2 gibbles out of 5

Director: Kirby Dick

When I first saw “This Film…,” I loved it.  I thought it made a valid point and pointed out incisive truths about the film industry.  When I watched it again, I didn’t love it so much.  Those two positives still exist, but once you know what’s coming you can focus on the execution, which is bias and almost ignorantly idiotic.

Kirby Dick has a few pretty well received documentaries under his belt, prior to and after this film.  Not criticizing the actual presentation of events – the film was cheaply made, and it’s a documentary, so we can excuse the Powerpoint-ish presentation slides telling us information, but when Kirby Dick set out to expose the dollars and politics that fuel our “fair” movie rating system, he seemed to be relying on the public’s general dislike of money makers as opposed to giving us thoughtful research.  You wind up with bullet points and an argument that sounds like it was cribbed from the school of “I forget how the real world operates.”

Understand, again, that I agree with the general aim of the movie – the MPAA unfairly blocks some films (essentially, by not rating them) that don’t have the money to get onto the screen, and judges films based on steep Christian values that don’t really apply in the “fair” way the company supposedly intends.  But when Kirby has an ex-rater read off a non-disclosure statement he was required to sign upon hire as proof that the industry is shady… well, don’t we all have to sign those at our jobs?… it reeks of stretching the material out to fill a 90-minute film.

The “narration” is sort of meta.  In making a film about the MPAA, one of the few organizations of its standing of which the members are kept secret, Kirby hires a couple private investigators to track down identities while he cobbles together footage from unrated films and their director’s experiences in receiving those un-ratings for the documentary which he then plans to offer to the MPAA for a rating.  (Which he’s not given, natch.)

The private investigators and generally structure of the movie have a folksy, homegrown feel that makes it easy to watch and adds to the underdog juxtaposition of viewer vs. the film industry.  The director interviews are mostly interesting, but share in the same faltering evidence as the majority of the film.  While some of the experiences are absolutely ridiculous and prove the outdatedness of the rating standards – any gay sex is ostracized, any female pleasure is forbidden – some of it falls into grey territory, with arguments about the meaning of a scene implying that showing something is justified as long as its for a defined and worthwhile purpose in the director or actor’s eyes.  Isn’t that the type of unproveable moral ground that you’re arguing against?  Who’s to say what’s worthwhile or not?  If not the MPAA, then not you either.

But even my argument shows the failure of the film.  Kirby’s not suggesting abolishing the ratings, but if something is to be determined by a democratic vote and instead is seemingly already decided by the rating board head rater or the movie’s bankrollers, then probably the system should be overhauled.  Agreed.  Kirby must have the smarts to say this, what with his cool soulpatch, but you couldn’t tell by listening to his stuttering and point-wavering on screen.  A phone conversation (some re-recorded, some actually presented) with the MPAA chairman boils down to a petty debate on he said she said, and even in pursuing this point Kirby comes across as sort of incompetent.  Sorry guy.

Lastly – and this is outside the scope of this film – it’s hard to watch this with the same feelings I had even five or so years ago.  With the prevalence of streaming movies and downloads, content still needs to be supervised for little Jonny 5-yr-old, but movies are in out and theaters and on DVD / streaming in a couple month, up online to be watched on your iPhone within minutes of release.  The one-time “it’s only playing at theater X and I’ll never see it” seems much more rare nowadays.  I’d be curious to have this topic revisited from a modern perspective.

Anyhow, another documentary with a good point but imbalanced by the teetering ground from which it espouses, as tangled in its pursuit of a conclusion as my word choices in this sentence.

This post hasn't been approved for anyone either. I'm confused as to how you're reading it.

buy me