Kirby Dick’s documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated is an investigation into the Motion Pictures Association of America and its movie rating system. Through Dick’s examination, it becomes clear that the MPAA has several biases concerning sexuality, violence, and film producers. Because of these biases and a lack of definite ratings standards, Dick argues that the MPAA is not the moral backbone of the film industry it claims to be; it is a “subtle form of brainwashing,” censorship, and propaganda that works in favor of media conglomerates. His argument is valuable - as a culture that values freedom above all else, why does America tolerate such a secretive, restrictive, and powerful organization?
Media conglomerates run the MPAA as a trade association to give unfair advantages to big corporations and to preserve its monopoly over the film industry. Dick’s research exposes the organization’s lobbying and rating movies in favor of the six leading Hollywood studios and the larger megacorporations under which they operate. He discovers a clear double standard between film ratings of larger studios and smaller companies. The MPAA is affiliated with, and ultimately answers to, companies that control 95% of the film industry and 90% of America’s media, so it favors …show more content…
Dick's criticism of the MPAA probes the question: would a government-run ratings system be better than a privately owned one? His answer is yes. Shrouded in secrecy, the MPAA is not what it claims to be - most members don’t have children 5-17 years old and have been on the board longer than 3-7 years; the chairman of the board can overrule the board’s collective decision. The appeals board also deprives defendants of several legal rights. If the government controlled the MPAA, at least its decisions would be more transparent and subject to judicial
Media conglomerates run the MPAA as a trade association to give unfair advantages to big corporations and to preserve its monopoly over the film industry. Dick’s research exposes the organization’s lobbying and rating movies in favor of the six leading Hollywood studios and the larger megacorporations under which they operate. He discovers a clear double standard between film ratings of larger studios and smaller companies. The MPAA is affiliated with, and ultimately answers to, companies that control 95% of the film industry and 90% of America’s media, so it favors …show more content…
Dick's criticism of the MPAA probes the question: would a government-run ratings system be better than a privately owned one? His answer is yes. Shrouded in secrecy, the MPAA is not what it claims to be - most members don’t have children 5-17 years old and have been on the board longer than 3-7 years; the chairman of the board can overrule the board’s collective decision. The appeals board also deprives defendants of several legal rights. If the government controlled the MPAA, at least its decisions would be more transparent and subject to judicial