This Film Is Not Yet Rated
There is a movie playing at Sundance right now that I figure many of us will want to see called This Film Is Not Yet Rated. The film explores the MPAA ratings system and its impact on American culture. It also shows us the hypocracies, secrecy and flat-out lies perpetrated by this monopolistic institution. Wanna know what rating they gave it? NC-17 of course!
I can’t wait to see it.
I want to believe that this movie will tear down the myth of the importance of the ratings system within the Mormon culture… but I’m not holding my breath. What’s sad is that we now have more access to information than ever before but so many are sticking to this most archaic system.
Click here to read Eric Snider’s blog entry where he discusses his viewing of it at Sundance.
Yeah, I was just reading about this over at CNN.com. Looks fascinating. I don’t know how much of an effect it will have in Mormon culture, however, considering it is NC-17 itself. Mormons aren’t going to be paying any attention to it in the first place.
Comment by Eric Russell — January 26, 2006 @ 10:40 am
Rusty,
I read Eric Snider’s blog about “This film is not yet rated”. It was interesting trivia to read the specifics about the system, but like most people, I was not surprized by the overall gist that the system is inconsistent.
I was more disturbed by your animosity toward the church’s recommendations about the movies we watch.
Here is a link to the most current recommendations the Church offers its youth in its For the Strength of Youth pamphlet: http://tinyurl.com/btera
They make no reference to a movie’s rating, but are very specific about content that is presented in a particular way.
Comment by enochville — January 26, 2006 @ 11:19 am
I think there is a legitimate arguement that this film should be NC-17, given that it included clips of many NC-17 films, and those clips are of the scenes that got the films rated NC-17. Of course you can argue that the context is different, but if you show clip after clip after clip then even a documentary context won’t save you.
I wish they had submitted two cuts of this. One with the side by side comparisons of various scenes (the current version) and another with no objectionable content, just the investigation into the system and who runs it. Simply to see if they could have gotten a G rating from these people after revealing who they are.
Comment by a random John — January 26, 2006 @ 11:34 am
Well, considering I don’t accept the idea of “pure artistic vision” where artists must be totally free of all constraints and editorial input that these filmmakers seem to be pushing, I doubt it will convince me if I were to see it.
Ratings are inconsistent – yes. However, they do give a very generaly ballpark estimation. I have never seen a movie that should be G rated R or that should be R rated G. Most slippage among ratings is never more than one rating up or down in any given direction.
Good parents will, of course, do research and not rely on just the ratings system.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — January 26, 2006 @ 11:41 am
“They make no reference to a movie’s rating, but are very specific about content that is presented in a particular way. ”
Yes, I think this is how it should be.
I think there are many people who just don’t believe that there could be anything praiseworthy in an R rated movie. These people probably don’t really care about movies that much (nothing wrong with that) and are probably mainly familiar with mainstream Hollywood fare (most of which I personally can’t stand). For these people, avoiding R rated movies probably makes sense, since nothing much is lost and a lot of crap is avoided.
What they don’t acknowledge is that the majority of “serious” movies that aspire to say something about life tend to get R ratings, often simply because of language (i.e. f-words) or “adult themes,” which just means topics that might be in some way disturbing to chidren. I don’t think that church standards require us to shun hearing bad language or adult themes…most serious literature contains “adult themes” (the Bible is full of them), and an overemphasis on not hearing bad language seems silly as well (after all, Jesus ate with sinners, and that’s just how a sizeable fraction of our fellow men talk.) I agree that images can be powerful, and we should avoid pornographic images or gratuitous violence. But I honestly believe that there are many, many R rated movies that are more virtuous and praiseworthy than the average PG-13 blockbuster.
Comment by ed — January 26, 2006 @ 11:52 am
The rating system is essentially meaningless, as evidenced by the constant downward push exerted on it. Films that would have gotten an R rating ten years ago now get PG-13, PG-13 is now PG, etc. (A fascinating NPR segment examined this just last month.)
Titanic had a lingering topless scene and some disturbing scenes of drowning-related deaths, and it received a PG-13 rating. Plenty of R-rated films have been tamer. The producers and the studio clearly were able to convince the MPAA ratings board to give it the lower rating so it would be seen by a wider audience and make more money.
And then there are important films that I thing most people — including Mormons — should see: Films like Saving Private Ryan and Schindler’s List tell important stories about sacrifice and the horror of war and hatred. The Passion of the Christ likewise was an excellent film on a subject about which we care deeply. All of these were graphically violent, and not for children (or even squeamish adults). But how sad it is that many Mormons refuse to see them just “because they’re rated R.”
I don’t believe children should see violence, sexuality, and foul language on screen — my wife and I saw King Kong a few weeks ago and were startled to see many parents bringing very young children to the theater (one even carried out a screaming four- or five-year-old during a particularly intense scene). But these things, when shown in context and not simply for the pleasure of the viewing audience (think Saw), can be important and, by themselves, should not deter adults from seeing a film.
Comment by Mike Parker — January 26, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
I was more disturbed by your animosity toward the church’s recommendations about the movies we watch.
Enochville,
I don’t have any animosity toward the church’s recommendations about the movies we watch. What I have animosity about is how so many members of the church are still clinging to old recommendations about the movies we watch (“no R-rated”). I fully agree with and endorse the page from the FSY booklet about entertainment (as well as understand it in the context to whom it is written). If everyone were going by those standards then there wouldn’t be anyone out there that avoids R-rated movies “because the prophets say so.” Perhaps they’d avoid R-rated movies because it’s a good rule for them… but NOT because they think it’s the current teaching in the church.
Comment by Rusty — January 26, 2006 @ 2:20 pm
arj,
I didn’t know it was NC-17 for those reasons. That sucks. I wonder, though, how explicit the material actually is or if the reviewers wanted to just stick it to ‘em.
Comment by Rusty — January 26, 2006 @ 2:31 pm
Rusty,
My understanding (from Ain’t It Cool, so take it with a 50 lb bag of rock salt) is that several of the comparisons are between gay and straight sex, demonstrating that the board found gay sex more objectionable though the scenes were near identical.
Basically the inclusion of these scenes made it impossible to rate the movie as anything other than NC-17. I think this is an important enough subject that it would be nice if more people could see it, but that is not going to happen.
Comment by a random John — January 26, 2006 @ 2:58 pm
On the subject of “creeping ratings” I challenge anyone to watch Three Days of the Condor or any number of other R-rated films from the 1970s and tell me that it wouldn’t be PG-13 or even PG today. Of course PG-13 didn’t exist at the time.
Comment by a random John — January 26, 2006 @ 3:01 pm
arJ,
Another funny thing is the PG movies from that era that I’m pretty sure would be R or very close to R today. The Graduate is PG and has an extended scene at a strip club with a lot of close-up skin. The Outlaw Josey Wales was PG had a rape scene that was quite a bit more graphic than I would expect to see in a PG-13 movie today.
Comment by Tom — January 26, 2006 @ 3:15 pm
Tom (#11) has a point. There are some films that go against the “downward” trend. If A Clockwork Orange were released today, I’m pretty confident it would get (or skirt) an NC-17.
Part of the difficulty is that there are so many possible ratings (G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17) that it’s hard to know where the line between each one is. For example, a film can use the F-word in a non-sexual context several times and get a PG-13, but use it once in sexual context and you’ll get an R. Weird.
Comment by Mike Parker — January 26, 2006 @ 3:38 pm
There is evidence that movie makers deliberately include objectionable material simply to get a rating that indicates the age group for which the material is intended. E.T., for example included the totally unnecessary phrase “penis breath,” which, no doubt, kept it from receiving a ‘G’ rating. On the surface, one might think that dollar signs were behind the avoidance of a ‘G’ rating, but I witnessed my young nephews and nieces crying in fright at the theatre during the early “spooky” spaceship-in-the-woods scene.
Comment by MahNahvu — January 26, 2006 @ 3:39 pm
Re #5: I disagree with the assertion that “the majority of ‘serious’ movies that aspire to say something about life tend to get R ratings” and would welcome the challenge of creating a list of serious non-R-rated movies that aspire to say something about life that matches your list of serious R-rated movies that aspire to say something about life. Any takers?
Re #7: I disagree with the apparent assertion that avoiding R-rated movies is an “old” recommendation. It’s easy to find numerous instances of that counsel being repeated by Church leaders and in Church publications that post-date the publication of the latest edition of For the Strength of Youth.
Comment by Chris Grant — January 26, 2006 @ 4:50 pm
It would help if you would provide a direct quote. One also needs to realize that in our global church, not every country has the same ratings system. In fact most only have one, something like a 14 or 15 rating–and that’s it. What do they do? SInce when do we as a church use a wordly system to set OUR standards?
My favorite scripture is D&C 58:26 where the Lord tells us that he DOESN’T need to command us in all things. We have all been given the Light of Christ to use to guide us and to help us know what is right and what is wrong. One can easily tell from the trailer alone if something is appropriate or not–even before the rating is revealed.
Comment by Tim J. — January 26, 2006 @ 5:12 pm
My assertion that the “majority” of serious movies are R was a bit off the cuff, and it could be wrong. Also it’s based on my perception of what makes a movie “serious,” which might differ from others’. (For example, I find most sci-fi impossible to take seriously, although I know some do. I’m more partial to dialogue-driven movies, often independent ones.) My perception is that these tend to get an R rating….my guess is that neither the producers nor the raters think children would be interested anyway, so if there is any doubt they just slap an R on it.
Anyway, If you change my statement to “a substantial fraction of serious movies,” my point does not really change.
Comment by ed — January 26, 2006 @ 5:17 pm
For a little history on the ratings system, and why they’re in place, see here.
Comment by Tim J. — January 26, 2006 @ 5:18 pm
Tim J., I really appreciate your comments in entry #15.
You’re right that the world doesn’t (or shouldn’t) determine our standards as church members. I think the church was vague enough in the FSY Pamphlet to allow members to use their own judgement and the guidance of the Light of Christ to make that determination.
While I do feel that the Movie Rating system needs a more rigid criteria that stands the test of time, as church members, that shouldn’t be (or shouldn’t only be) what we rely on to determine which movies we should or shouldn’t watch.
Comment by Danny D. — January 26, 2006 @ 5:44 pm
Re #15: For some of the recent counsel regarding R-rated movies, go to lds.org and type “R-rated” in the advanced search engine for the Gospel Library.
Comment by Chris Grant — January 26, 2006 @ 5:49 pm
Chris,
Been there done that. And it’s either before the FSY manual or their not by a Prophet/Apostle. It makes no sense to make this claim, since more than half of the Church’s members would have no idea what Rated-R even means.
Comment by Tim J. — January 26, 2006 @ 5:57 pm
Additionally,
There were several stakes throughout the world that organized activities around watching “Passion of the Christ.” Had they only known of the grave sin they were committing.
Comment by Tim J. — January 26, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
Direct quote from the FSY:
Movie ratings do not always accurately reflect offensive content.
While I realize this is referring more to PG and PG-13 movies being more offensive, this could definitely swing both ways.
Comment by Tim J. — January 26, 2006 @ 6:08 pm
“And it’s either before the FSY manual or their not by a Prophet/Apostle.”
I see, so members of the Seventy speaking in General Conference don’t count as Church leaders, is that it?
Comment by Chris Grant — January 26, 2006 @ 6:27 pm
The first “R” rated movie I saw (by accident actually), was when I was a little kid — Rosemary’s Baby. By today’s standards it certainly couldn’t be more than a PG or PG-13. Also, I know of plenty of church members who watch what pretty much amounts to “R-rated” tv shows, even though they don’t have an R-rating (HBO anyone?).
Comment by meems — January 26, 2006 @ 9:58 pm
Chris Grant: Let’s make a list of serious movies that make a statement that are not rated R. I’d like some new suggestions, because I love these movies.
I’ll start:
1) Life is Beautiful (PG-13)
2) The Spitfire Grill (PG-13)
3) Mr. Holland’s Opus (PG)
4) Dead Poet’s Society (PG)
Comment by enochville — January 26, 2006 @ 10:15 pm
Re #25: Off the time of my head, a few would be A Man for All Seasons (G), Shadowlands (PG), Sense and Sensibility (PG), Chariots of Fire (PG), Saints and Soldiers (PG-13), and Crimes and Misdemeanors (PG-13).
Comment by Chris Grant — January 27, 2006 @ 12:31 pm
How about rated-r movies that are that we think everyone (obviously adults) should see? They may or may not be ‘serious’ but they are works of art that have universal messages that can benifit all of us. It sure is a shame to write off art because of some random institutions rating.
Heres my list:
CrashYou NEED to see this film…
Munich (don’t go into it thinking its actually about Munich…its making a much more broad statement than that though it does have a somwhat cheesy ‘climax’)
Schindler’s List
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (absolutly beautiful)
Fight Club yes I am serious. Watch it more than once.
Donnie DarkoI recommend the directors cut. Its very different from the theatrical release.
The Constant Gardner
Lord of War
The Life Aquatic DO NOT PASS THIS ONE UP
Good Night and Good Luck
Syriana
Garden State
Hotel Rwanda
American History X
The Pianist
Glory
Hero(one of the most visually stunning movies you will ever see – don’t bother with the dubbed version.
So, those are just think of off the top of my head…thats alot of art that is very much worth your while, not gratuitous, visually and technically superb, and has a universal theme and is in many ways uplifting. AND…many of these are ones that came out this past year…so as you can see, there are lots of good movies come out despite the worlds complaint to the contrary.
Comment by Veritas — January 27, 2006 @ 3:52 pm
Looking at the list in #27, I have to ask: Are there any artistically superb movies whatsoever that you think the leaders of the Church would prefer we not see due to content?
Comment by Chris Grant — January 27, 2006 @ 4:12 pm
NO. I believe if the content is offensive it falls out of the artistic category and into the cheap entertaiment category. Notice I did not put Pulp Fiction or Sin City or History of Violence (one of the WORST movies ever – not just in content either) on the above list…movies considered by many as highly artistic and even award-worthy.
Comment by Veritas — January 27, 2006 @ 4:27 pm
Re #25:
A few films that I take seriously that are not rated R:
Malcolm X
Gandhi
Signs
Bridge on the River Kwai
Hotel Rwanda
Dr. Strangelove
The Apostle
The Seventh Seal
I have to disagree with veritas in #29. I think that the content of many or most of those R-rated movies is such that most GA’s would probably prefer that members not watch them. Don’t get me wrong, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is my favorite movie of the past five years and I think it is very much worth watching if you find value in unique, artistic filmmaking. But the (relatively) little bit of language, drug use, and sexual content would offend many church members and leaders enough that they would consider it “bad” and not worth watching.
Comment by Tom — January 27, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
Veritas,
Hotel Rwanda is PG-13 and Good Night, and Good Luck is PG.
Comment by Tim J. — January 27, 2006 @ 5:10 pm
I would have to include Shawshank Redemption in any R-rated movie everyone of age needs to see.
Comment by Tim J. — January 27, 2006 @ 5:11 pm
Are there any artistically superb movies whatsoever that you think the leaders of the Church would prefer we not see due to content?
Shouldn’t we rather ask “Are there any artistically superb movies whatsoever that you think Christ would prefer we not see due to content?”
My answer is different for the latter (my personal feeling is that Christ would be more liberal than the GA’s regarding media)
Comment by Rusty — January 27, 2006 @ 5:48 pm
Some violent scenes in American History X were so disturbing that they still haunt me.
Comment by MahNahvu — January 27, 2006 @ 6:57 pm
Rusty, do you think Christ would sit through a movie with a sex scene or that depicts degenerate social behaviors such as crime, drugs, or other wickedness? I am doubting he would find this entertaining. It seems to me that he would avoid such things altogether. I understand that he ate with sinners and all that. But that does not mean he would watch movies with such content.
Whether Christ would prefer righteous entertainment or not is, however, pure speculation anyway, so my view of what he would prefer is no more authoritative than what you think he might enjoy watching.
Comment by john f. — January 27, 2006 @ 7:03 pm
Tim, why does everyone “need to” see that movie? Isn’t that overstating your case a little bit? I am guessing that people can get along just fine in their lives without seeing it if they don’t want to. Furthermore, choosing not to see it does not necessarily say anything in particular about a given individual, such as that he or she is a racist or elitist or grinds upon the face of the poor or downtrodden or whatever.
Comment by john f. — January 27, 2006 @ 7:05 pm
(that goes for Veritas as well, whose list was described as movies that every adult “should” see. this just doesn’t follow. all this says is that veritas liked those movies. why veritas aspires to know what everyone should see, particularly since we are talking about entertainment here, is a little baffling. presumably it is because veritas finds those movies so profound that people who haven’t seen them just aren’t really living and just don’t have the insight necessary to understand this life. that conclusion takes a lot for granted–things that certainly don’t hold up in a post-modernist climate anyway. veritas gives one list of movies everyone must see; someone else lists debbie does dallas, silence of the lambs, basic instinct, and other shows that glorify aberrational behaviors on the “everyone should see this” list. all of this misses the point of why the Church advises its members to avoid movies with certain content. it is because we should strive to avoid filling our minds with themes, images, or situations that drive away the Spirit and that are inimical to patterns of personal righteousness that the Lord expects of us. avoiding movies that portray or glorify behaviors that God cannot “tolerate” certainly helps us achieve goals of keeping covenants and living righteous lives. and no, wishing to lead righteous lives does not make one “self-righteous.” it just makes one conscientious about God’s will toward us.
bottom line to all: please stop criticizing members of the Church who decide out of obedience to what they believe to be God’s will not to see “r-rated” movies. this decision does not make them pharisees. it also does not somehow make them inferior connoisseurs of culture/art to those who choose to watch r-rated movies.)
Comment by john f. — January 27, 2006 @ 7:19 pm
I think John F. has a point. I’ve seen all the films that Veritas thinks everyone should see, in fact, I think I’ve seen every film mentioned on this thread so far. And while I agree that almost everything mentioned here is pretty good, no one really needs to see any of it.
I agree that the church currently has no position with regards to any rating system, but people have various degrees of thresholds of offense, and I think anyone is justified in not seeing anything they don’t feel is appropriate for them.
Also, each film’s value is pretty subjective. After naming allegedly important films, Veritas names Pulp Fiction, Sin City and A History of Violence as offensive and “cheap entertainment.†But all three of those have cases for their moral value.
Bottom line here, our own idea of whether a film’s content is offense is subjective and our own idea of whether a film is valuable art or cheap entertainment is subjective. As such, I think we all ought to just leave one another alone for each other’s viewing choices.
Comment by Eric Russell — January 27, 2006 @ 8:43 pm
No!
Everyone who has not yet seen Alien From L.A. is less than human and should be barred from voting, I tell you!
Okay – seriously:
For those who hate/loathe/detest/whatever the ratings system: Well, there still has to be some way to give people (and parents especially) a way to quickly judge whether films are suitable.
What would y’all put in place to replace the ratings system?
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — January 27, 2006 @ 9:50 pm
the english rating system or german rating system (where full on sex gets a low rating, often 12, [because it is just "love"] and violence gets a 17 rating), i’m sure. anything but the american rated-r system.
this is my best guess as to what those who oppose our current american rating system might answer to your question # 39. but i am willing to admit that i might be being unfair in making this guess as to what those opposed to our rating system might say.
Comment by john f. — January 27, 2006 @ 10:12 pm
john f. asks: “do you think Christ would sit through a movie… that depicts degenerate social behaviors such as crime, drugs, or other wickedness?”
This kind of thinking baffles me. The scriptures, all the plays of Shakespeare, and most of the films made at BYU film studios depict sinful behaviors to one degree or another. Even the temple films depict sinful behaviors. I don’t know if Christ has time to watch movies or not, but the idea that we should avoid all depictions of sinful behaviors seems a little bizarre. Of course, we should be careful about depictions that encourage or glorify sinful behavior.
BTW, I agree with those that say that nobody really needs to watch any of these movies.
Comment by ed — January 27, 2006 @ 10:38 pm
John,
Wow, you’re more passionate about this topic than I am! All I was trying to say was that I think Christ knows each of us individually, therefore he knows our individual thresholds. The GA’s don’t, therefore they use a lowest-common-denominator system (kinda like the WoW), which is okay.
Often bad morals are the conflict of the story (you know, that necessary part that makes it interesting). Sometimes their gratuitous. I’m not saying which ones are which, that’s up for you to decide. And no, it’s not up for the MPAA to decide either because obviously they don’t make much of a distinction. But halleluja that we live in the modern era with the click of the mouse we can know exactly what content is in the film! We don’t have to rely on a corrupt, archaic system! Yay for technology!!!
And John, dude, I think you’re reading WAY too into the recommendations of others. I don’t think they’re actually saying you need to see those films otherwise you’re a racist (or whatever). They’re just saying they’re films that have a message that would be good for all to hear.
Comment by Rusty — January 28, 2006 @ 9:43 am
I really hate it when people tell me I need to see a movie. I don’t need to see Saving Private Ryan to understand war is brutal/horrible/etc. I don’t need to see Schindler’s List to understand what people went through in the holocaust. (Does it show actual footage of holocaust victims? Cuz I’ve seen real life footage of holocaust victims, and I don’t ever need to see that again.)
Re #25, I’d add The Journey of August King (PG-13) to that list. I think you’d like it, enochville. I also love Dancer, Texas Pop. 81, although it’s not really a message-heavy movie.
For the record, Hero isn’t rated R, either.
Comment by Susan M — January 28, 2006 @ 6:50 pm
Re: #39 – A better system to rate movies. This is a website I like for picking out films for my son, and it would be good for adults too:
http://www.kids-in-mind.com/
They give each film a rating on a scale of 1-10 in three categories: Sex & Nudity, Violence & Gore, Profanity. But even better than that, they go to the trouble of listing out all of the incidents of each. So it allows you to judge for yourself whether the specific content is okay for you / your child to watch.
Comment by marian — January 28, 2006 @ 8:16 pm
Enochville, good movies.
Tim J., I have Shawshank in my personal collection and I think everyone should.
Veritas, bravo. Good list. From the blog, I got referred to those movies with Bill Murray and the Wilsons, they were wonderful and I’m glad I saw them. What great depictions of the good/bad in all of us.
John F., Christ has sat through much worse.
I do not think shielding us from life’s terrible truths will make us better Christians. Sooner or later, we all hit our Gethsemanes.
On the other hand, I’m careful about the movies I watch. On the still other hand, I unapologetically loved and own all the Alien movies. My family watches them over and over.
Comment by annegb — January 29, 2006 @ 9:54 am
Great site, I like how in-depth it is. Everytime a movie comes out that we are considering taking my daughter too, I have to wait a few weeks until I’ve talked to enough people I trust to know if I want to let her see it or not. I still regret letting her see Shrek after reading one review. The biggest thing I’ve learned is to totally ignore the rating system, and actually read and listen to as much as I can about the movie. Just because a small group of people on the ratings board thinks a movie is appropriate or innapropriate for children doesn’t mean I should.
Comment by jjohnsen — January 29, 2006 @ 1:00 pm
Kids in Mind does look like a good site, even if it has its own inconsistencies. But it doesn’t really solve the problem presented by This Film Is Not Yet Rated. There still has to be some way to draw a single line between films that those under of the age of seventeen can see without the accompaniment of an adult and films they can’t.
I think Hollywood’s biggest complaint with the MPAA is that it is unfriendly towards graphic sexuality. Nudity and sexuality is becoming ever the more acceptable among the social left and Hollywood will continue to argue that films that depict increasing levels of sex and nudity ought to be permissible for teenage audiences. As society continues to get all the more permissive, I think we will discover that this is a battle that’s really just beginning.
Comment by Eric Russell — January 30, 2006 @ 12:06 am