Filmmaker Magazine - Chain Camera Pictures

HOME
IN PRINT
FALL 2009
TIFF 2009
SXSW 2009
SUNDANCE 2009
THE BLOG
WEB EXCLUSIVES
DIRECTOR INTERVIEWS
FESTIVAL COVERAGE
FILMMAKER VIDEOS
LOAD & PLAY
THE FORUMS
ARCHIVE '92 - '09
SEARCH FILMMAKER
Search
Subscribe to our Weekly
Newsletter!
subscribe
Click here to see the most
recent.
1
ON SITE
FORUMS
SUBSCRIBE
ADVERTISE
CONTACT US
NEWSSTANDS
FEATURE
WATCHING THE DETECTIVES
contents
Fearless filmmaker Kirby Dick turns the tables on independent film’s
favorite whipping boy — the MPAA.
BY ANTHONY KAUFMAN
Kirby Dick loves a challenge.
Whether devising ways for
viewers to empathize with a
man who impales his own
penis, crafting a movie from
raw footage made by 16 high
school students or making
“deconstruction” an accessible
documentary subject, Dick is
not afraid of obstacles. But the
subjects of such award-winning
films as Sick: The Life & Death
of Bob Flanagan,
Supermasochist, Chain
Camera, Derrida and Twist of
Faith can’t rival his latest
adversary: the Motion Picture
Association of America.
Okay, maybe the Catholic
Church, whom Dick tangled
with in Twist of Faith, a story
about the victims of pedophile
priests, is a bit more daunting
than the MPAA. Still, in his
THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED DIRECTOR KIRBY DICK. PHOTO:
HENNY GARFUNKEL/RETNA LTD. latest film, This Film Is Not Yet
Rated, Dick goes after perhaps
the most secretive organization in the film world, the MPAA’s ratings board.
Between interviews with various independent filmmakers who’ve faced the MPAA
(John Waters, Kimberly Peirce, Matt Stone, Atom Egoyan, Wayne Kramer and
Jamie Babbit, to name a few), Dick hires a private investigator and tries to uncover
the true identities of the “everyday citizens” who sit on the ratings board and tell
HOW THEY
PRODUCTIO
CAMERA: S
TAPE STOC
PHDVM-63D
EDITING SY
Pro for offlin
COLOR COR
Plus at Filml
GO BACK
A CLOCKWO
Kubrick’s 19
masterpiece
X-rating from
seconds wer
an R-rated fi
ROGER & M
documentary
of the auto i
http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/summer2006/features/wat...
filmmakers they need to reedit their films while doling out those PG-13’s, R’s and
occasional NC-17’s.
This Film Is Not Yet Rated vividly exposes the Hollywood favoritism, hypocrisies,
sexism and homophobia of the organization as well as the Byzantine, Kafkaesque
rules its ratings board follows. (If a director tries to appeal a rating, for example,
she’s not allowed to invoke the basic legal principle of precedent by comparing her
movie to other films.) The documentary is also, in Dick’s words, his first “comedy.”
pinning the i
CEO Roger S
SICK: THE
BOB FLANA
SUPERMAS
1997 profile
performance
range in em
In the aftermath of his film, Dick is holding discussions with film industry insiders
about a campaign to change the MPAA ratings system so that “it is less biased
against independent and foreign filmmakers and more accountable to the public,”
he says. On the phone from his Los Angeles office, Kirby Dick recently spoke with
Filmmaker about fighting the MPAA, censorship, fair use and the dangers of media
consolidation.
LINDSEY HOWELL AND BECKY ALTRINGER IN THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED.
Was there a tipping point for you in terms of the ratings board, where
basically you thought enough is enough? No, it’s something that I’ve been
interested in for many years. A number of my films have focused on sex and
sexuality, so consequently I have closely followed censorship of these issues
around the world. And of course, some of the most prominent censorship is from
the MPAA ratings board. I’ve followed it closely, and I just felt like it was time to
make a film on this subject.
Was it hard to find backers for the project? I went to a couple of funding
sources who really liked the project but felt they couldn’t do it because they were
too closely associated with the MPAA. Then I went to IFC, and because IFC is not
owned by an MPAA signatory they were willing to dive in. They’ve been completely
supportive the whole way. As we got further into the film and it broadened into
issues of intellectual property and corporate control, I wasn’t certain how they
would respond to that, but they were supportive. What’s interesting is that there
was really only one company in the U.S. that would fully fund a documentary like
this. And this relates to the topic of our film, because if an MPAA signatory had
owned that company this film would never have been made and this critique would
never have been out there. That’s one of the serious consequences of media
consolidation.
2
http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/summer2006/features/wat...
Did you discuss with IFC the possibility of some sort of MPAA backlash,
now or in the future for their films? I didn’t have those discussions with them;
I certainly wondered about it. But I think there is a clever construction of the film:
since it is about the MPAA, I think it’s very unlikely that they would come after me
or IFC because they’re already portrayed negatively in the film and they would be
portrayed in the press even more negatively. The amount of publicity around the
film would double. The MPAA is very savvy in the way that it’s dealt with its public
relations. So I really didn’t think we would get sued as long as we did everything
legally, which we did. We were very careful. We checked with our attorney every
step of the way. And he vetted the film before it went out.
They might hold a grudge, no? If I submit a film for a rating, I’m certain some
of them might harbor those feelings towards me. But on the other hand, I think,
myself, and all the filmmakers who appear in the film, we’re inoculated in a way,
because the press will pay attention, particularly, if my film goes in front of the
rating board. The last thing that the MPAA wants to do is bring attention to the
process. It wants to operate under the radar as much as possible. I don’t think
they’d cut me any breaks, but I don’t think they’d be exceedingly harsh on my
films.
As a practical matter, how do you have the legal right to show the ratings
board members without clearances? We worked closely with Michael
Donaldson, our lawyer. As I understand it, we only filmed the raters in public,
which is legal, because in public one doesn’t have a reasonable expectation of
privacy. Furthermore, because what they’re doing is a topic of public interest and
public importance, the raters have even less of a reasonable expectation of privacy
than average citizens.
What did you find the most shocking about your investigation? I was very
surprised at how difficult it was to get independent filmmakers whose films had
been censored by the MPAA and who had spoken out about it to actually appear in
the film. Some people said yes right away, but a number of people were concerned
that there might be repercussions. I was very surprised by the amount of paranoia,
especially among the independent filmmakers. Within the studios, the paranoia
was 100 percent. No one in the studio system would speak to us on the record.
Never. These are people we had personal connections to; they would say yes and
reconsider; they were very supportive and give us information, but they wouldn’t
speak on the record.
The other surprise, for me, was the appeals board themselves. Going into this, I
thought even if the ratings board was controlled by a few people, and comprised of
parents who didn’t have expertise, I would assume the appeals board would rise
above that. I was surprised at how Kafkaesque it was. Learning about it and going
through it, I did not expect that they would actually shut me up.
3
http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/summer2006/features/wat...
ATOM EGOYAN AND KIRBY DICK IN THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED. PHOTO: SHANA HAGAN.
There seems to be some confusion in the film about whether the two
representatives from the Catholic and Episcopalian Church actually have a
vote on the appeals board. Do they actually vote? I don’t think so. One of the
people we interviewed anonymously claimed that they did; other people say they
don’t. I think it’s implied that they don’t in the film. But first of all, I could never
establish it because they won’t really tell you. Secondly, just the fact that there is
confusion about the information, I wanted to leave it out there because that’s the
kind of lack of information that exists around this whole process.
For me one of the shocking things in the film is the idea that female
pleasure is completely taboo. That seemed to be the strongest argument,
with that masturbation split screen between American Beauty and But I’m
a Cheerleader. It’s very telling. It is, and so is the homophobia that’s built into
the system.
But that didn’t surprise me as much. It surprises me because Hollywood is a
fairly liberal environment. Politically it’s still such a hot-button subject. But one of
the things that their spokesperson, Kori Bernards, said, is, “We don’t set the
standards; we reflect them.” I find that horrifying. What if the standards are racist?
Or anti-Semitic? Should we go ahead and reflect those? So to be complicit in that
and acknowledge that complicity, I found shocking.
You’ve taken on Bob Flanagan, Jacques Derrida and more challenging
subject matter from an emotional standpoint, like Twist of Faith. How was
this film similar or different? One of the threads in my films is the way they’re
formally constructed. I look for subject matter or a method of production that is
almost difficult or impossible to accomplish because that stimulates me to attack [a
subject] from a number of different angles. I find that creatively interesting. For
this film there was this Escher-like referential quality of making a film and then
submitting it to the ratings board to rate it. That fascinated me. The other thing in
terms of production is that it’s particularly hard to make a film about a subject who
doesn’t know the film is getting made, and particularly hard to then submit that
film to the subject in the middle of the film to act on it. Tactically, there was a real
4
http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/summer2006/features/wat...
challenge in making this film. Obviously, all the issues of censorship and creativity
are very theoretical, and I was really pleased with the way the directors in the film
address those issues.
What do you mean when you talk about methods of production that are
near impossible? For example, with Sick, here’s a film about a man who nails his
penis to a board. From the very beginning, I knew I wanted that clip, so how does
one make a film where when it’s done the audience understands why that’s in
there and understands why it should be in there and even identifies with this
person? It was such a challenge to do that. In some ways [the film was] built
around that grain of sand. With Derrida, in a similar way, here’s someone whose
work is completely complex on the printed page and who is much more difficult to
present in an audiovisual context. Chain Camera is another example. So I think my
work has a combination of formalism and humanism. That’s just who I am. No
matter how different or extreme the subject I’m making a film about, I really focus
on the audience coming to a point of empathy with the subject.
So what exactly did you submit to the MPAA? We submitted the rough cut up
to the point in the film where we show the submission process. It’s not too much
different than that. When you sign the paperwork, you agree that if they rate the
film, you agree not to make any changes afterwards. After Sundance, [MPAA rating
chair] Joan Graves called to tell me that since I changed the film, I could no longer
use the NC-17 rating. We toyed with going through several resubmission
processes, but we felt like we had accomplished what we needed to do with the
film. They invited us to resubmit, and at one point I wondered, How masochistic
can they be?
I read somewhere that you charged the MPAA with committing piracy?
That was one of the pleasures I had in making this film. A few days before I was
going to submit my film for a rating, I asked them, “Are you going to make copies
of the film?” They said, “Absolutely not. We don’t make copies of the film. Only the
raters will see it. You can be certain that your film will be in safe hands.” Then I
asked the MPAA lawyer, “Have you seen the film?” And he paused and said yes. I
already knew they were breaking their word, and then I asked Joan Graves if
[MPAA president] Dan Glickman had seen the film. And she said yes. So I think the
MPAA was very concerned that if this went to the legal stage and there was
discovery, this series of lies would reflect very badly on them. The attorney said to
me, “I’m calling you to tell you that we have made a copy of your film and that it’s
safe in my vault.” But the MPAA says that even one unauthorized copy of a
copyrighted work is illegal. They had some tenuous legal argument as to why they
could do it, but they did what they decry everyone else doing.
Any other fallout from the film? One thing about this film that is very
interesting is that we went fair use with all the film clips. For so many years the
area of fair use has been more and more constricted, because E&O insurers and
funding sources have more and more demanded that filmmakers get releases,
even in situations when they have the right to fair use. Michael Donaldson, who
has actually written a book on copyright law, IFC and ourselves — we all decided
that we’d take a very aggressive stance on this. The fair use law is straightforward,
and we were well within our rights to go fair use. I know many filmmakers who
have said to me they are reconsidering going fair use themselves, so I think films
are pushing back the boundaries of fair use back to where they should be.
5
http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/summer2006/features/wat...
The bigger picture here revolves around issues of media consolidation, copyright
law and technology control. Because there hasn’t been a strong critique of the
negative side of the film industry and the Hollywood studios, because they have
been a Teflon industry that appears not to pollute and has always championed its
exports, one of the things I wanted to do with this film is dent that.
blog | back issues | buy print subscription | buy digital subscription | subscription FAQ | advertise | contact
© 2009 Filmmaker Magazine
6
http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/summer2006/features/wat...