Overrated: Bully's R Rating Should Mean the End of the MPAA

http://www.good.is/post/overrated-bully-s-r-rating-should-mean-the-end-of-the-mpaa2/

by Bud • 14 years ago

160 43 14 years ago

lhnn• 14 years ago

I don't think you'll find it hard for the Hacker News crowd to be against the MPAA, or for alternative methods of distribution.

pagekalisedown• 14 years ago

I think it's what they call "preaching to the choir".

e40• 14 years ago

The MPAA isn't a distributor. They offer a rating system that has become the defacto system for rating movies and if you don't use them you'll have trouble getting placed into theaters.

andrewparker• 14 years ago

For those interesting in peeling back another layer of the onion on the odd world of the MPAA, definitely watch This Film Is Not Yet Rated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated

colonel_panic2• 14 years ago

That documentary showed pretty well that the MPAA is harsher on films with gay themes, but it wasn't convincing in other areas. There's a good reason that sexual content is more likely to lead to a stricter rating than violent content: parents believe their kids are more likely to emulate the sexual content. When I was a teenager, I, for one, copied a lot more sex moves from films I'd seen than I did karate moves.

harshreality• 14 years ago

I think that premise is flawed in today's environment. It assumes that minors get a lot of their information about sex from MPAA rated movies. That might have been true in the 1990's, but ever since file sharing and the web took off, porn has been ubiquitous. Not to mention the last few years with all the porn-centric youtube clones.

rquantz2• 14 years ago

Except the movie is about the line between an R and an NC-17 rating. Kids under 17 are not supposed to be allowed into an R rated movie without an adult. On the other hand, NC-17 rated movies are not shown in most movie theaters. So by giving a movie an NC-17 for, for instance, depicting a woman receiving oral sex (like Blue Valentine), the MPAA is effectively limiting what movies adults can see, rather than protecting children.

jQueryIsAwesome• 14 years ago

> I, for one, copied a lot more sex moves from films I'd seen than I did karate moves.

That is probably because you are biologically inclined to do so (and the "moves" are just how you do it, not when or why)

angrycoder• 14 years ago

If Harvey believes so strongly in the film, that everyone should see it, especially teenagers, he should just release it for free on youtube. Teenagers aren't going to spend their own money to see this and if their parents take them, the R rating isn't an issue anyway.

the-cakeboss• 14 years ago

And how are they going to recoup the heavy loses incurred when they release it for free?

olegious• 14 years ago

I doubt these types of films are expected to make a profit or even break even.

neilparikh2• 14 years ago

The problem is that he wanted to show it in classrooms.

Most teenagers aren't going to bother to go watch a documentary on their own time (speaking as a teenager, most of my peers probably wouldn't).

Also, not everyone is going hear about this movie. If it is shown in classrooms, way more kids will get to watch it.

Edit: Here's the relevant quote: "That's a problem for producer Harvey Weinstein, who had lobbied for a PG-13 label so he could tour the film in middle and high schools"

gry• 14 years ago

In other words, to get to the classroom, an official PG-13 is easier than an official R-rated and quasi-unrated path.

This is not a technology problem. It's cultural. MPAA and consumers included.

alanning4• 14 years ago

A tough situation but based on the info in the article, I have to side with the MPAA on this one. They say the R rating is due to the language used and the counter-argument is that high-schoolers are the ones using this language so it should be PG-13. Doesn't make sense since this assumes that all teenagers speak like the 'bullies' depicted in the film.

I would hope that the producers can come up with a solution to have the film rated PG-13 since it will definitely be more widely seen by the target audience in that case. If editing the most offensive cases out is not an option perhaps bleeping them out a-la "The Osbournes" would appease the MPAA. (unrelated but I personally found the censored version of The Osbournes to be much funnier than the uncensored version)

VengefulCynic• 14 years ago

"Doesn't make sense since this assumes that all teenagers speak like the 'bullies' depicted in the film."

The only thing materially communicated by this R rating is that someone says "fuck" more than once in the movie. To call that speaking like a bully is incredibly reductive to the point of turning your argument into a straw man.

alanning4• 14 years ago

That is why 'bullies' was in quotes. We don't know who said the words that the MPAA had a problem with and perhaps it wasn't even the bullies using the offensive language. The point is that, according to the article, the counter-argument is that the offensive language was said by a high-schooler so the movie should be viewable by high-schoolers. In effect, attributing the worst case scenario to the general case.

How is that a straw man?

EDIT: Also hoping for discussion regarding voluntarily censoring (bleeping) since that is something I've never seen before in movies and regardless of how strong the arguments/counter-arguments are, the rating has already been given.

dedward• 14 years ago

is it just me, or should teachers not be permitted to ask for parental permission to watch the film if they feel like its of benefit to the class? i hope the us education system doesnt just blanket prohibit anything with an r rating u nder Ny circumstances.

alanning4• 14 years ago

Speaking from personal experience of having watched Schindler's List in a high-school history class, it certainly is possible to see 'R' rated films in US schools if the teacher wants to show them. Not sure if that's specific to the state (VA) though and I have to believe it would be shown more if it was PG-13.

(incidentally, I'm glad we watched it and I think it was important to give perspective but I can see how some parents might have objected considering the brutality of the subject matter. I still remember the shock of seeing that red coat in that pile of bodies...)

epochwolf• 14 years ago

In high school, our history teacher showed parts of 3 episodes of Band of Brothers ("Day of Days", "Bastogne", and "Why We Fight"). It was pretty graphic and awesome. The scene in the holocast camp in "Why We Fight" was pretty disturbing.

She tied it in pretty neatly with our lessons on WWII. The high school was in Wisconsin.

Edit: Forgot about "Why We Fight"

DanBC• 14 years ago

> (unrelated but I personally found the censored version of The Osbournes to be much funnier than the uncensored version)

...and perhaps that's why it's important to keep the language in? Bleeping it reduces the effect.

Something similar happened in Robocop; the scene showing ED-209 machine gunning the junior executive was originally very long. The MPAA gave the film an X rating, so lots of the the movie was cut. The machine gunning was now short, efficient. That turned a scene which was darkly comic, totally ridiculous, into something much more chilling.

aidenn0• 14 years ago

This seems to be pretty regular with violent movies. The scene in fight club where the main character beats up the guy with the blond hair had to be edited, and IMO is much more disturbing in the edited version.

steve8918• 14 years ago

Independent filmmakers should embrace the Louis CK model and charge a small amount of money, ie. $5, and have it distributed to people directly. I can't imagine they would make a lot of money through movie theatres anyway. If they start the movie with the idea of distributing it that way, maybe they can control the costs at the beginning, and make a cost-effective, but compelling video that people are willing to pay for.

neilparikh2• 14 years ago

Like, the article said, the reason this R rating is damaging is that the filmmaker wanted to show this movie in schools.

"That's a problem for producer Harvey Weinstein, who had lobbied for a PG-13 label so he could tour the film in middle and high schools"

b0ner_t0ner• 14 years ago

The worst case was still when Once: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0907657/ received an R-rating.

zwily• 14 years ago

Looks like Once has 24 f-bombs. Why is the R rating shocking?

wanderr• 14 years ago

It's been a long time since I've seen Once, but it's a touching love story. As far as I remember, there's no violence, graphic sex or anything remotely objectionable or disturbing besides your aforementioned f-bombs. The R rating may not be shocking since we know how the MPAA rates thing, but it certainly doesn't make sense that Once is less appropriate for teens than movies containing violence, sex and other things parents typically object to their kids seeing. Here's the top grossing PG-13 movies: http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic/mpaa.htm?page=PG-1...

I think you'll find Once to be more innocuous than almost all of the movies on that list.

natesm• 14 years ago

That's significantly less than the average high school student probably hears in a day.

tsotha• 14 years ago

>The MPAA's reign rests on the financial fears of filmmakers, but if big Hollywood producers refuse to play along, it would become bad business for movie theaters to not show unrated films

The MPAA rating system only exists at all because the government threatened to get involved otherwise. Presumably that might still happen.

And anyway there are a whole lot of people out there who wouldn't let their kids see unrated movies. The filmmakers can't just decide to boycott the ratings system if too much of the audience expects films to be rated. Those financial fears are well founded.

wccrawford• 14 years ago

Then why not censor those words and get your PG-13 rating? You really think kids won't know what the words were, anyhow? And if they don't, isn't that the goal anyhow... To get them not to behave and talk like bullies?

I don't agree with the rating, but my response to it would not be to declare that the MPAA should be destroyed. I'd work within the system to get my message out there. Threatening them won't make them change their rating. If anything, it should strengthen their resolve. It wasn't an arbitrary decision. It's backed up by many other decisions, and even written in their rules.

rquantz2• 14 years ago

Weinstein has run into problems with the MPAA so many times, he probably is on a hair trigger with them. The MPAA is a prudish censor and deserves to be destroyed.

That being said, what you suggest is probably what will happen if they lose this fight: they will make a bleeped version to be shown in schools.

eropple• 14 years ago

I agree, and I find it kind of funny that this movie is having troubles where it is: Weinstein's productions--including most (all?) of Kevin Smith's movies, for example--are often running up against the R/NC-17 divide (largely because of language!) instead of the PG-13/R divide.

reidmain• 14 years ago

Great interview with Matt Stone and Trey Parker highlighting the hypocritical nature of the MPAA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDzblNKjsO0

Tycho• 14 years ago

Can't they just bleep out the swearing?

AJ007• 14 years ago

Ratings are obsolete. The internet does not come with a rating system. Almost every literate American kid has access to the internet. This is not a recent occurrence, this is something that began nearly 20 years ago. The difference is now instead of using a desktop computer with a slow dial-up connection, its a broadband mobile phone in their pocket.

Lets admit what ratings really are. They are not tools for parents, they are tools to market movies to parents. And, to market movies to kids too.

Overrated: Bully's R Rating Should Mean the End of the MPAA

Related Stories