Over the next couple of weeks, we at IDA will be introducing our community to the filmmakers whose work will be represented in the DocuWeek^TM Theatrical Documentary Showcase, August 18-24. We asked the filmmakers to share the stories behind their films--the inspirations, the challenges and obstacles, the goals and objectives, the reactions to their films so far.
So, to continue this series of conversations, here is Eddie Schmidt, producer of This Film Is Not Yet Rated (Kirby Dick is the director).
 
Synopsis: This Film Is Not Yet Rated is an unprecedented investigation into the secret MPAA film ratings system and its profound impact on American culture.

IDA: How did you get started in documentary filmmaking?

Eddie Schmidt: While I made my very first documentary as an undergrad at Vassar College (a vérité short about how a tray of food gets cleaned in the cafeteria--it went up this long chute into the ceiling, which was very Metropolis), the first "real" documentary I had the pleasure of working on was Kirby Dick's Sick. Like the documentaries that inspired me (Crumb and Roger & Me among them), Sick featured an iconoclastic hero and mixed humor with surprising emotion. My background in the industry up until that point had been in narrative; I'd done extensive post-production work and I'd also written and directed two shorts that had played in a lot of festivals. But I fell in love with Sick and became the post-production supervisor on the film when Lionsgate picked it up. So began my serious interest in documentaries as a doc-maker, as well as launching a long and fruitful collaboration with Kirby.

IDA: What inspired you to make This Film Is Not Yet Rated?
 
ES: I've been fascinated with issues of "corporate" censorship for many years, going back to the PMRC/Tipper Gore vs. Frank Zappa battles in the '80s. So the MPAA had always piqued my interest. When I began working at a mini-major studio in the early '90s, I would hear whispers about strange and not entirely consistent dealings with the ratings board, and that of course piqued my interest even further. Then, to follow the myriad of criticisms from filmmakers, academics and critics through the 1990s and into the next century but still see no changes in the ratings (amidst a culture and a media landscape that was changing in leaps and bounds), I knew that a film that dared to examine this archaic system had to be made. Once we started production, and I could feel first-hand the palpable fear industry professionals had about being a part of it...well, that only put more gasoline in the engine.
 
IDA: What were some of the challenges and obstacles in making this film, and how did you overcome them?
 
ES: We made a film about a system used by the general public, that has a tremendous influence on our culture. Yet, it is so shrouded in spin and secrecy, that there is no documentation available that will show you how it rates specific films or even how the process works, let alone know who's making the decisions and why. In short, it's so secretive we could only have hired a private investigator to unearth information about it. As a result, we were overcoming challenges and obstacles every single day we were making the film, and I consider it kind of a miracle that we were able to pull it together and have it reach the public. I have to hand it to IFC for backing us all the way.
 
IDA: How did your vision for the film change over the course of the pre-production, production and post-production processes?
 
ES: Kirby and I always envisioned that the private investigator would provide the arc the film needed to sustain our quest, and we always knew that we would submit the film itself for a rating in the third act. What changed, of course, is what happened when the PI went out in the field, and when we went down the rabbit hole by submitting the film--and, of course, the nuts and bolts of how to cinematically render the hidden rules of what you are and are not allowed to see. Post-production gave us a lot of options in terms of illustrating points with montage. So while we had our essential structure in mind, the point-by-point movement of the film had to evolve, and re-evolve, many times.
 
IDA: As you've screened This Film Is Not Yet Rated --whether on the festival circuit, or in screening rooms, or in living rooms--how have audiences reacted to the film? What has been most surprising or unexpected about their reactions?
 
ES: The responses have been truly phenomenal; amazingly, we've had a couple of standing ovations at some festivals. But I'm most excited when people ask, "What can we do about this?" or say, "This makes me angry about something I never thought about before." Then I know that we've given them the tools to ask questions of a system that was brilliantly put in place so as not to allow for questioning. So our petition to change the system on www.ifc.com is, hopefully, a nice place for people to go after they've seen the film. Ironically, though, the movie will probably have to become a financial success for Hollywood to listen and make some changes. As the great Bobbi Flekman says in This Is Spinal Tap, "Money talks and bullshit walks." 
 
IDA: What docs or docmakers have served as inspirations for you?
 
ES: Recently, I've really liked Marshall Curry's Street Fight, Josh Rubin and Jeremy Lubin's Derailroaded and Hannah Polak's Children of Leningradsky. And I am a continued fan of Michael Moore; I think he really gave the documentary form a good dose of Jolt Cola. I also admired Super Size Me.  It was one of those occasions where I kicked myself and thought, "Damn, why didn't I do that?" 

To view the entire Docuweek program, visit http://documentary.org/programs/index_06.php.
To download and view the Docuweek schedule, visit http://documentary.org/src/DW/DocuWeek_Schedule.pdf.
To purchase tickets to Docuweek, visit www.ArcLightcinemas.com.