|
Author:
Judith James
|
Judith is the editor-in-chief of TRACTION and a film, stage and television producer who is in a film partnership with Richard Dreyfuss at Dreyfuss/James Productions and a theater partnership with Camille Cosby.
|
Judith James is a film, stage and television producer who is in a film partnership with Richard Dreyfuss at Dreyfuss/James Productions.
Originally a New York theatrical producer of 11 award winning plays, her first television production was the Emmy winning "IN HER OWN WORDS" for KCET and American Playhouse and the Mark Taper Forum .
Her film credits include an executive producer of QUIZ SHOW, a producer of MR. HOLLAND?S OPUS, producer of TRIGGER HAPPY starring Dreyfuss, Jeff Goldblum, Gabriel Byrne and Ellen Barkin, and movies for HBO, TNT, ABC and CBS. In addition she has served as consulting producer on Mr. Dreyfuss? films.
In a theatrical partnership with Camille Cosby, Judith also produced the Broadway play of HAVING OUR SAY; The Delany Sisters? First 100 Years by Emily Mann, subsequent tours and the movie version, directed by Lynne Littman, for CBS, starring Ruby Dee and Diahann Carroll. HAVING OUR SAY received the coveted Peabody Award for Excellence in Broadcast Journalism.
In January 2006, she wrapped principal photography on the thriller, THE FOREST, which she produced in India in the foothills of the Himalayas. It is by writer/director Ashvin Kumar, an Academy Award nominee for a short film last year.
She is presently developing a Broadway musical on Pearl Bailey RAW PEARL with Bill and Camille Cosby and, with Viva Productions, readying the independent film, DAYS OF FEAR to star Woody Harrelson to shoot in South Africa.
In January 2005, Ms. James was instrumental in securing and constructing for WOMEN IN FILM an alliance with General Motors under which GM has supported a myriad of WIF programs and events for 3 years ending 2007.
She is the editor-in-chief of TRACTION.
|
REASONS TO SEE THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED
Without a doubt, this documentary proves that there is a "bizarre wall of secrecy", and a shameful one, surrounding the MPAA ratings system...with due emphasis on the word bizarre. Also without a doubt this documentary is intriguing from a woman's pov. For either reason, and just because its a very good documentary, you'll want to see it and ponder on it.
It's not easy to come up with examples of institutionalized "isms". Employees of an institution imposing an 'ism' either think the practice is correct, or don't think about it. Or think they alone are ordained to interpret what the world wants and when it wants it.
Can you imagine what the ratings board told themselves when imposing a rating based on the length of a woman's orgasm (as seen on her face.)? Did they say 'Women don't enjoy it that much.' Or 'Women shouldn't enjoy it that much'. Or 'Women should not be seen enjoying it that much'. Or 'Good people would want us to protect them from seeing an orgasm last that long.' Okay. That's recognizable puritanism. But if you minutely parse what is being revealed in This Film Is Not Yet Rated by director/writer Kirby Dick and producer/writer Eddie Schmidt, they are pointing out that there is a ratings hierarchy favoring straight male sex over women or gay sex. Seeing men doing whatever is not considered by the ratings board as risky, bad or what? immoral? as seeing women (or gay men or gay women) do it. That covert opinion seems to be determining whether a rating is an R or NC17. (For marketing and distribution reasons, you do NOT want an NC17 - see Kirby Dick's interview with Kimberly Pierce on the home page). And if you think about it, that rating determines whether a movie is seen broadly, and therefore whether women will ever be seen as they are, or that 'people' will ever accept women as they are (dramatic, but not really an overstatement.)
And irony on irony - there also seems to be a ratings hierarchy in reverse that is buried in the balance between the amount of sex in a movie versus the amount of violence. You can maim someone horribly and that's not the ratings problem created by "aberrant" sex in the same movie. You can rape or beat a woman and still get the better R (Apocalypto and 300) while The Cooler is rated an NC17 reportedly for a shot of pubic hair (and a little oral sex). Further confusing and seemingly without consistency, horrific violence against women doesn't automatically earn the picture the 'worst rating' although some combination of sex, drugs and violence does.
The point of the filmmakers of This Film Is Not Yet Rated is that there isn't any consistency in ratings, that women-sex things make the ratings board skittish, that no rules are written down anyplace and that opinions are substituted for criteria. (and the few reverses on appeal or through re-edits make it even more confusing, and seem to favor studio pictures.)
But there is no doubt that within the confusion, institutionalized, self-righteous, unexplored and undeclared opinions are visited on women via ratings.
Yes, we use a combination of critics' reviews, word of mouth and a rating to pick the movies we want to see or want our children to see. And yes, 'ratings' are very helpful for sorting through them. But if we continue to use the MPAA ratings we are further institutionalizing opinions and mandates that are very often not our own. You'll want to watch This Film Is Not Yet Rated and you'll want to consult http://www.Commonsensemedia.org/, and what their criteria is (it's written down and discussed), to choose your movies - it's a lot safer/satisfying for women to do that, than buy into the MPAA rating "system".
To purchase this documentary go to: http://store.ifc.com/product/show/5774
|