411 Movies Interview: Eddie Schmidt of This Film is Not Yet Rated Posted by Tony Farinella on 02.01.2007
411's Tony Farinella sits down with the writer behind This Film is Not Yet Rated to discuss the MPAA, ratings, and a lot more!
Eddie Schmidt is the writer/producer of the controversial film This Film Is Not Yet Rated. The film takes a dubious look at the questionable tactics of the MPAA. I recently sat down with Eddie to discuss a number of topics regarding the MPAA and his film. I hope you enjoy my interview with Eddie and check this film out on DVD.
TONY: How did the inspiration for this film come about?
EDDIE: We (Eddie Schmidt and Kirby Dick) both had followed the criticism that had come from filmmakers and critics toward the ratings system for decades. It seemed like every few years there would be a film or a filmmaker or a trend in movies that would result in an outcry about how the system was run in secret. In the end, nothing was ever done. The MPAA would always deflect this criticism or ignore it. We became fascinated with this idea of a secret system that everybody uses, but nobody knows anything about. A few years ago, the two of us developed the treatment for a film that would examine that system. We wanted to really dive in and basically penetrate it so that people could understand how it worked.
TONY: We see a lot of filmmakers and actors in your film discussing the ratings system and their experiences with it. Did any actors or filmmakers not want to be on camera?
EDDIE: Oh, sure. (laughs) I don't really want to mention any names, to be honest. There were certain studio filmmakers along with production people that work with the studios that didn't want to talk to us. These are the people who are on the front-line dealing with the MPAA and were afraid for their jobs. I can understand that. I think it says a lot about the power of the MPAA. On the other side of the coin, there were Indy filmmakers who were not particularly excited to be in the film as well. Both of those factors sort of made Kirby and I want to press on further. It sort of spoke to the fact that this story needed to be told.
TONY: What kind of research did you do to help make the film?
EDDIE: Before we went into production, we had printed out pages and pages of articles from decades that covered famous ratings battles. We also had people look into the archives relating to the topic that exist within Los Angles. In our research, we discovered that during the Jack Valente era, he had no written documentation of the actual ratings on films. He didn't keep it. If you look at stuff that happened Pre-Valente, you can get a file and see how those films are rated. You can't do that with anything after he took over. That was very interesting and said a lot right there. We were very interested in being super thorough and checking into things as much as we could. We approached these interview subjects based on things that we had read. We wanted to get them to expand on it or to discuss certain things. Obviously, with the South Park film, there was a lot of press on that when it happened. We wanted to get an even bigger picture.
TONY: Out of all the stories told in your film, which one disturbed you the most in terms of censorship?
EDDIE: That's a good question. The story that Kimberly Pierce tells about Boys Don't Cry is very telling. There wasn't a problem with the violent aspect of the story, but the orgasm was too long. That's quite revealing. To me, A Dirty Shame is also very interesting. It's a comedy and it's not real sex taking place on screen. It's mostly sex humor. The fact that would get an NC-17 and there would be no way for John Waters to even work around it. They told him they stopped taking notes. That to me is very bizarre when you think of films like Hostel and Saw and those films get an R. It's pretty mind-blowing.
TONY: Have you heard from other filmmakers and actors since you film has come out?
EDDIE: Yes. A lot of the e-mails and comments that we get are from people that are outside of Hollywood. People who either love movies or parents who are thankful. They've always wondered about the system and been angry about it, but didn't realize what they weren't seeing on the screen and why. Michael Moore came to a screening that we had in New York and seemed to really love the film.
TONY: How come you think the MPPA does not come down on horror films and gore?
EDDIE: I really don't know. We show in the film that they are a lot harsher on sexual themes and matters. They seem to be more lax on violence. I guess with violence it's the idea that you can always cut back and trim certain things. If we are talking about sexual matters, it seems there is no way around it. It's not a matter of frames, it's a matter of concepts. Even so, it's upsetting that there are concepts and themes that we can't deal with in film. Yet, we can see axes go through people's eyeballs.
TONY: Do you think more filmmakers will just take the NC-17 rating and stick to their vision? Take for example, Where the Truth Lies.
EDDIE: I don't see it happening. John Waters has said in interviews that if the MPAA wants the NC-17 to become a valid rating, they need to lobby for that rating to be taken as valid. The difference between an NC-17 and an R can be million of dollars. You have theater chains that won't play NC-17 movies along with advertising restrictions and major video distributors that won't carry it. People are not really rushing to have an NC-17 rating. You mention Where the Truth Lies, I believe that film went out Unrated. They lost their appeal and had gotten an NC-17 on their initial submission. Because they were with a company that was not an MPAA signatory, they could askew the rating and go out Unrated. People are more willing to take that path, but you can only do that if you are not a signatory to the MPAA. Otherwise you have to wear the NC-17 or cut your film to get an R.
TONY: Have you had any lawsuits since your film has come out?
EDDIE: The investigative report was all done within California Law. We were very careful about that. We knew they were not going to consent to it. The service they perform is a public service and the public has a right to know who they are. During the investigative report, they were photographed in public.
TONY: My favorite film of all time is Midnight Cowboy, which received an X-Rating. If you watch the film now, it's barely a PG-13. How come you think they were so harsh on films back then?
EDDIE: I don't know if Midnight Cowboy is the best example. We showed Coming Home in our film, which came out in 1978. It features a long orgasm scene with Jon Voight and Jane Fonda. I think certain things that they would be restricted towards today, they were actually more lenient towards back then. I think that's sort of the maddening problem of not having standards that are clear. Filmmakers have no idea if they are crossing the line or not.
TONY: If you were a member of the MPAA, how would you change things?
EDDIE: I would make the whole thing transparent. I think that's the basis of the film. I think the public has a right to know who they are. It's something that's been supported by The New York Times and LA Times and in other papers. Keep the process open and let us know whose on the board and how the decisions are being made. In other Western European Countries, you do know whose on the board. It's not a secret. That's number one.
If they are going to do it in terms of age based ratings, they really should take into account expert opinions with regard to child psychology and media literacy. They have people who are untrained making these decisions. It just seems odd to me when there are fields of research out there that they can rely on. They don't have to have a panel of all experts, but it seems foolish to not include expert opinion. Third, I think the NC-17 is an ineffective rating. I think it becomes a de facto censorship with people trying to censor themselves or censor from the suggestions of the board to try and avoid that rating. It's not working. For me, I think the buck stops at R and that's enough. If they want to have a harder R rating to distinguish, that's fine. But I think this NC-17 is really hurting these independent and foreign filmmakers. It hurts the people who want to make adult movies for adult audiences. It's still perceived as an X and too extreme.
TONY: What's the difference between TV ratings and movie ratings? Is it the same people running it all?
EDDIE: It's different. I think the cable industry does it really well. If you watch HBO or Showtime, they have a little thing that says V for Violence or Adult Themes right on the top of the show. The show is not being cut down, and no one is suggesting anything being taken out of the show to get it to that point. They are just letting you know what's in it. At that point, if you don't want to see that or there is a kid in the room, turn the TV off. I think all we need is information with these ratings. Parents just need information about the content. To me, the cable industry has found a way to do it really well. I don't see why the MPAA can't be more like that.
TONY: Thanks for your time, Eddie. I wish you the best of luck with your film.
