The MPAA's Sole Named Member

DATE September 13, 2006 ACCOUNT NUMBER N/A
TIME 12:00 Noon-1:00 PM AUDIENCE N/A
NETWORK NPR
PROGRAM Fresh Air

Interview: Filmmaker Kirby Dick discusses the MPAA ratings system
TERRY GROSS, host:

This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross.

"This Film Is Not Yet Rated" is a new documentary about the secretive board
that gives movies their ratings--G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17. These ratings
were created in 1968 by Jack Valenti who was the president of the MPAA, the
Motion Picture Association of America. The goal was to help parents decide
what was appropriate for children. But to some filmmakers the ratings seem
like a form of censorship. They can determine who can see your movie and
which theaters will show it, and NC-17 means No Children Under 17 Admitted.
That rating, which replaced the X, can translate to commercial death.
Directors who get an NC-17 often try to change it to an R by re-editing the
offending scenes attempting to meet standards they find arbitrary and unclear.
The MPAA ratings board operates in secret and won't even reveal the members'
names. The director of the new documentary, Kirby Dick, challenges the system
by teaming up with a private investigator and trying to uncover who these
board members are. Dick says that some of the ways the board evaluates sex
scenes, like timing the length of an orgasm, is ridiculous. I asked him what
else he finds ridiculous.

Mr. KIRBY DICK: Well, they count the number of thrusts, and, as far as we
can tell, three is sometimes OK, four is usually crossing the line. That
would be one of them. They certainly count the use of language, which, in
some cases I think is appropriate, but again, I think their rating system is
really very much excessively focused on things like language and sex and not
strongly focused enough on things like violence. In Europe it's the opposite.
Violence is of much more concern to the rating systems there than is
sexuality.

GROSS: One of the things you do in the movie is compare different scenes that
are similar but got different ratings. So let me ask you to do that with two
movies that you juxtaposed, "American Beauty" and "I'm a Cheerleader."

Mr. DICK: Well, what we did is we put--we went to the sex scenes in
"American Beauty" and in "But I'm a Cheerleader," which is a film made by
Jamie Babbit. It's about two girls who actually go to a sexual reorientation
camp. And it's a comedy so they naturally fall in love, and so we took a shot
from a sex scene of "But I'm a Cheerleader" and compared it to a shot of
"American Beauty." Nearly the identical frame and the identical shots. "But
I'm a Cheerleader" received an NC-17 rating and "American Beauty" received an
R rating and this is part of kind of a wider argument which is--and that
people have known this for a long time--is that films with gay sex and in gay
sexual content get more restrictive ratings than films with straight sex and
straight sexual content, and I was appalled by this.

GROSS: One of the films that you talk about in your movie is "Team America,"
which was made by the guys who do "South Park," and it's a film without
actors. All of the performers in it are mannequins. Like...

Mr. DICK: Like dolls.

GROSS: They're all dolls. And so there's this actually very funny sex scene
in which the dolls are engaging in every conceivable and inconceivable
position. What did the filmmakers tell you about how that scene was dealt
with in the ratings board. I mean, because these aren't actors, these are
just dolls.

Mr. DICK: Right. Well, we interviewed Matt Stone for our film, and he'd
already had an experience with the ratings board when he submitted "Orgasmo,"
and, which again, it's a funny, you know, kind of playful film about sex and
really didn't deserve an NC-17 rating. But when he submitted that film to get
a rating, he was told--he was not given any specifics of what he should cut to
get the R rating so--and when he went ahead and submitted "South Park," this
time being made for a studio, he got a response that each--you know, he got a
line-by-line response of what he needed to cut in order to achieve an R
rating. He then went on--so he's already had this experience with the ratings
board. He then went on to make "Team America," and he knew that he'd sort of,
you know, might be pushing the envelope here a little bit and, you know, had
spoken out very strongly against the ratings board, so what he did for this
particular sex scene is he shot--he set like three or four--he made--he cut
together a three to four minute sex scene with the most outrageous sex acts
you really can imagine and put them all in there for the ratings board to view
with the idea that the ratings board would cut back some, but he'd be able to
leave in what he wanted in. And this is a technique, by the way, that many
filmmakers use. And I don't--you know, I think that's, in some ways, very
unfortunate that a filmmaker who's making, in some cases, you know, a piece of
art, has to resort to playing these games with the ratings system in order to
complete his art in the way that he wants to.

GROSS: Why do you think that the rating system is harder for independent
filmmakers than it is for studios?

Mr. DICK: Well, I think it's because the MPAA rating system--the Motion
Picture Association of America--is the trade organization and lobbying arm for
the six major film studios, which together control 95 percent of the film
business. The MPAA oversees the ratings board so they're much--so the studios
are much more familiar with the process. In fact, heads of production and
post production supervisors often have contact, often weekly contact, with
people on the ratings board and are able, over many years, to develop
relationships with them and are able to learn ways to get their films through
the ratings process and, in some cases, you know, we interviewed an ex-rater,
and he said that they're even able to influence the votes of the raters. Now,
independent filmmakers have no idea that that kind of access even exists for
studio filmmakers, and so they're completely--they come into the situation
completely naive and cold and--without any intermediaries to deal with this
system.

GROSS: The names of people who are actually on the ratings board are kept
anonymous, so even if you're submitting a film, you don't know who the people
are by name who are deciding. You hired a private investigator to actually
find out who the people are on the ratings board. Why did you do that? And
you film the private investigator tracking them and everything. I mean it's a
very dramatic thing to do for a movie, but it also--you could argue it's also
unfair to the people whose lives you're investigating. So, you know, it's a
big step to take. Why did you hire a private investigator?

Mr. DICK: Well, these people--these raters are doing something that's in the
public interest. In fact, the MPAA says that the rating system is for the
public. Well, if it's for the public, it should be public, and these names
never should have been kept secret. In Western Europe, all the raters' names
are known and the system works just fine. This is an attempt by the M--it's
part of this incredible secrecy that they maintain which is--allows the MPAA
to keep control of the ratings system and limit criticism of it because people
don't know how it operates. So I thought that the MPAA has no right to keep
these people secret, and they really don't. They have no legal right to keep
these people secret so--and since they weren't going to give me that
information, I, as a filmmaker and as kind of--you know, as any investigative
filmmaker would, I took it onto myself to find out those names. And the best
way, of course, is to hire a private investigator. Everything I did with a
private investigator was entirely legal. I worked with an attorney. It had
to be legal because I was shooting it all. It was all going to be up on the
screen as evidence, and you know, I could only do something that was legal.

GROSS: OK. So now you know the names of the people. How does that help you,
or how does that help the public in your opinion?

Mr. DICK: Well, that was sort of a gesture, a gesture of opening up the
system. I mean, it was something that was important to the dramatic art of
the film. I mean, you know, I am making a film. It's a very entertaining
film. It's a very exciting film. At the same time, it's a very strong
critique of censorship and media consolidation and the power of Hollywood,
really.

GROSS: Yeah, but you said it's important to know who the people are; they're
not anonymous in other countries. So now that you know who they are, what
difference does it make?

Mr. DICK: Well, one of the things we found out was that, up until very
recently, the MPAA had claimed that all the people on the board were parents
with children ages five to seventeen. What we found out is nearly half of
those people on the board did not have children ages five to seventeen but, in
fact, only had children in their 20s and 30s. And there's one person who we
were not able to ascertain 100 percent even had children. Again, I mean,
without this process being opened up, we just have to take the MPAA at its
word, and there's no reason we should. I mean, this is--the MPAA is a trade
organization for corporations whose interest is the bottom line, so they're
going to use anything at their disposal to make a profit. So we shouldn't
take corporations at their word. That's--we do that at our peril.

GROSS: When you say it represents the industry, it's the Motion Picture
Association of America. Who officially does it represent?

Mr. DICK: Well, it represents the six major film studios, and--which again
control nearly 95 percent of the film business. It does not represent
independent distributors or independent production companies or, you know,
foreign production companies.

GROSS: The MPAA says the main function of the rating system is to inform
parents about the, you know, what's in a movie and whether it's acceptable for
their children. So what do you make of that argument?

Mr. DICK: Well, I think they're doing a very poor job of that. I think
that's very important, and I think that's a very important job of any ratings
board. But what they do--for example, up until very recently, the only way
they would inform parents as to what was in a movie was just by a single
letter rating, which doesn't tell you much about a film. And after much
pressure, particularly from parents' groups and critics, they were compelled
to actually add what is called a short descriptor, which has a short
description of what's in a film. These--now these descriptions are very
unprofessionally developed. In fact, the whole--I would say that the ratings
board itself may be the most unprofessional board operating in this country
today. It has no professionally developed standards. It has essentially no
written standards. The raters receive no training. They are hired one day
and put in the ratings room the next and begin rating films, and there are no
experts associated with the process. There are no media experts or child
psychologists on the board. In fact, Jack Valenti has deliberately excluded
them. Jack Valenti--during the time that--well, for the nearly 35 years,
deliberately excluded them from being a part of the ratings process.

GROSS: My guest is Kirby Dick, director of the new documentary "This Film Is
Not Yet Rated." We'll talk more after a break. This is FRESH AIR.

(Announcements)

GROSS: My guest is Kirby Dick, director of the new documentary "This Film Is
Not Yet Rated." It's about the MPAA ratings board which assigns films their
ratings from G to NC-17.

Well, since your film is about the movie ratings process and the people who
actually do those ratings, I'd like you to walk us through the process of
submitting a film for rating, and why don't we look at your film, "This Film
Is Not Yet Rated," which finally you decided to put out unrated. But you did
submit it for a rating before it was actually completed. So tell us what the
process was like. You know, walk us through that process.

Mr. DICK: Exactly. Well, about three-quarters of the way through making the
film, I took the footage, which was really the interviews with, you know, many
directors--John Waters, Kevin Smith, Matt Stone, Kimberly Pierce--excerpts
from the films that had given those films initially NC-17 ratings, as well as
the element where I followed the PI getting the raters' names, that was all
put together into a very tight rough cut and submitted to the ratings board to
get a rating. Now, the reason I did this was--there's a certain pleasure
certainly I got in--out of this and there's a certain irony to it, but the
real reason I did it was I--the MPAA is so secretive about its process, it was
the only thing that I could do, the only way that I could find out what
happened to a film when it went through the ratings process. Well, I
submitted my film, and I did get an NC-17 rating. Now, to be fair to the
ratings board, that actually was consistent with the way they had given other
films with sexual content an NC-17 rating, because I included in my film
excerpts from other films that had given those films the NC-17 rating.

GROSS: Right, so that made sense. But what's the process like? Well, like,
you give them the film, and then what--do you get a written report? Do they
call you on the phone? Do they invite you in and talk with you? How does it
work?

Mr. DICK: Well, you submit the film and then you get a callback. In this
case I got a callback from Joan Graves. Nothing though is written. In
fact...

GROSS: She's the chairman of the ratings board.

Mr. DICK: She is the chairman of the ratings board, and nothing substantial
is done in writing. The only thing that was done by e-mail was scheduling.
Nothing else. So there was no written list at all. I mean, no acknowledgment
really. I mean, there was an acknowledgement that it had come in, but no
overall sort of analysis of how the raters responded to the film, what the
vote was, what the particular issues were. Nothing like that was done in
writing. It was all done verbally. Again, this was done so there's no
record, so that a filmmaker cannot launch a critique of the ratings board
vis-a-vis, you know, in comparison to another filmmaker who might have gotten
a less restrictive rating. So it was actually over several days, and, again,
this is documented in my film. I had a conversation on three separate
occasions with Joan Graves about what was in my film. And she--I asked her
specifically on--I was on camera, I asked her, `What do I need to take out to
get an R rating?' And she wouldn't tell me. And I said, `Look, I think that's
unfair to me, because I might, in cutting this down to get an R rating, might
take out something that I didn't need to take out to get an R rating.' And her
response to me was basically that I--that was the risk I had to take because
she wasn't going to get specific with me about what I needed to take out,
because, she said, if I did, that would be, quote, unquote, "censorship." So,
in the end, I mean, I just, you know, accepted the NC-17 rating, and I moved
to the next stage, which was the appeal stage.

GROSS: What is the appeal like?

Mr. DICK: Well, the appeal stage was, I think, my closest experience to
being in an "Alice in Wonderland" novel. Actually, there's--it's really quite
absurd. You cannot take the attorney of your choice in to assist you or
represent you before the appeals court, even though an MPAA attorney is
chairing the appeals board session. They will not let you know who the people
are on the appeals board, even though these people are making decisions about
your film that may affect the film and may affect your career. In fact, when
I went in there, everybody was wearing a number. It was as if it was out of
that old '60s TV show "The Prisoner." In fact, I was asked to put on a number
myself. My number was 22. And it was very absurd. I would go up to
somebody, and I would say, `Hi, my name is Kirby Dick. Who--could you
introduce yourself?' and they would just pull their hand away and something
nothing. In fact, I knew a couple of people in that ratings room, and they
would not identify themselves. And then what's, in some ways, what's most
absurd, is that you cannot use precedent to make your argument before the
appeals board. You cannot say, `Look, my film has a particular scene that's
very similar to another film and you rated that other film less restrictively,
therefore I would like to make the argument that my film should get a less
restrictive rating.' As soon as you mention the other film, you are cut off.

GROSS: How do the people who sit on the appeals board compare in terms of
their--how they're selected to the people who make the initial ratings
decision?

Mr. DICK: Well, this is one of the things that I was very shocked to learn
is that all of the people on the appeals board, or nearly all of them, are
executives high up in the film business. Most of them are either--work for
the studios or work for the major exhibition chains. And so these are
people--people very closely associated with the MPAA and the rating process
are making these decisions. There are a few independent positions. There's
one representative, Landmark Theaters. There's one representative, I believe,
from Lion's Gate. But, for the most part, it's made up of really the
powerhouse corporations within Hollywood.

GROSS: One of the things that you discovered is that there are clergy on the
appeals board. Would you describe the relationship there?

Mr. DICK: Yes, there's one member of clergy and another member who's
representing a religious organization, and they've actually been involved in
the process for many, many years. But it's a very strange situation because
these people on the appeals board are asked to make a decision about a film,
but there's a real moral tone, that you know, the presence of clergy brings.
They don't vote. But they're there to observe. I mean, I don't know, perhaps
they represent the eye of God. I don't know. And the reason they're there is
because when the ratings board was initially set up, Jack Valenti received
pressure from some religious groups. And Jack Valenti's a master lobbyist and
deal maker, and he went to those religious organizations and said, `OK, fine.
I'll allow a couple of people to be on the appeals board. Nonvoting members.'
Now there are only these two specific representatives. They are not--it's not
a rotating position. There are no other rabbis, Muslims, or other
denominations that are on the appeals board or can come on, can rotate onto
the appeals board. And the reason he did that was he was pressured when the
ratings board when the ratings board was set up in '68 by some religious
groups who had criticisms of the ratings process, and so what he did--because
he's a lobbyist and deal maker is he went to those religious organizations and
said, `You can be on the ratings board, but I'm going to do this in complete
secret, and so no one--the public is not aware of this and neither
are--neither is essentially anybody within the film industry as well. This
came as a great shock to everybody.

GROSS: You finally decided that instead of accepting the NC-17 rating that
you would let your film go unrated. Why? What's the advantage of that?

Mr. DICK: Well, the reason is if you go out unrated, you have a lot of the
same kind of restrictions that you'd have if you went out with an NC-17
rating, but they're not as severe. So it allows the film to play in a wider
range of theaters. There are more newspapers that will advertise it, and it's
more likely that it will get into Blockbuster or Wal-Mart.

GROSS: What changes would you like to see in the ratings system?

Mr. DICK: Well, I would like to see it be transparent. There's no
reason--there's nothing--there's no reason to keep it secret unless there's
something to hide. I would like to see it be professionalized. I mean, this
a--rating films is a complex process that is very important to the American
public and particularly to American parents. Let's have a professional
system. And then finally, I would like to see a rating between the R and the
NC-17. Roger Ebert has suggested an A. I think that makes a lot of sense
because there's no reason that these films that are featured in my film and
the many hundreds of others that have received NC-17 should be receiving a
rating that is, in essence, a censorship of their work. And this should be
available to the public so that--it might be a rating where only people 18 and
over can see it but it doesn't have the stigma that's associated with an NC-17
attached to it.

GROSS: And what is that stigma?

Mr. DICK: Well, here's how the stigma developed. Originally when the X
rating was inaugurated, the MPAA did not copyright the X rating, and so very
quickly the pornography industry appropriated it with double X, triple X
rating, and so the X rating became associated with pornography. When it was
finally changed about a decade and a half ago to the NC-17 rating--after a
great deal of pressure from filmmakers and critics, I might add, it wasn't the
MPAA's initiative--when it was finally changed to an NC-17 rating, all the
MPAA did nothing to really disassociate the NC-17 from the X rating, so all
the stigma associated with the X went over to the NC-17 rating. And so now
what happens is that when people hear NC-17, they think pornography, they
think sensationalistic. They think that a film, if it has sex or sometimes
even violence, is that sex and violence is only in a film because filmmakers
want to shock. And so mainstream audiences and, in particular, mainstream
independent audiences stay away from that film.

GROSS: Kirby Dick, thank you very much for talking with us.

Mr. DICK: Thank you.

GROSS: Kirby Dick directed the new documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated."
Later in the show we'll hear from the chair of the MPAA ratings board.

I'm Terry Gross, and this is FRESH AIR.

(Soundbite of music)

(Announcements)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Interview: Joan Graves, chair of the MPAA ratings board, discusses
methods the board uses to rate films
TERRY GROSS, host:

This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross.

We just heard from Kirby Dick, the director of the new documentary "This Film
Is Not Yet Rated." It challenges the Motion Picture Association of America's
rating system and investigates the secretive ratings board. The members of
the board are anonymous, but the chair is not. She is my guest, Joan Graves.
I asked her why her board members are anonymous, although there is no
anonymity on ratings boards in other countries. She pointed out that in other
countries those boards are mandated by law, whereas the MPAA ratings board is
a voluntary organization and films are submitted on a voluntary basis.

A problem with the idea of anonymous film raters on the board is that there's
no way of challenging whether the members of that board are a fair
representation of parents or American society or anything because we don't
know who they are.

Ms. JOAN GRAVES: Well, we do--we're happy to provide demographics with
everything but their name--in other words, their age, their children, their
prior occupations and where they came from.

GROSS: Are the parents on your board supposed to have any particular
expertise in films or in the ratings of films? Are they media experts or
child psychologists?

Ms. GRAVES: No, they're not.

GROSS: Is that for a reason?

Ms. GRAVES: Yes. It's very specifically for a reason. They're supposed to
rate a film the way they think most American parents would rate it. In other
words, we're not supposed to set standards. We're supposed to reflect
standards. So very definitely, they're supposed to represent parents, and all
of us that are parents know that there are--that our own children are very
different. So if we can give information about the level of content in a
film, then parents can make up their own minds about which of their children
should see which film.

GROSS: How does somebody get to be on the board? I mean, you don't run like
classified ads...

Ms. GRAVES: No, actually...

GROSS: ...in the jobs section of the newspaper. How do people even know that
there is such a thing?

Ms. GRAVES: They don't.

GROSS: Do you go after people?

Ms. GRAVES: Sometimes we've gone after people, community leaders that have
retired from boards of hospitals or libraries, and sometimes PTAs recommend
people. They come to us from a wide variety of places. Usually if someone
calls up and asks to be on the rating board, many times, they--he or she has a
set agenda so--and we don't want an agenda, we want someone that can reflect
what they think most American parents would rate the film.

GROSS: Now, on the ratings board, all the members are parents, and that's why
they're selected. But on the appeals board, everybody on it, according to the
movie "This Film Is Not Yet Rated," everybody on that is tied into the film
industry, usually representative of one of the studios or of one of the
theater chains. What's the reason for that?

Ms. GRAVES: It was--in 1968 when the system was formed, the members of the
MPAA who were pledging to rate their product were a little bit concerned about
a board that could have--that could run amok, and so this was a check and
balance so if there were films that filmmakers questioned their rating that
they would have a place to go. But it's balanced in ways of a two-thirds vote
requiring to override, and the standard is if the rating board appears to be
clearly erroneous in applying the rating. Of the over 900 films we rate a
year, less than 10 go to appeal, so it's not a process that's accessed very
often.

GROSS: Now, Kirby Dick discovered that there's a priest and a representative
of a religious organization--I think it's the National Council of Churches--on
the ratings appeals board. Why is that?

Ms. GRAVES: They are there as observers, and he's not a priest. But the
Catholic Conference is represented and the National Council of Churches, and
that is because when the system was formed in 1968, the church groups who had
been very active in censorship boards across the country felt that the appeals
board made up of industry types might be a little bit like the hen guarding
the--I mean, the fox guarding the henhouse. So they asked to be able to
observe the appeals process, and Jack Valenti, who started the system, thought
that would be a good way to assure themselves that everything is working as it
should. They do not vote, and they do not make any comments. They're just
there as observers.

GROSS: So what's the point?

Ms. GRAVES: Well, just to assure their constituencies that the ratings
system has worked the way it was intended to work, as a--as parents giving
information to other parents.

GROSS: Why isn't there a rabbi or an imam or a Buddhist there, too?

Ms. GRAVES: My understanding was that, at the time, the only people
concerned about the rating system were the Catholics and the National Council
of Churches had expressed some concern about the appeals process.

GROSS: Do you think that they have a conservative effect on the appeals
board? I mean, because not everybody who goes to see a movie is Catholic or
religious.

Ms. GRAVES: No, I don't think--they don't sit there in that way at all.

GROSS: Yeah, well, I was wondering, the ratings system was started nearly 30
years ago and you know, you're talking about that transitional time, so 30
years later, do you think that the church still needs to be reassured.

Ms. GRAVES: Not so much reassured, but I do know it's been very helpful to
the system. In some instances where Congress has been questioning how the
system works, they've been able to testify and to be outsiders, as it were, to
tell of their witness firsthand of the process.

GROSS: As the chair of the classification and ratings administration of the
Motion Picture Association of America, do you feel like you can describe where
the line is in sexual content between a PG, an R and an NC-17?

Ms. GRAVES: Well, you know, it's a board decision, and films are viewed in
context, and so our guidelines on--to be found on our Web site describe the
parameters of each rating. And usually, if sexuality or violence is very
graphic, it's at least an R, and sometimes, if it's in the opinion of the
rating board, they think most American parents should think it would-- should
be out of bounds for children, and it's patently adult, and then it would be
NC-17.

GROSS: Would you agree with Kirby Dick that gay sexuality is rated more
strictly than heterosexuality?

Ms. GRAVES: I certainly don't see that. Graphic--when you get graphic
sexuality, no matter if it's heterosexual or homosexual, the graphics usually
lead the board to a certain rating, and it's really the graphics of what it is
rather than whether it's hetero or homo.

GROSS: Does the board have a position on what is more potentially, you know,
offensive or dangerous, whether it's like sex or violence?

Ms. GRAVES: No. You know, with each rating--there are parameters of each
rating, and there is a limit to sexuality in one rating and a limit to
violence in that same rating and language as well and drug content and
anything else that a parent cares about. The good part of our ability to give
information is that we're able to signal through our ratings reasons what the
element is that brings the film to that rating. So if something's rated R for
violence, you know that the sexuality isn't at an R level, and within that R
rating, if it's very, very strong violence, we try to indicate strong,
pervasive violence. In other words, we try to give the parents as much
information within that certain rating as we can as well.

GROSS: You actually sit in with the board and watch movies, right?

Ms. GRAVES: Yes, many times I do.

GROSS: So what's it like to have to like develop these film watching habits
where you're basically probably like timing the length of sex scenes and
counting the number of people who have been killed and...

Ms. GRAVES: No, we don't--no, I'm sorry. We don't do that. We don't time
them, and we don't count the numbers of people killed. We actually sit and
watch the film the way a parent would, and you feel, as a parent, what you
think most parents would think was the most appropriate rating for that film.
We do have some rules that are articulated, the language rule and the drug
content rule, that a use of the F-word is PG-13 at the minimum and more than
one use is an R. And a sexual use is an R, and those are actual rules we
have. We have very few rules--in other words, we don't have, if you show this
for two minutes, it's this. Where there might be a misunderstanding is, if a
filmmaker does not want to release the film with a rating that we've given
them, he or she can ask about different ways to edit the film or ask us what
leads us to rate a film a certain way. And it's in those discussions where
perhaps some misunderstandings evolve, if they're passed on secondhand. For
instance, if a sex scene or a long sequence of violence is one of the problems
leading to a rating, naturally one of the solutions to that, to get to another
rating, is to perhaps cut down on the length so it won't permeate the film as
much, but there's no timing on anything. It's just sometimes that's the way
to give another impression of the film is to reduce the content in some way,
either in a graphic way or a time way.

GROSS: Well, I want to thank you very much for talking with us.

Ms. GRAVES: Well, thank you.

GROSS: Joan Graves is the chair of the Motion Picture Association of
America's ratings board.

Coming up, Jeremy Sisto. He was Billy on "Six Feet Under." Now he's staring
in the new NBC series "Kidnapped." This is FRESH AIR.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Interview: Jeremy Sisto discusses his career and his new role in
television's "Kidnapped"
TERRY GROSS, host:

My guest, Jeremy Sisto, is best known for his role in "Six Feet Under" as
Billy Chenowith, the manic-depressive brother of the character Brenda. Now
he's starring in the NBC series "Kidnapped," which premieres next Wednesday.
He plays a private investigator named Knapp who specializes in rescuing kidnap
victims. The entire season will revolve around one story. In the first
episode, the 15-year-old son of wealthy parents is kidnapped and held for a
high ransom. The parents, played by Timothy Hutton and Dana Delaney, call in
Knapp. In this scene, Knapp explains that if they hire him, there's a few
things they should expect.

(Soundbite of "Kidnapped")

Mr. JEREMY SISTO: (As Knapp) All right. The first thing I got to tell you
to do is to call the FBI. You should know that option is available to you.
The second thing I'll tell you, is whatever you do, don't call the FBI. You
see, the FBI's objectives during a kidnapping investigation are to effect the
safe return of the subject along with the identification, apprehension and
prosecution of the kidnappers, as well as the recovery of the ransom payments.
All I care about is retrieval. Everything else is a distraction. My fee is
nonnegotiable, payable upon the safe return of the kidnap victim intact.

Ms. DANA DELANEY: (As the mother of kidnap victim) What does that mean,
intact?

Mr. TIMOTHY HUTTON: (As the father of kidnap victim) It means we don't pay
him if Leopold's dead.

Mr. SISTO: (As Knapp) From nothing comes nothing.

Ms. DANA DELANEY: (As the mother) You're not very good with people, are you,
Mr. Knapp?

Mr. SISTO: (As Knapp) No, but I'm good at finding them.

(End of soundbite)

GROSS: That's Jeremy Sisto in his new NBC series "Kidnapped."

Jeremy Sisto, welcome to FRESH AIR. As a private investigator in "Kidnapped,"
you have to, you know, carry a gun and learn to do the things that action guys
do in action TV shows and action movies and stuff. So are these new things
for you to learn?

Mr. JEREMY SISTO: No, no, I mean, it's--you know, on these shows when
there's a gun around, there's inevitably a stunt coordinator who, you know,
loves this kind of stuff, and he will spend as long as you want, and most of
the time longer, sort of showing you different cool and realistic stances to
take with the weapon and, you know, in sort of, you know, physically
apprehending a suspect or--and those kinds of things. So there's that. I
think that might have, you know, helped me along the way. But it's also comes
back to just being a kid and, you know, kind of the things you imagine doing
when you were going to save your parents' life from, you know--I grew up in
the '80s so it was the Russians--and save your--save the lives of your loved
ones from the bad guys. So there's some really fun sort of aspects of that
that fall into the category of just make believe.

GROSS: Until now you've been best known for your role on "Six Feet Under" as
Billy, who was the troubled, manic-depressive brother of Brenda, and I'm
wondering what are some of the characteristics that you gave him, or some of
the things that you understood about manic-depression in terms of how somebody
would sit or stand, you know, like what their posture would be, the things
that you did basically in your speaking and body language to embody the kind
of troubled state and the depressed state that your character was often in.

Mr. SISTO: It was a character that I sort of, at least by the end, but
definitely throughout, you know, the whole process came to know very well, and
he was manic-depressive and that was a big part of him. But I suppose what I
understood about this particular guy who was--the character was based all in
the discussion of boundaries. He was raised with these obscured boundaries
where his parents, you know, sort of sexual relation--their relationship with
sex and their sexual relationship with each other and with others and their
understanding of kind of social ideas had sort of obscured, more obscured
boundaries than perhaps might be the best way to raise a child. And so how he
turned out, what he went back and forth from is, when he was on these meds,
and he was, you know, sort of, you know, feeling conscious, he had this sort
of overcompensated idea of boundaries and of how to perform and how to be and
he became conservative in his approach to the world and his approach to people
and how he dealt with himself. And then when he was off, you know, that--when
he was off his meds in kind of a manic high, those boundaries that were
missing from his understanding kind of allowed for life to be really sexy and
really--him to feel really connected to everyone and to feel, you know, as if
he was living the way he wanted to live and seeing the world in the way he
wanted to see it.

GROSS: Let me play a scene and this is one of the most memorable moments in
your character's life and also in the series, you know. He had been very
close with his sister, Brenda, but he also did some things to betray her. But
in this scene from season three, you're very depressed, your sister, Brenda is
comforting you, you put your head on her shoulder and then you kiss her on the
lips, and she's horrified. And then the next episode, you talk with your
sister, Brenda, about what happened. Let's hear that scene.

(Soundbite from "Six Feet Under")

Mr. SISTO: (As Billy) Brenda, we have to talk.

Ms. RACHEL GRIFFITH (As Brenda) No we don't.

Mr. SISTO: (As Billy) We do.

Ms. GRIFFITH: (As Brenda) What's there to say, Billy? What?

Mr. SISTO: (As Billy) I'm in love with you.

Ms. GRIFFITH: (As Brenda) Oh, Jesus, don't.

Mr. SISTO: (As Billy) No, I need to say it. I need to say it. I know I
can't have you. I know it's wrong to want you like this, but it doesn't make
it any less true.

Ms. GRIFFITH: (As Brenda) And what am I supposed to do with that?

Mr. SISTO: (As Billy) Nothing. Nothing. I have to let it go, and maybe
saying the words will help. I want to let it go. You have to believe that.

(End of soundbite)

GROSS: Jeremy Sisto and Rachel Griffiths in a scene from "Six Feet Under."
What was your reaction when you saw this in the script, that you were going to
have this passionate, incestuous kiss with your sister, and then, of course,
you'd have this conversation afterwards. Were you troubled by having this
turn of events happen with your character?

Mr. SISTO: You know, I think it was--there was a different spin on it,
although it was a story that took place over five years of telling it, and so
we got into many different things. So I think when we read this, it was, you
know--I remember talking to Rachel and both of us being surprised that they
went there to that point and sort of trying to figure out exactly what that
point was. In fact, what happened in that particular scene before this when I
kissed her was that we did the scene, and it was a good scene, and the kiss
itself, though, was something that the producers felt was not enough of an
open-mouthed kind of kiss that would be between lovers as opposed to friends,
and so we went back just to pick up a closeup of the kiss, to make sure that
sort of that element of the scene was there. So, I mean, that, I think, tells
the story that the actors were tentative about, you know, going too far in
this respect and perhaps taking away the underlying storyline that was always
there and was what made this relationship so intriguing.

GROSS: It must be sort of strange after several years on "Six Feet Under" to
start a new series with new writers and new characters, new actors.

Mr. SISTO: Yeah, it's--but, you know, on "Six Feet Under," I would do about
half the season and maybe one or two days a week so it was, you know, a
supporting role, so I was able to observe things from, you know, slightly, you
know, just on the sort of perimeter, just at the edge of the...

GROSS: Mm.

Mr. SISTO: ...family, and so I got to observe, you know, to bring up
boundaries again, when boundaries are crossed between the writers and the
actors and sort of how those issues are dealt with, how, you know, the writers
and the producers and the actors all live together in this situation and...

GROSS: What do you consider a boundary being crossed between an actor and a
writer? Is it when an actor refuses to read a line or refuses to do a plot
point or something? Like, what kind of lines can be crossed there?

Mr. SISTO: That's what it is. It seems to me that what happens is after the
first season, if it's a success, then the actors come back and they feel
really close to their characters, and so they have a bit more stronger
reactions when they read the script, and they say, oh no, because--they didn't
think about it, they didn't think of it, you know, so they say, `I didn't put
that into my thoughts, and that's not what my character would do,' and so on
the second season there was a bit of that on "Six Feet Under," and some sort
of steps were taken, and on the third season, those boundaries were
re-established. So I think that's the boundaries I'm speaking about.

GROSS: My guest is Jeremy Sisto. He's starring in the new NBC series
"Kidnapped," which premieres next Wednesday. We'll talk more after a break.
This is FRESH AIR.

(Announcements)

GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is Jeremy Sisto. He stars in the
new NBC series "Kidnapped." He was also one of the stars of HBO's "Six Feet
Under."

I have to ask you about playing Jesus in a movie called "Jesus." What do you
do to prepare to play Jesus? What do you do? Read the Bible? I mean, what
do you do to prepare?

Mr. SISTO: Well, fortunately, I did not have a lot of time. That was
a--you'd think that'd be the first role they cast, but in fact, I--when they
offered me that role, I had to fly out the next day. So there was sort of
just enough time to get to know the script well and talk to the director, and
yeah, I spent some time with the Bible and sort of made my own sort of ties to
this interpretation from, you know, from the Bible itself, and other than that
I, you know, I kind of felt a certain sense of relief if they were willing to
cast me and the Roman Catholic Church was involved, so it felt like...

GROSS: Well, I know that the Pope John Paul blessed the movie and...

Mr. SISTO: Right, yeah.

GROSS: ...there was a Vatican screening for Pope John Paul. Were you at that
screening with him?

Mr. SISTO: I was, yeah, I mean, not a screening of the film but a screening
is also what they say when you get to go see him, right?

GROSS: Oh, I see. So you were at...

Mr. SISTO: I think.

GROSS: Did he...

Mr. SISTO: So we went to the Vatican, and we went up to the room, and then
we got to go and sort of kiss his ring or shake his hand, whatever that thing
was. It was pretty weird. It was pretty weird. But it was one of the many
sort of unique experiences that I never would have imagined that I would, you
know, had...

GROSS: So...

Mr. SISTO: ...before somebody called me up and said, `Do you want to play
Jesus Christ?'

GROSS: Right. So, of course, you get crucified at the end of the movie, and
spikes are, you know, nailed into your hands, you're up on the cross. What's
it like to be crucified as an actor?

Mr. SISTO: Well, there's a little bicycle seat underneath you.

GROSS: To support you on the cross while you're hanging?

Mr. SISTO: To support me on the cross.

GROSS: You know something? Kirk Douglas told me that too about Spartacus
because I asked him...

Mr. SISTO: Yeah.

GROSS: ...about getting crucified in Spartacus, and he had a bike seat also
underneath him.

Mr. SISTO: Yeah, that's what they don't tell you about crucifixes. You get
a bike seat which chafes. It's just a very surreal thing to, you know, at
once you're kind of laughing at the whole situation that you're up on this
cross and, you know, it's the last place you'd ever think--the last story you
thought you'd be sort of telling. And another side of you is, you know, sort
of thinking very deeply about this time, really, that was, you know, that had
this kind of brutality. I mean, there's incredible brutality in our world
today, and there was incredible brutality back then, and this was some of it.
So, you know, there's kind of--always a mix in kind of film.

GROSS: Sure. Well, I understand both parts there. The reflection on the
real life of Jesus and on, you know, suffering, and hatred in the world, and
at the same time, the comedy, especially when you're up there on the cross and
you're looking out, and there's Debra Messing from "Will and Grace" as Mary
Magdalene and, I mean, there's got to be something funny about that.

Mr. SISTO: Well, yeah, the whole thing, yeah, the whole thing was--we had
that mix of just laughing at the absurdity of what we were doing and kind of,
you know, inspired by it. Thought it was a cool, sort of interpretation, and
we all got it. It was very clear what we were doing. We were doing a Jesus
that was not scary and haunting and ghostly, but a Jesus that, you know, in
this day and age, you might actually follow because he, you know, was--there
was something that was attractive about him, you know, to sort of to go
against the early interpretations of this creepy dude that you followed
through the desert because you thought he was God's son. This was like
somebody who was charismatic, and so that was the concept, you know. It's not
like we were saying it was `the way' that it happened. It was just sort of an
interpretation. It was nice to be on something that was--that knew what it
was.

GROSS: I wish we had more time to talk but we're out of time. I want to
thank you so much for talking with us.

Mr. SISTO: Thank you very much for having me.

GROSS: Jeremy Sisto stars in the NBC series "Kidnapped." It premieres next
Wednesday.

(Soundbite of music)

GROSS: I'm Terry Gross.
Transcripts are created on a rush deadline, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of Fresh Air interviews and reviews are the audio recordings of each segment.