'This Film is Not Yet Rated': Insert 'Uncut Dick' Joke Here

"This isn't E, for Christ's sake": IFC TV boss Evan Shapiro (Photo: IFC)

The last week has seen some controversy surrounding This Film is Not Yet Rated, Kirby Dick's upcoming documentary investigating the MPAA ratings system. The film is slated to premiere next month at Sundance, but executive producer IFC issued a press release Dec. 7 explaining that the MPAA had already tarred it with an NC-17. "How convenient," the thinking goes, "that the MPAA would deflate the commercial chances of a documentary about itself."

Well, yes and no. Not too long afterward on his blog, indieWIRE editor Eugene Hernandez echoed at least my own first impression:

While I am by no means a proponent of the current MPAA given its checkered past, I am rather bored with people using the MPAA ratings systems as a stunt for PR purposes. ... I immediately asked the film's PR rep if I could see the movie since its been submitted to the MPAA only to be told that the film is still being shot. After pressing the matter further, this morning the PR rep said the film was submitted to the MPAA as research ("they felt they needed to see the process first hand if they were going to do a documentary about the process"), and the rep later clarified that the film is now being edited.

Over the weekend I talked to another film insider who disagreed, saying that the fine print behind Dick's NC-17 was less a "stunt" than just an example of what the film was up against as it prepared to seek distribution. Still conflicted, I realized I would just have to take this matter straight to the top.

"I just don't think it's right," said IFC executive vice president Evan Shapiro, "to call a serious documentary from a serious documentarian on the Independent Film Channel a stunt. It needs to be called on face value what it is. It's a film which, by the way, got into Sundance. We are doing what companies do when they get into Sundance. We are getting a little press attention, and we thought that the NC-17 would be of a little interest to people."

Well, I am writing this almost a week later, so mission accomplished, I guess. Nevertheless, nobody called the film a stunt--although now that I think about it, that is not such an unfair conclusion to draw if we believe Dick submitted an unfinished film to the MPAA just to see what would happen. According to an MPAA spokeswoman, This Film is Not Yet Rated comprises sequences that other films had to cut to obtain R ratings. (The Reeler has been waiting since last Friday for a list of the offending scenes that the MPAA promised but never delivered.) At best, the press release calls attention to the "irony" that the ratings board gave the kiss of death to a film about itself. At worst, it misrepresents Dick's ratings board submission as some moment of truth from which IFC and its filmmaker emerged moral champions. I mean, what the did the filmmakers expect? Love it or hate it, what was the ratings board supposed to do?

I guess at the very, very best (for IFC, anyway), some impressionable distributor will pick up on the controversy and make IFC an offer. Shapiro says the network (which will air the film uncut, as per its tagline, next fall) has been in touch with a few buyers so far, not all of whom would even have to release This Film with a rating. "Ultimately, do you want to build anticipation for a film? Of course you do," Shapiro told me. "King Kong wanted to do that, The Aristocrats wanted to do that. Every film wants to do that. Are we only working on a film? No. You know there is a business to this as well."

Oh dear. Shapiro added: "The more buzz we get on the film the better off it will be. I think (Hernandez) has a fair assessment of our desire to get buzz for the film, but I also think he should take a little bit of faith that Kirby Dick is an Oscar nominee and he did get into Sundance. We are the Independent Film Channel. This isn't E, for Christ's sake. And just assume we're taking a serious look at a serious film. The release was kind of designed to keep the press informed about what was going on, and it worked."

Of course, you have to wait until Sundance to check out the finished product. Ah, marketers. You have got to love them.



Comments

wanting to promote a film that will screen at sundance makes total sense, and i look forward to seeing it. but, unless i am missing something, that doesn't justify submitting the film to the MPPA for review when: 1) it isnt finished yet, 2) it doesnt yet have a theatrical distribution deal.

what am i missing? evan? stu?


Perhaps the doc itself will explain if and why unfinished films seek an MPAA rating. But since it doesn't have a distributor, I guess we'll have to wait for the next IFC press release to answer that. To echo one colleague's question: if the doc is so good, why isn't IFC Films distributing it?


Well, if I was making a film about the mpaa and the ratings process - the ups an downs, the do's and don't, what sneaks by what doesn't and at what rating - what better material to include in that film than the ups and downs of my own film going through the process? It's strikes me as incredibly obvious that what was submitted was probably a very early rough cut and probably not even a real rough cut, but more an assemblage of scenes under the guise of qualifying as something that the MPAA would then screen for a rating thus giving birth to further material and self-referential material at that, which will end up in the film itself...I have no facts, just speculating on a hypothesis, but if it were my film, that is what I would have done...and not for the pre-sundance PR that results(although PR is nice, this type of it isn't going to make a hoot of difference in whether this film secures distribution or not) but more for the purposes of being a part of the very tradition I was making a film about.


Films are often submitted for rating before final edits to get an idea of where they stand and what kind of edits might be needed to get the rating that is desired. Theatrical distribution is in no way a criteria... it is my understanding that you could have your home movies rated if you so desired.



Trackbacks