This Film Is Not Yet Rated

Kirby Dick embarks on this investigation because he is concerned about the immense power the MPAA ratings board holds over American cinema. As an Academy Award-nominated director, he has firsthand experience with the rating system and wants to uncover how anonymous reviewers determine which films reach audiences. His quest is driven by a desire to expose the lack of transparency and accountability in the rating process.

The film opens with Dick expressing concern about the MPAA's authority, establishing the investigative tone that drives the entire documentary.

Dick hires Becky Altringer to observe the MPAA headquarters and attempt to uncover the hidden secrets that govern film ratings in Hollywood. Her role involves surveillance and investigation into the inner workings of the rating board, though the documentary does not reveal all her specific methods. She serves as Dick's eyes inside the typically secretive organization.

The documentary receives an NC-17 rating for "some graphic sexual content" before its Sundance Film Festival debut. This rating significantly impacts the film's distribution potential, as many theaters and retailers refuse to show or sell NC-17 rated films. The irony of a documentary about the rating system itself receiving such a restrictive rating becomes a central element of the film's narrative.

The NC-17 rating controversy directly leads to the film's inclusion of its own appeal process within the documentary.

The documentary reveals that many members of the ratings board either have children aged 18 and over or do not have children at all, despite the MPAA claiming to hire parents with kids between ages 5 and 17. This contradicts the stated purpose of the rating system, which is supposed to help parents make informed decisions about their children's media consumption. Additionally, Dick uncovers that raters often lack training and expertise in media literacy and child development.

This revelation about rater backgrounds is one of the first major discoveries Dick makes during his investigation.

The documentary presents evidence that the MPAA imposes harsher scrutiny on homosexual content compared to heterosexual themes. This claim is supported by specific examples and commentary, including a statement from an MPAA spokesperson in USA Today asserting, "We don't create standards; we just follow them." The film suggests this inconsistency reveals underlying bias in how different types of sexual content are evaluated.

The documentary hints at broader issues of institutional bias that extend beyond just content ratings.

After receiving significant changes following the initial NC-17 rating, the film must undergo a resubmission process to obtain a new MPAA rating. This means the version shown at Sundance differs from what was originally rated, forcing Dick to navigate the rating system's bureaucratic requirements once again. The resubmission becomes part of the film's ongoing commentary on how the rating process affects artistic expression.

The need for resubmission stems from the changes made after the controversial NC-17 rating.

Dick uncovers that the MPAA's appeals board is largely composed of studio executives and movie theater chain executives, along with two clergymen, one Catholic and one Protestant. The lack of transparency surrounding their operations raises serious concerns about the influence of personal beliefs on film ratings. The composition means those with financial interests in the film industry are effectively judging the artistic merit and appropriate rating of movies.

The documentary reveals that key senior raters enjoy direct communication with studio personnel following film screenings in mandatory meetings. This close relationship raises questions about whether ratings decisions are influenced by studio preferences rather than objective standards. The connections between raters and the studios they are supposed to regulate create a potential conflict of interest.

Throughout the documentary, filmmakers including John Waters, Mary Harron, Darren Aronofsky, Kevin Smith, Matt Stone, and Atom Egoyan share their personal experiences with the MPAA. They describe the rating process as haphazard and excessively punitive, with inconsistent decisions that often seem arbitrary. These firsthand accounts from established filmmakers illustrate the real-world impact of the rating system on artistic expression and film distribution.

During the Sundance Film Festival presentation, the film interweaves the ongoing ratings deliberations and Dick's own appeal process into the narrative. This creates a meta-commentary on the nature of filmmaking and its reception by regulatory boards. By including his own struggle with the MPAA, Dick demonstrates in real-time the very issues the documentary critiques about the rating system.

The incorporation of the appeal process directly results from the film receiving an NC-17 rating.