pretty excited yesterday after hearing that the MPAA and NATO (and CARA) is reforming the film ratings policies, procedures and practices. But two people aren't buying the whole "change" part of the announcement. This Film is Not Yet Rated director Kirby Dick and producer Eddie Schmidt have released a statement saying that they are grateful their documentary has put uncredited pressure on the MPAA, but that they see through the B.S. of the ratings revisions, calling all but one "cosmetic."

For each supposed "change" to the system, Dick and Schmidt gave a response that exposes the real meaning, and explain the continuing problems with the ratings system despite the MPAA's claim that things will be more fair and honest from now on. It is great that we are getting such quick commentary from these guys, since they are the experts on the issue (as much as any documentary filmmaker is an expert of their subject). Such a public reaction also can't hurt the guys with regards to their upcoming DVD release.

Check out the responses (lifted from the official press release) after the jump ...

One year ago, the MPAA's film ratings system was exposed for being unfair and inconsistent. This was thanks primarily to the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated, which screened at Sundance. Now, without acknowledging that film's possible influence on the decision, the MPAA is announcing a change in the ratings process and procedures. A campaign is set to begin at Sundance on Monday, when Dan Glickman will be joined with Classifications & Ratings Administration head Joan Graves to officially go over the revisions.

Variety has the list of changes, which includes the decision to publicly post the standards that must be met to receive a particular rating. Also added to the appeals process is an allowance for a filmmaker to compare his film's content with another lower-rated film's content in order to make a consistency argument. Other parts of the revision include a description of the still-anonymous ratings board members and new rules for the eligibility of those members.

Browsing CNN at 5:00 am yesterday -- it was TV morning -- I saw the story that the MPAA has decided to 'red-band' the trailer for the upcoming doc Deliver Us From Evil. The trailer -- cut by Lionsgate from Amy Berg's excellent documentary -- has, essentially, been rated 'R,' and can't play anywhere except in front of an R or NC-17 movie. Of course, as the CNN story explains many theater chains won't play 'red-band' trailers at all, meaning that the most traditional mode of publicizing a movie -- in the Coming Attractions -- isn't available to Lionsgate or Deliver Us From Evil in many cases. This decision is prompting Lionsgate to release the film unrated -- again, affecting where the film can be shown and advertised. (I wish Kirby Dick's This Film Is Not Yet Rated had done a better job of explaining that, in fact -- the mall leases and newspaper policies that strangle unrated films in their crib with red tape.) I've seen Deliver Us From Evil, and while it's about rough stuff -- a serial child abuser who was essentially protected by the Catholic Church for 20 years -- it's real stuff; this all happened, and nothing in director Amy Berg's treatment of the story is salacious or sensational or cheap. But the MPAA (whose anonymous ratings board includes representatives of clergy) is choosing to significantly impact the marketing of Deliver Us From Evil with their decision. As has been asked before: Who are these people again? And what, exactly, are they protecting us from? (Addenda: For the trailer, click here.)

Documentarian Kirby Dick has been compared to photographer Diane Arbus in the way he prefers to open the camera lens to the pained, the freakish and the inexplicable that exists on the margins of everyday life. Over the course of his career, Dick's subjects have included people dying of cancer in a Los Angeles hospice, sexual surrogates in the employ of psychotherapists, actual freak show performers and Vegas showgirls. He also once followed around French philosopher Jacques Derrida for a documentary that attained cult status the moment the 70-year old deconstructionist was forced to entertain questions about Seinfeld. For his latest film, the Academy-award nominated director sets out to answer a simple question: Who actually sits on the film ratings board of the Motion Picture Association of America? What qualifies them to rate films? What are their names?

Turns out it's not so simple. The MPAA guards that information so jealously that in This Film is Not Yet Rated, Dick is almost immediately reduced to hiring a professional private investigator to sit outside the gates of the organization's Encino compound and wait for someone to enter or exit. A few telephoto lenses and license plates later, Dick is off on a quest to not only explore the identities of the board members, but also to pull back the shroud of secrecy surrounding the MPAA's practices and its indelible bond to the Hollywood studios. Cinematical spoke to Dick, in town to do press for the movie:

Some of the early festival reviews of this film rounded on you for not proposing a lot of solutions to what you view as the deficiencies of the MPAA. Did you feel it was your job to point a way forward, or were you satisfied with just shining a light on problems with the organization? What's your response to that criticism?

KD: I did make a significant effort to get that in. The film itself had a very complex structure, with all these multiple elements, but I think in retrospect I would have worked even harder to try to get that in. Because I definitely have a strong opinion on that. What I'd like to see first and foremost is that the ratings system get out information about what the content is in films. That is one thing that the MPAA claims it's doing, but it's doing a very poor job of. I would like to see a concise but comprehensive list of the content of a film, whether its sex, violence, nudity, or drug use, so that parents can make the decision as to whether they want their child to see the film, and not have ten anonymous parents in Los Angeles make that decision for them. I'd like to see a professional system. One of the surprising things was how unprofessional this process was. There are no written standards. The raters receive no training whatsoever. There are no media experts or psychologists, unlike in Europe where it is professionalized. Also unlike in Europe, there's no transparency to the system. We should know who the raters are and we should know how the process works. In Europe everyone knows who these people are and they do their job just fine.

Boy, we here at Cinematical are just swimming in swag for you folks lately. Write the best caption for the above still from Kirby Dick's This Film Is Not Yet Rated, and you'll win some cool promo items from the film: A t-shirt (black with white ink) that says on the front "Censorship Gets F*cked" (the back has the film's logo) and a military style hat with the film's logo. Please note the nature of these items, and if you are likely to be offended by a shirt bearing the "F" word, well, don't enter this contest.

The film delves into the murky waters of film ratings, examining whether Hollywood studio films and indies are rated equally for comparable content, whether gay-themed content is judged more harshly than similar heterosexual content, the always fun issue of extreme violence (which often gets a pass) versus sexuality (which tends more to end up on the cutting room floor), and -- most of all -- why the MPAA keeps its process such a deeply-guarded secret, and whether this allows the MPAA a free hand without being held accountable. The film has made the rounds of the fest circuit and is opening September 1in New York and Los Angeles, with wider release over the coming weeks. Rules are the same as always, folks. Enter your best caption in the comments. You have until 5PM EDT on Thursday, August 31 to leave your entry, and winner will be announced on Friday, September 1.

For more on This Film Is Not Yet Rated, read James Rocchi's review from Sundance, and keep an eye out for Martha's new one, coming on Thursday.