Movies: This Film Is Not Yet Rated.

If you don’t know much about the MPAA Rating system, this might come as a surprise. I personally never gave it much thought. I remember the controversy over The Eyes Wide Shut and its NC-17 rating, but really, to me NC-17 meant the movie took risks and that’s always a good thing.

The father of the rating system (G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17) and the MPAA itself is Jack Valenti -- a former staff member in Lyndon B. Johnson’s White House, according to the New York Times. The ratings are supposed to be harmless, but in reality they determine where a movie can be advertised, which studios might be willing to carry it, and which theater chains would be willing (or unwilling!) to show it. The whole thing is terribly secretive. No one knows who the raters are.

The director of This Film Is Not Yet Rated hires private investigators, and what they find out is quite astonishing. Here are some facts:

1. The raters are supposed to represent average American viewers, especially those with young children. According to the MPAA, that’s what all the raters are themselves. However, the investigators discover that almost all of them are parents of grown-up children (20-22 years old), and one of the raters doesn’t have children at all.

2. Movies are slapped with NC-17 four times more often for sex than for violence. Gay sex is seen is more “dangerous” as straight sex. The scenes of women’s orgasm and/or masturbation are usually seen as unacceptable (no matter how discreet), while the similar scenes featuring men might be okay.

3. Independent movies get harsher treatment than those released by major studios. In the former case, the MPAA might not tell the director what cased a NC-17 rating, while in the latter case, they might be willing to provide some pointers (just so the director can make some edits to get a better rating).

4. Not only the raters are anonymous, but so are the members of the appeals committee. The director will be in the same room with them, but won’t be allowed to know their names. Present on the board are two members of the clergy (Catholic and Episcopal). According to some, they cast their vote; according to others, they don’t. In the course of the movie the identities of the appeals board is revealed. And what do you know? They are all big wigs at major studios and theater chains (a buyer for Regal Cinemas, a VP of sales for Sony Pictures, the CEO of Fox Searchlight).

The movie itself is quite funny—though the scenes with the private investigators eventually got too tedious. At one point, the director (Kirby Dick) submits the movie itself to the MPAA. He gets NC-17, and the conversations that result from that are just great.

Someone in the movie commented that the problem with the MPAA’s rating is that it’s the only game in town. I kept thinking that the one way to fight it is to create an alternative system (if ratings are indeed so important to parents). I mean, Hollywood has tons of money, and I doubt any director or actor there is a big fan of the MPAA’s ratings. Why not create an alternative? Assemble a group of reviewers. Announce their names. Use some prominent figures as well as regular Americans. Make it diverse. Use Internet.

Or am I being too idealistic here?