Salt of the earth/ this film is not yet rated

Salt of the Earth: This film was interesting to me, after reading all that stuff about it, because to me the issue of women's rights completely outweighed the theme of overall equality. Maybe the fact that I am a woman makes me notice that issue more, I'm not sure, but for the most part I was completely frustrated about the hypocritical way that men handled women in that movie. It was really annoying to watch all these men complain about their work conditions, and then not listen to the women or allow them to help. The women had to practically wrestle the men into letting them save their necks, and the whole time there is the men doing the chores and suddenly having the same viewpoints as women. I really didn't like that whole aspect of it, which I guess is why the women's rights issue definitely was what I noticed the most. I thought it was amazing that most of the people in the movie weren't actors. They did such a great job! I remember thinking the whole time the movie was playing how depressing it was that the actress Rosaura Revueltas got deported after the film was over, because she was a talented actress.


This Film Is Not Yet Rated Summary: The first couple of articles talks about how Kirby Dick's film was rated NC-17 by the MPAA and how he included this into the final version of his film, which is, as the title says, not officially rated. The MPAA didn't like that Dick and his crew tried to use investigators to figure out who was on the ratings and appeals board. Basically Dick shows us that a majority of the people on the board have no more right to judge the content of movies than a random person on the street. Also his film shows that the board treats homosexual films way more harshly than heterosexual films. He uncovers the fact that there is strong motion picture studio executive and religious influence on the way films are rated.
The article Whimpers and Whines shows the other side of the argument, saying that everyone involved in This Film Is Not Yet Rated claims that any rating they give the film is "censorship." It argues that there must be a bureaucratic system of protection in the film industry. It says that Dick has no right to try and find out information about the people on the ratings and appeals board. Also, this article argues that Valenti's rating system actually was put into place originally to prevent the government from interfering in the filmmaking industry, allowing filmmakers to express their own political viewpoints. He argues that films with NC-17 ratings don't even really suffer any loss of viewing or money because media still promotes them, especially alternative press which is the most common way of promoting indie films in the first place.
The article HUAC is about how films were constantly being black listed in the 50s in the time of McCarthyism and the Cold War. The government was afraid that filmmakers would insert communist propaganda into their films. Filmmakers started to shy away from social issues in their movies altogether. Banks were only really getting involved with movies that had conservative and safe topics. Eventually filmmakers were just releasing their movies without bothering to get ratings, knowing that the board would find the content to be inappropriate, so the MPAA was made to rate movies that were going to have these "explicit" things in them anyway.
The article MPAA Ratings, Black Holes, and my film: This article tackles a lot of different issues involved with the MPAA rating systems. It talks about how filmmakers are tired of having to defend films for their content, when they are made specifically for an adult audience. Also how the the ratings are much harsher on homosexual relations, and how sexuality in films is always given harsher ratings than violence in films. One can't help but wonder how the restrictions on these specific themes in movies will have an effect on our culture. People are made to feel that homosexuality, women's sexuality and sexuality in general is something to be embarrassed or ashamed of. This article raises the question, is it more important to point out how many times someone says a bad word, or takes off their clothes than to actually listen to the moral and intellectual ideals represented in the film?

Questions: What would be a better way of rating films? Is there a better way? Who is qualified to rate a film? Why is it that sexuality is such a bigger issue in films here than in Europe? Will people ever get over homosexual issues in films?? Why are people so O.K. with watching violent films, but squirm and say 'ew' when two girls kiss? Is this whole issue getting better or worse?

Class discussion ideas/ analysis: Is this issue getting better or worse? It seems to be a bigger and bigger thing that people complain about, how things are getting more and more censored, but is that really true? I mean, to me it seems like things are getting more and more perverse in today's society anyway. The first thing that comes to mind is reality T.V. I mean, there doesn't seem to be any limit of censorship on reality T.V. shows. The most that happens is that something gets blurred out or a curse word is bleeped out, but people of all ages watch things like Jersey Shore, where there is all sorts of "morally corrupt" things happening, but there doesn't seem to be a big stink about that. Also, I think it is pretty clear at this point that if you give a film a really bad rating, like NC-17 or X, it just makes people want to see it more. If anything it almost promotes the film more effectively than if it was just a rated R movie, just like it says in the Whimpers and Whines article. Another thing that these article brought up in my mind is who should be rating movies? I don't really have a clear answer. Dick argues that the member on the board deciding these ratings are people with no kids, or adult children, who don't have any sort of expertise in film or media... basically just average people! Is this a good thing? I can't decide! In some ways it's good to have a clear and unbiased view on films, but I don't think there's any way that a person wouldn't have some sort of biased against a film. For example, if it's a movie that is bashing the Catholic church, and one of the board members was a Catholic Priest. I feel like they would be inclined to judge that film more harshly than a non catholic.

New Terminology: Kafkaesque: A term used to describe something as in the style of Franz Kafka, the novelist. It describes something as being senseless, or disorienting due to its incomprehensible complexity, or an intentional distortion of reality by and unknown power force or bureaucrat.