Just wanted to weigh in quickly on this latest controversy between the Weinstein Company and the MPAA. If you’re not aware, the short of it is that the MPAA slapped the Weinstein’s documentary Bully with an “R” rating. Really wanting to show the film in schools and have kids come to screenings as much as possible, the studio appealed the decision but by a very small margin (one vote I think), the MPAA stuck to their guns and said, sorry guys: R.
Now the internet is up in arms about it. Twitter is a flood with cries of bullshit and pleas to the MPAA to change their minds. I’ll be honest, I’m no fan of the dunder-heads over at the MPAA. And for the most part I’m in agreement with the protestations. But allow me to play devil’s advocate for a moment.
First off, YOU HAVEN’T SEEN THE MOVIE! All you whiny twats across the Twitterverse and Facebook wanting to sound all progressive and repressed and rebellious really don’t have any idea what you’re talking about since (the vast vast vast majority of) you haven’t even seen the film! You have no idea what kind of content is in here. If there is an F-bomb every three seconds or a violent on-screen death or lewd acts of a sexual nature, then yeah – it’s going to get hit with an ‘R’ rating. Of course it is. I’m not saying that any of these things are necessarily in the film and maybe the MPAA really is wrong in this case, but I wouldn’t know; I haven’t seen the film either. Which is exactly my point.
Second, studios know this. Why on Earth would they think the MPAA will make an exception for them in this case? Especially if the content within the film is extreme? Maybe a reader can answer this or have an opinion here: would the studio be better off bypassing the MPAA altogether and going with a “not rated” label in this case? I know usually that’s a bad thing and it’s hard to get distribution but if their goal is to screen the film in schools and get the message out to kids, it seems better to have an ‘NR’ rating rather than an ‘R’ rating. Especially now with all of this free publicity (that, and Weinstein is backing it as well).
So what to do? My gut reaction is that rules are rules. If your rock album uses the f-word ten times and talks about shooting cops and screwing women in the ass, you’re going to get hit with the “parental advisory: explicit lyrics” sticker. Everyone knows this, so essentially its an artist’s choice whether they want that sticker on their album cover or not. Same goes for movies. You know the limit is two F-words and if you cross that line, you move from a ‘parental guidance’ to a ‘restricted’ rating. Making an exception for one movie because some kid pleads with the board to change the rating sets kind of a weird and arguably dangerous precedent.
Now again, I actually do sympathize with the film makers here. Judging by the trailer (below), it looks like a really important film that absolutely should be shown to kids of at least the junior high age. When dealing with something this serious and something all school-going children have dealt with in some form or another, it’s more than likely something they can handle and in all likelihood nothing they haven’t seen before. But my original point still stands: the MPAA has a job to do (agree with it or not). They have fairly concrete standards and people in the industry certainly know what those standards are. The MPAA looks at a movie. They decide if it has certain elements warranting an ‘R’ rating or a ‘PG’ rating or whatever. They do not distinguish what the film’s intent is or who the film makers’ target audience is. They make their decision based on what they’ve always based their decisions on and everyone in the industry knows this.
So basically, while I more or less side with the studio and film makers (and even more so with the subjects in the film), I can’t quite understand why everyone is so surprised with this ruling. Get off the backs of the MPAA who did what they always do – based on previous precedents and what I’ve read today, they also did it fairly in my opinion – and make a cut of the film that is either slightly cleaner or just make one slight change that isn’t even noticeable, bypass the MPAA altogether and market the film as “not rated.” Or take the rating you chose to receive and suck it up.
I think the larger point that tends to go over everyone’s head in situations like this is that the MPAA is a voluntary organization. They rate it according to their standards but have no legal bearing on whether a film gets released.
I’m not a fan of the MPAA’s standards, but it seems to draw undue criticism that would be better focused on individual theatres, schools, people, etc. Then again, it is easier to attack one organization instead of several.
I’d be interested in seeing this film, since I had a big problem with bullies when I was in elementary and high school.
The ironic thing about this ratings controversy is that films in Canada are rated independently (and provincially) and I suspect that this film will end up with only a 14A (or even PG) rating in Ontario (much more lenient about the use of the F-word up here).
UPDATE – 100% agree with the MPAA on this one. Their statement today:
I don’t really agree with the MPAA’s rules on language. I think that kids hear worse words in the schoolyard than in the “appropriate” films that they see.
Take the controversy last year with The King’s Speech’s R rating for use of the F-Word, which also got a strong reaction from Weinstein (so much so, that he had the film re-edited to a PG-13 – a version I thankfully never saw).
Despite the film’s R rating in the US, the film was rated PG (you read that right) here in Ontario, which shows that us Canadians are a little more willing to take context into consideration instead of blindingly giving an R rating when the number of F-words go past a certain number.
They released Clerks2 with a 14A in Canada, and that has on-screen Donkey-fucking, explicit conversations about analingus and at least 30 f-bombs. No surprise that The Kings Speech breezed thru the system. I’m sure BULLY will too.
This ignores the elephant in the room for TWC’s argument. The simple fact BULLY looks like a terrible and obvious film.
Or the idea that the film will make any sort of impact on would-be bullies.
(Checks OFRB website) Well, what do you know…..
Things are made even more confusing by the fact that they use the general consensus of all the provincial boards for the DVD rating, so the Clerks II DVD says 18A (sadly, my King’s Speech Blu-Ray is an American disc ordered from Amazon, so it only says R)
I should also note that I once had the honour of sitting in on an OFRB rating session arranged by one of my film professors. Still don’t completely understand how they differentiate one rating from another.
From that trailer. This movie looks seriously awful.
My main problem with the MPAA (not that it is difficult to find reasons to dislike the organization) is their “concrete” rules. I appreciate that they have to quantify and explain their decisions, but a single f-bomb can be (and usually is) far more offensive than dozens in a different context. It’s not like kids have swear gauges that, upon reaching a certain threshold, turns them into nogoodniks.
Perfectly judging the age appropriateness of art is a difficult, if not impossible task, and the MPAA’s reliance on numbers leads directly to situations like this.
On the other hand, I have to wonder why the filmmakers even bothered to try and get a rating. It’s not like the MPAA is hiding the fact that they basically ignore context in rating things. (Unless of course you’re Speilberg.)
I wrote an article about this issue for TheSubtream: http://www.thesubstream.com/html-harvey-weinstein-vs-the-mpaa.html
What kid goes out to a theater or video store to watch a documentary, unless it’s a school assignment?
the internet being what it is these days, I don’t understand why the MPAA isn’t just bypassed more often than not.
Theaters, parents, studios, film fans of all sort have just about unlimited access to finding out what kind of content any movie has. Fuck the MPAA and just release your film as NR. Especially in this situation.
If a film is ‘unrated’ than many of the American theatrical chains have a policy of not showing the film.
I’ll bet that American Newspapers won’t be snooty about running the ads (many papers wouldn’t run ads for NC-17 or unrated movies) though, as their money from ad revenue is hurting these days..
Has a R or NC17 ever stopped the interested kids from seeing the films they were interested.
My whole problems with ratings in general is that I think kids will not seek that stuff out until they want to and once they want to you can’t easily stop them from getting their hands on the content they want.
Fans finding stuff they want isn’t the problem. If you want something it’s not hard to track down (most stuff) one way or another. It’s the creators that get screwed because they can’t release their movie anywhere and make any sort of profit.
I think kids that WANT to see movies they cannot is not as much of a problem as parents accidently subjecting their kids to stuff. The MPAA doesn’t block out young savvy film-lovers, it is designed to help parents be lazy.
I found that I policed film ratings with my younger siblings more than my parents did…..