Cinematical

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.

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 ...

According to the MPAA website, "One of the highest accolades to be conferred on the rating system is that from its birth in 1968 to this day, there has never been even the slightest jot of evidence that the rating system has deliberately fudged a decision or bowed to pressure." If that statement's patent absurdity wasn't already obvious to any follower of non-mainstream film, This Film Is Not Yet Rated proves it, with a celluloid middle-finger salute to the MPAA and the Leave it to Beaver-style fantasy image it sells to the public.

Despite proudly proclaiming that its board of directors includes "the Chairmen and Presidents of the six major producers and distributors of motion picture and television programs in the United States", the MPAA nevertheless insist with a sort of dreamy sanguinity on the film ratings board's -- made up of parents, we are repeatedly told, whose only interests are in protecting children and families -- absolute neutrality and invulnerability to outside influence. With that sort of material to work with, mocking the MPAA is like shooting fish in a barrel for a filmmaker as witty and skilled as director Kirby Dick. And mock he does: Via a multi-pronged attack featuring interviews with directors, detective work and side-by-side comparison of levels of obscenity, Dick creates an often-hilarious documentary that is both cutting and compelling; it's so engaging that even filmgoers who wouldn't dream of setting foot in an arthouse cinema will eat it up.

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.

IFC will be releasing This Film Is Not Yet Rated on September 1. The film likely caused the MPAA more difficulty that even F*ck or The Aristocrats, not because of nudity or violence, but because the MPAA is its focus. In their film, creators Kirby Dick and Eddie Schmidt not only examine the endless hypocrisy of the rating organization (the directors believe that the MPAA exhibits "a disparity of NC 17 ratings for sex over violence, gay films over straight, and indie films over studio movies") and its possible collusion with big Hollywood, but also its bizarre need for secrecy (the identities of the raters are not known).

Needless to say, the members of the MPAA were very displeased when they screened the film for rating purposes, and saw not only scathing interviews with directors and actors, but also footage of many of them going to and from work. Not surprisingly, the board turned around and slapped with movie with an NC-17 rating; IFC -- which took a damn big risk by acquiring the film in the first place -- has decided to release it unrated. Oh, and they're also trying to change how the MPAA runs (good luck with that, guys). A part of the newly-launched This Film is Not Yet Rated website is a petition demanding an overhaul of the rating system, which is described as resulting in "arbitrary, inconsistent, and unreasonable decisions." While the odds of the petition having any effect are slightly worse than those of me winning the NL batting title, it's certainly worth checking out, particularly for the solutions it presents.

Lionsgate has acquired domestic distrib rights to Amy Berg's Deliver Us From Evil, a documentary about a pedophile Catholic priest whose crimes were concealed by the Church for 30 years. I saw the trailer for this film shortly before the Los Angeles Film Festival, where it made its world premiere and scored the top doc prize, and it was heavy stuff for this ex-Catholic schoolgirl. The film is told from the perspectives of both victim and perpetrator, and if watching Ollie O'Grady, the jolly ex-priest with white hair and twinkling blue eyes, smile while describing how he finds young children in their underwear "arousing" doesn't turn your stomach, well, you're made of stronger stuff than I am.

Particulary wrenching is an interview with the parents of one of the victims, who was just five years old when O'Grady raped her. That the Catholic Church knew about O'Grady's crimes, and yet covered them up for years, moving him around from parish to parish where he could prey on fresh victims, is beyond reprehensible, and Berg's camera bravely shows the tragic effects of the cover-up.

Pic comes on the heels of Kirby Dick's Twist of Faith, another riveting doc about pedophilila in the Catholic church, which focused on the trauma of a now-grown victim who is re-traumatized when the priest who abused him years before moves into his neighborhood. Twist of Faith showed at Sundance in 2005 and was nominated for an Oscar later that year.

Deliver Us From Evil is slated for a Fall 2006 release.

I love SXSW. It's by far the most favorite film festival to attend, in no small part because it's seemingly the last major film festival that cares about whether or not its audience is having fun. So when the people behind the acronym called and asked me to sit on the jury of their offshoot, SXSWclick, I jumped at the chance. SXSWclick, to quote the official website, "is a year-round initiative created to showcase short-form storytelling via mobile devices and the web." In other words, it's a festival specifically for shorts designed for digital, if not device-specific, distribution. There are five categories to submit work in, ranging from music videos to documentary, to "What the F*$!?" - or, the "Not sure we 'get it' -- but it's pretty cool" category. All work has to be under ten minutes, and it needs to arrive at the SXSW offices via VHS or DVD by June 12. Winners receive a passel of prizes, as well as a chance to screen their film for the ever-expanding crowds at the 2007 SXSW Film Festival, and all entrants will be seen by a panel of filmmakers and industry professionals, including Jason Reitman, Bob Sabiston, Kirby Dick, and, well, me. Wanna enter? Here's the link.

Hey, we're not the only ones covering the Seattle International Film Festival. Lots of other folks are here too. Here's a round-up of what other sites are saying about what's happening around SIFF:

• The Stranger has reviews of Japanese drama The Hidden Blade by film critic and Police Beat scribe Charles Mudede, and Annie Wagner reviews Snow Cake, which I'll be getting to next week.
• Greg Dunlap from Cineblog has a write-up on Princess Raccoon posted over on the NW Source blog, and has a nice summary of other SIFF bloggers, including Ken Rudolph, who drove up from L.A. to spend six weeks watching an amazing 120 films! Now that's a film lover. Greg also throws some love Cinematical's direction (well, he mentioned we're there, anyhow, so thanks for the shout-out, Greg!)
• Jake Ludington at Hollywood Reviews dropped a line to let us know about all the awesome interviews with directors at SIFF he has up. Jake has interviews up with Kirby Dick (This Film is Not Yet Rated), Will Becton (aka Tommy Chong), Merl Reagle (Wordplay), and Neil Burger (The Illusionist). Jake also writes up one of my fave films from Sundance, 13 (Tzameti), and as he notes, if you haven't seen it, go. If you're hanging in Seattle, it screens on Friday at 9:30.  Jake also gets a peek at the contents of the VIP Opening Night Gala swag (which I, being very much NOT a VIP, was sadly not gifted with). The gift bag included a bottle of Bombay Sapphire (booyah!) and Starbucks Coffee for that post-Bombay hangover. Very cool stuff, Jake.
• There's a SIFF photo pool going on over at Flickr (started by SIFF-goer Roya), including the one above right, which is a shot of the sign at Atlas Clothing Co, located conveniently on Capitol Hill near two SIFF venues, The Egptian and Broadway Performance Hall. Check out the Flickr group, and if you're attending the fest and snapping pics, upload away.
• And last (but most certainly not least), one of my fave websites for all things cultural in Seattle, Three Imaginary Girls, has a SIFF preview up by imaginary boy embracey. The girls (and their boy) are witty, clever, and they have cool pink matchbooks in the Hospitality Suite.

If you're in Seattle and blogging about SIFF, drop me a line at kim.voynar@cinematical.com . I'll be doing more round-ups throughout the fest. Off to see The King (starring Gael Garcia Bernal and his cheekbones). I have some cool interviews and more film reviews coming up, so check back often!

(Ed.'s Note: Greg from Cineblog is Greg Dunlap, not Greg Nelson. Apologies, Greg.)

It's often very easy to not question authority, because we're often completely unaware that there's even an authority to question. Kirby Dick's documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated takes one of the film industry's most sacrosanct, secret processes – the ratings-assignment methodology of the Motion Picture Association of America – and dissects it with a steady hand and a twinkle in his eye.
Dick's working several angles here, and all of them worth exploring: First up is the contention that the MPAA is essentially tougher on independent films than those from major studios; second is the thesis that the MPAA is more afraid of – and therefore more strict about – female and homosexual sexuality than it is about male gratification; third is the suggestion that the MPAA is not an impartial body, but rather works to help the ever-dwindling number of major studios gain more and more of a stranglehold on the culture by damaging the financial and artistic prospects of independent film; and, finally, that the fact the MPAA's raters and processes are secret is a violation of the essential right to face people who are, in effect, your accusers.  ...

(More after the jump. ...)

In an irony of a kind not seen since yesterday, when I fell asleep in a screening of a film called Who Needs Sleep?, filmmaker Kirby Dick has accused the MPAA of illegally copying This Film is Not Yet Rated, his documentary about the ratings board which premieres here at Sundance tomorrow night. Dick's lawyer has contacted the MPAA demanding that they return all copies of the film in their posession, and explain who authorized the reproductions, and why. The MPAA in turn admits that they made the copies, but insist that their doing so doesn't qualify as illegal piracy. "We made a copy of Kirby's movie because it had implications for our employees," MPAA VP Kori Bernards told the LA Times, before essentially accusing Dick of stalking MPAA workers. "We were concerned about the raters and their families." Dick showed the Times a copy of an email exchange he had with the Board, in which he told the MPAA he would only submit a copy of his film to be rated if they promised not to copy or distribute it. In turn, a board rep told Kirk that "the confidentiality of your film ... is our first priority. Please feel assure (sic) that your film is in good hands."

In other Dick news, IFC confirmed today that they've sold the UK broadcast rights to the doc to the BBC.