[Rant] Bully and the irrelevance of the MPAA

[Frank]

!

A movie made directly for kids who are bullied and for the bullies who torment them (in some cases as shown in the trailer to the point of suicide) has been given an R rating by the MPAA. Why? It contains language that the kids use in day to day life which deems it an R rating and completely unsuitable for anyone under 17. Apparently, the Weinsteins are so angry about this that Weinstein company movies will no longer be submitted for MPAA approval. The MPAA is calling their reaction to the R rating and the criticism to the R rating a publicity stunt.

Stuff like this and the movie This Film is Not Yet Rated just goes to show how badly the MPAA in the US needs to be either straight up abolished or reformed in a great way.

 

[Dave]

Fuck the MPAA. It's time to stop using them and taking away their power.

 

[Steve]

I couldn't make it through that trailer. It broke my heart to see that kid getting bullied. No kid should ever have to go through that and this 'it's just kids being kids' bullshit has got to go. If I went to that school and hit any of those little fuckers I'd get locked up but they are free to gang up on one kid. I'm going to be pissed all night because of that. Damn.

 

[Dave]

The Weinsteins made this documentary to show to kids at schools without teachers and parents. It's a fucking tragedy that the rating will more than likely prevent some chicken-shit administrations from showing this. It's one of those films everyone needs to see.

 

[Steve]

That's nice Dave but I'm still pissed. I want to become that kid's big brother. I swear if he lived anywhere near me I'd hang out with him. Frankie, you more than likely ruined my entire weekend. Every time I think about the trailer I get mad.
I wish these kids would realize that there are more kids who get picked on than who do the picking and all buddy up. I hate that any kid has to grow up thinking they have no friends.

 

[strawman]

All it means is that children have to have parental approval before watching it.

Not every parent agrees that children should be swearing, or watch others swearing when it can be avoided.

I agree that the MPAA ought to be changed to allow for a more fine-grained rating approach (rather than lumping all the "bad" things in R, they would rate a movie on several scales - one for sexuality, one for violence, one for language, etc).

 

[Frank]

It's stuff like this that bugs me:

With school-age children of my own, I know this is a crucial issue and school districts across the U.S. have responded in kind. The Cincinnati school district signed on to bus 40,000 of their students to the movie - but because the appeals board retained the R rating, the school district will have to cancel those plans.

 

[strawman]

The movie producer knew what would happen if they left those words in the film. This is not something that surprised them. They could have made modifications that would allow them to present the material in a PG-13 format if they wanted to.

This is a publicity stunt and nothing more. Free publicity is great.

It boggles my mind that people think that the director should get a free pass even though he knew exactly what rating he'd get given the language used. If he didn't want a rating, he shouldn't have sought one. But he plans on making mad cash on it by showing it in theaters, and had to get it rated. I suspect he's trying to go for the "This is the movie the man doesn't want you to see!" angle in some respects.

Either way, the issue is not the MPAA. It's the director's choice, and he chose and directed for an R rating. He can claim that he's wet behind the ears, doesn't understand the rating system, or that the film content should override the MPAA system, but it's quite obvious what his intent is, and that this is not an unexpected outcome.

 

[Frank]

You act as if the MPAA has a strict set of guidelines, which they absolutely do not no matter how much they claim otherwise. The movie This Film is Not Yet Rated points out exactly how inconsistent they are.

 

[Hailey Knight]

The MPAA is a fickle load of shit.

However, in steinman's defense, the "one fuck for PG-13" rule has been pretty consistent.

 

[Frank]

The MPAA is a fickle load of shit.

However, in steinman's defense, the "one fuck for PG-13" rule has been pretty consistent.

Eh, not really

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/18/f-word-pg-13-movies_n_930165.html

 

[checkeredhat]

Doesn't really matter anyway. The MPAA is not just out of touch with reality on this issue, they are out of touch with reality regarding their relevance. Used to be a movie getting an NC-17 rating, or no rating, would die in limited theatres and hope to make up its costs if it managed to get a home video distribution. Now, it doesn't even need to go to theatres to turn a profit. If it's good, it will find its audience thanks to the internet. Not necessarily true for big budget action spectacles, but it'll be the saviour for independent films and documentaries, for sure.

 

[strawman]

There isn't a specific list, but the gray area is narrow enough that for some things - such as specific words (I don't recall seeing any PG-13 movie with more than one or two "fuck" and I haven't yet come across one that has used "cunt", although "damn", and "shit" seem to be allowed more frequent usage), full or partial nudity, and the level and type of violence, etc, one can know whether they are straddling the line or not.

Perhaps he is straddling the line, and it could have gone either way. I'd be interested to know if they really were on the line, or well away from it on either side.

So yes, I am aware that it's not a cut and dried situation. It sounds like you know enough about the movie, though, to be able to declare with certainty that it should have been rated PG-13 under the current system. What do you think the MPAA got wrong about it, specifically?

 

[Hailey Knight]

So even that's down to "whatever the fuck we feel like at the moment".

I'm curious what would go on with a movie that doesn't get submitted to the MPAA. Does it go into theaters as Not Rated?

EDIT: On violence, lots of it is allowed--just don't show blood. 'Cause that's icky.

 

[strawman]

Theaters typically won't show movies without an MPAA rating. There's a stranglehold on the industry that the MPAA has, and the studios encourage it, as it means one more big hurdle for smaller distributors to jump over.

 

[checkeredhat]

So even that's down to "whatever the fuck we feel like at the moment".

I'm curious what would go on with a movie that doesn't get submitted to the MPAA. Does it go into theaters as Not Rated?

Only if they can actually convince a theatre to carry it. Which is hard enough with an NC-17 rating, let alone without a rating at all.

 

[Hailey Knight]

Couldn't anybody just make up their own system?

 

[Shegokigo]

Steinman hasn't watched "This Movie Has Not Yet Been Rated" thus his opinion on the subject.

 

[strawman]

Ah! In one fell swoop you have fully gutted all my arguments. I am lost!

 

[Dave]

"16 Candles" - Full frontal female nudity, language, underage drinking. Rated PG.
"The Aristocrats" - Strong language, no nudity, no violence. NC-17 (taken away from teh MPAA so no rating)
"Scarface" - Full frontal female nudity, language, extreme violence, extreme drug use. Rated R.
"The Sure Thing" - Man's naked butt, no language, no violence. Rated PG-13.
"The Shawshank Redemption" - Language, violence, no nudity. Rated R.
"The Passion of the Christ" - Violence, no nudity, no language. Rated R.
"Pretty Woman" - No nudity, mild violence, mild language. Rated R.
"Dances With Wolves" - Male nudity, violence, mild language. Rated PG-13.

Tell me where the rhyme or reason is. If you'd like me to I could certainly go on.
Added at: 22:29

Couldn't anybody just make up their own system?

Yes and no. They could, but most theaters are owned by mega-corporations who contract to only show movies which have been rated by the MPAA. Only art houses and small independent theaters can get away with showing unrated and it's the same as making sure hardly anyone sees it.

What will start to happen, though, will be more independent films will be available for a fee digitally. I think that's when the MPAA will start to die like the RIAA is with music.

 

[strawman]

First, there are always mistakes and exceptions - this is a human rating system after all. Especially in the early years of the MPAA: http://www.toplessrobot.com/2008/07/the_8_pgrated_movies_that_should_not_have_been_rat.php

Second, generally when you see a rating you know what you're getting. Again, there will be outliers in each category, but most of the time you won't see frontal nudity in PG-13, you won't hear more than a handful of curse words, you won't see sex acts, and you won't see human torture or significant (gory) violence.

It's a guideline - not a strict standard.

Thirdly, there will always be a constant battle between those that feel that everything should be exactly spelled out, so every rule is clearly explained and every movie can be objectively measured and those that believe that like the IRS code, the more you define the line, the more ways people will sneak past it because once you have a well defined set of rules, then you have merely created a well defined set of loopholes. "I know it when I see it" applies particularly here because this is a subjective moral rating system. Not only is it subjective and morally based, but society's morals change over time. If the MPAA had to re-rate all the films it's rated over the years I'd be surprised if they gave the same rating to more than 75% of them.

We can't give cast-in-concrete-rules for this sort of system.

Again - perhaps this film should be rated PG-13. Perhaps it should be rated R. The MPAA has an opinion on that, and they've asserted it during the appeal.

I'm curious why some who haven't seen it are suggesting that it shouldn't have been given R. There should be a reason behind this anger - in what way did the MPAA wrong this film, and are people just reading from the film's press release and discussion with reporters to get their opinions on the rating of the film?

So far I have been reasonably satisfied with the MPAAs ratings. I've seen PG-13 films I think should have been R, and PG films I wish had been rated PG-13. But I don't believe the system is perfectly designed for me or my needs - thus I use it as a guideline only.

I've seen schools take kids to see rated R films (Schindler's list being the prime example) and they sent home parental assent forms.

If the film Bully is as important for our youth to see as you might argue Schindler's List is, then you'll likely see school trips being taken.

 

[Shegokigo]

Ah! In one fell swoop you have fully gutted all my arguments. I am lost!

It was as strong as yours. I figured a retort of the same factual basis was in order.

I'm curious why some who haven't seen it are suggesting that it shouldn't have been given R. There should be a reason behind this anger - in what way did the MPAA wrong this film, and are people just reading from the film's press release and discussion with reporters to get their opinions on the rating of the film?

This question was already answered while you were ranting.

 

[strawman]

This question was already answered while you were ranting.

It still hasn't been answered. I don't see anything from anyone suggesting that they've seen the film and that they disagree with the rating based on what they saw. Perhaps you are talking about Dave pointing out the inconsistencies in the MPAA rating system? That doesn't say anything about this film, and is less than a few percent of all the films they've rated over the last few decades, so it's hardly representative.
Added at: 00:02

"16 Candles" - Full frontal female nudity, language, underage drinking. Rated PG.
"The Aristocrats" - Strong language, no nudity, no violence. NC-17 (taken away from the MPAA so no rating)
"Scarface" - Full frontal female nudity, language, extreme violence, extreme drug use. Rated R.
"The Sure Thing" - Man's naked butt, no language, no violence. Rated PG-13.
"The Shawshank Redemption" - Language, violence, no nudity. Rated R.
"The Passion of the Christ" - Violence, no nudity, no language. Rated R.
"Pretty Woman" - No nudity, mild violence, mild language. Rated R.
"Dances With Wolves" - Male nudity, violence, mild language. Rated PG-13.

Tell me where the rhyme or reason is. If you'd like me to I could certainly go on.

The only one where I don't see the reason is 16 candles - which I haven't seen.

The sure thing and wolves are rear nudity only, which has occurred in other pg-13 films (typically in an embarrasing situation, rather than a sexual situation).

Pretty woman is likely due to the subject matter and the way the film treats sex.

There are probably much better examples of MPAA flubs than that list, but on the whole it appears to follow what I expect ratings to be.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

I can sort of understand The Aristocrats. Sure, it was just language, but it was some pretty damn strong, graphic language. Like, really, really filthy imagery described. I'd give it a hard R, myself, but certainly wouldn't want anyone under 18 watching it, either way.
Added at: 23:08
Passion of the Christ I can understand, too. It's torture porn on level with the Saw movies.

 

[Shegokigo]

It's obvious you're arguing for the sake of it when your point has already been refuted and your questions answered Stein. It was expressly stated how giving it an R rating was going to dramatically hurt the impact on the film's perspective and most needed audience.

 

[strawman]

Ah. I disagree that a film should receive a rating based on its audience rather than its content.

If this film is important for youth to see, why don't they forego the rating, and sell it directly to the schools? Even better, get one or more of the many youth organizations to recoup costs, and distribute it for free? Then it would achieve a much wider distribution to the target market.

 

[checkeredhat]

Ah. I disagree that a film should receive a rating based on its audience rather than its content.

If this film is important for youth to see, why don't they forego the rating...

You mean, like they're doing?

 

[Steve]

Does anyone know how small claims court works? Specifically, if your child is bullied and you set up a meeting with the school officials and the parent's of the abuser and the bullying continues could you take that matter to small claims court and sue for damages to your child? Or does there have to be actual loss (like damage to property) to take it to small claims?

 

[AshburnerX]

If you can prove the school knew that the bullying was going, that they did nothing to stop it, and that your child has been severely harmed because of it (physical injuries or mental problems) then yes, you can sue the school. However, you really need to be proactive in proving it and you have to know that your child will face reprisals from the school.

Also, you need to remember that the school's options for stopping the bullying are basically worthless... they can really only get the parents to stop it, expel the kid for repeated instances of violence (hard to do), or have the kid arrested for fighting. If you do much else, your going to get sued by money hungry assholes.

As for suing the family of the bully, yeah, you can do that, but it has it's own problems.

 

[Steve]

No child should have to go through what Alex and the rest of those children endured. The school continually denied there was a problem but the video tells another story. In cases like that I think a civil suit against the school and the parents of the bully would be a viable option. If it continues you keep hauling their asses back to court. I keep thinking how scared Alex is and how worthless he feels for doing absolutely nothing but existing. He tells his parents not to get involved but short of beating the living shit out of the bully's parents and going to jail I don't see any other alternative. If the steps were laid out about documenting everything, getting a meeting set up with the school and the parents as first notification. Second incident contact the police and file a report (so you can get the address of the parents of the bully) and then file a civil suit using court records from the police report to get the address of the parents. It would also help to have someone capture the incident on video. In the video when he is getting beat up on the bus several kids are yelling for the bullies to stop. I'm sure someone could provide video. I think you hit schools and parents with a civil suit might just correct some of these issues.
And I know suing the bully's parents brings other issues but the kid is already being beat and ridiculed daily. You hear the stories of the kids who kill themselves because of bullying. In some cases it's never going to correct itself. And my suggestion is only for extreme cases. I'm not endorsing suing the first time a kid is called a name.

 

[Hailey Knight]

Authorities don't give a shit about bullying until some kid brings a gun to school. Until that point, it's just lip service about zero tolerance policies.

 

[Covar]

It's obvious you're arguing for the sake of it when your point has already been refuted and your questions answered Stein. It was expressly stated how giving it an R rating was going to dramatically hurt the impact on the film's perspective and most needed audience.

If it's so important that kids in schools see the movie perhaps they should have released the movie directly to digital, or dvd, bypassing the need for an MPAA. Or even send copies to schools to watch, instead of banking on a wide theater release and getting large groups to go and purchase group tickets.

Its about an obvious a money grab as Passion of the Christ. Only instead of religion it's "won't someone think of the children!"
Added at: 11:31

You mean, like they're doing?

Ugh, I need to finish reading the thread before I start replying.

So if their ignoring the rating, and offering free distribution to schools, what's the problem in this thread exactly?

 

[ElJuski]

The MPAA is full of shit, but they really have no power if you take kids to go see it anyway. Which it seems to be what is happening. At least word is getting out about the BS ruling, so more people should be aware of this movie and what it's supposed to do.

There's a documentary on the MPAA's bullshit, right? Thought I saw snatches of it on Netflix before.

 

[Frank]

This Film is Not Yet Rated.



Funny part about it is the movie contains a ton of scenes illustrating the inconsistencies of the ratings system (most involving women enjoying sex, which is a huge no no for the MPAA) of the NC-17 rating. In Canada, it's rated 14A (Canadian equivalent of the PG-13).

 

[checkeredhat]

Is that the rating all accross Canada? Cause I know its done provincially.