The film discusses a number of alleged disparities in the ratings the MPAA gives films and the feedback it gives filmmakers based on whether the project is a studio or independent film, whether the questionable content is violent or sexual in nature, and whether sexual content is heterosexual or homosexual and it centers on male or female pleasure.
The film includes numerous clips from films rated NC-17 to illustrate content that had garnered the rating. Therefore, the MPAA rated an early version of the film NC-17 due to "some graphic sexual content". Dick appealed this rating so he could chronicle both the rating and appeals process of the early version of the film in the final version, which, true to the title, is not rated.
Themes and discussion
Much of the film's press coverage was devoted to Dick and his crew's use of private investigator Becky Altringer to unmask the identities of the ratings and appeals board members.
Other revelations in the film include:
That many ratings board members either have children 18 and older or have no children at all (typically, the MPAA has suggested it hires only parents with children between the ages of 5 and 17)
That the board seems to treat homosexual material much more harshly than heterosexual material (this assertion is supported by an MPAA spokesperson’s statement in USA Today that "We don't create standards; we just follow them")
That some sexual activities are frequently treated more harshly when it involves female orgasm or nontraditional sexual activities
That NC-17 ratings often significantly reduce a film's chances of success at the box office and overall commercial success, because many movie theaters will not show NC-17 films, and, if they do, it is for very limited time periods
That NC-17 ratings are also harmful to home media sales, as many brick and mortar retailers do not rent or sell NC-17 or unrated movies
That harsher film ratings are particularly detrimental to smaller and independent filmmakers, who often do not have the financial and professional support of major distribution companies
That the board's raters receive no training and are deliberately chosen because of their lack of expertise in media literacy or child development
That senior raters have direct contact in the form of mandatory meetings with studio personnel after movie screenings
That the MPAA's appeals board is just as secretive as the ratings board, its members being mostly movie theater chain and studio executives
That the appeals board includes two members of the clergy, one Catholic priest (Father Dave) and one Protestant (James Wall), who may or may not have voting power
The film sparked some interest in the press when the MPAA rated it NC-17 for "some graphic sexual content". Then, when it premiered at Sundance, it was discovered that the rating process for an early version of the film and Dick’s appeal of that rating were depicted in the finished film. As the additional footage changed the film significantly, the NC-17 could no longer be used for the finished film, which would need to be resubmitted to the MPAA to receive a rating of its own. It never was, however, so the film was released without a rating.
James Wall, Appeals Board Clergy Member since 1968
MPAA rating board
According to the investigation depicted in the film, the following people were, as of 2006, members of the MPAA rating board, also known as CARA (Classification and Rating Administration). (Included is the personal information the film revealed about them, such as their age, the age of their children, and how long they had been on the board. These details were significant in the context of the film's critique of the MPAA ratings process, as the MPAA had said (according to the film) that the review board was composed of average American parents, with children and teenagers between the ages of 5 and 17, who serve on the board for fewer than seven years.):
Head of the Board: Joan Graves (the only member of the board whose identity the MPAA had already made public)
Anthony "Tony" Hey – 61; age of children: 16, 28, 30
Barry Freeman – 45; elementary-school-aged children
Arlene Bates – 44; age of children: 15 and 23
Matt Ioakimedes – 46; age of children: 17 and 20 (had served as a rater for 9 years, as of 2005)
Joan Worden – 56; age of children: 18 (twins)
Scott Young – 51; age of children: 22 and 24 (next-door neighbor of Arlene Bates)
Joann Yatabe – 61; age of children: 22 and 25
Howard Friedkin – 47; no children? (aspiring screenwriter)
Corri Jones – age of children: 3 and 8
MPAA appeals board
According to the investigation depicted in the film, the following people were, as of 2006, members of the MPAA appeals board:
This Film Is Not Yet Rated incorporates clips from a number of films to illustrate its criticisms of the MPAA rating board. Dick had originally planned to license the clips from their owners, but discovered that studio licensing agreements would have prohibited him from using this material to criticize the entertainment industry. This prompted him, alongside prominent copyright attorney Michael C. Donaldson, to invoke the fair use doctrine, which permits limited use of copyrighted material to provide analysis and criticism of published works.[5][6] The film's success using this tactic spurred interest in fair use, especially among documentary filmmakers.[7]
MPAA infringements
Before Dick sent the film to the MPAA to receive a rating, he was assured that the tape he submitted would not be viewed for any purpose other than rating and that no copies would be made or distributed, but, on January 24, 2006, the MPAA admitted to making duplicates of the film contrary to Dick's wishes.[8] However, they contended that doing so did not constitute copyright infringement or a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and said the privacy of the raters themselves might have been violated by Dick in the course of making the film, but no complaint had been filed against him.[8] Dick's lawyer, Michael Donaldson, requested that the MPAA destroy all copies of the film in their possession and notify him of who had seen the film and received copies.[9]
The DVD release of the film contains deleted scenes that show phone calls where Dick was assured by representatives of the MPAA that no copy would be made, as well as the one during which he found out that a copy had indeed been created.
Reception
On review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 85% based on 117 reviews, and an average rating of 7.20; the critics consensus calls it: "A fascinating and entertaining film that will open many eyes to the often-questioned tactics of the MPAA and their ratings system."[10] On Metacritic the film has a score of 75 based on reviews from 33 critics.[11]
The film received a wave of favorable coverage by major publications. The magazines Rolling Stone ("terrific...indispensable"),[12]Entertainment Weekly ("irresistible"),[13] and USA Today ("rated R for raves"),[14] as well as critics such as Roger Ebert ("devastating")[15] and Slate's Dana Stevens ("matter-of-factly presented, and thoroughly entertaining")[16] praised the film for its novel techniques and unprecedented revelations that dispute longstanding MPAA statements about the ratings system.[17]
Some critics disliked the film. David Poland of Movie City News wrote: "Even though it speaks to a subject I think is very important—the failures of the rating system and, specifically the NC-17—the tough, smart research just isn't in the film."[18]
