[Rant] Bully and the irrelevance of the MPAA
- Thread starter Frank
- Start date
- Status
Hey, look at that! AMC picked it up anyway, even without th eMPAA rating, and is even offerering printable permission slips for children under 17 to see it:
http://go.amctheatres.com/bully
http://go.amctheatres.com/bully
If I worked at a theater, I would allow SO many fake IDs if it were to see dis movie.
Because you couldn't tell they're fake?
I'm crazy, not blind! I can see through deception.
Question: Why do we hold documentaries to the same standards as scripted films? I mean, I'm no idiot, I know that documentaries are edited to laid out to at least some kind of narrative and interesting flow, but the point of the genre is to examine or capture the facts about something in an informative and entertaining fashion. Why the hell it is considered appropriate to judge a film that shows the real day-to-day problems of real kids with the same standards you us to judge Clerks or The Big Lebowski? It doesn't make any sense to me. Documentaries attempt to show reality, albeit from the filmmaker's viewpoint, and reality is not always nice.
And flame-war in 3-2-1...
Why? I'm not saying that documentaries shouldn't carry advisories of their content, I'm not saying that they shouldn't go through some kind of checking process, I'm saying that a slightly more utilitarian review of their content should be made. Something like:
The Aristocrats
This film has been reviewed by the MPAA and has been found to be in compliance United States obscenity laws, contains no explicitly pornographic material, and is not considered exploitative in nature.
This film contains the follow elements that some viewers may find objectionable:
- Extreme Sexual Language
- Extreme Vulgar Language
- Extreme Foul Language
- Extreme Descriptions of Violence
Hell, it would probably be better if every film was judged that way. However, without completely rewriting the current rating system, documentaries should get some kind of different guideline based on (presumed) didactic content.That's true, but generally speaking the director of a documentary isn't telling his subjects "Ok, now call him a cocksucker and whip out your dick!" or "Ok, now we're going to have this patient vomit up some blood." They're not (usually) manufacturing the events or the reactions of people, they're manufacturing the lens through which the audience sees them.
...I'm honestly not sure how to respond to that comment. I mean, if there is violent and sexual content it should be heavily rated so to warn parents, but if it's educational with a good message than teens should be able to see it with-out persecution. Maybe an "Rated RE" like restricted to those under 17 unless for educational purposes. Course I'm not sure that would help either. A conundrum indeed.
See, I think the purpose of "rating" a documentary should be to inform, not to restrict. Essentially the equivalent of a Super-PG - "Parents, you're really going to want to either look into the content of this film before you let your kids see it or better yet, watch it with them."
Ah yes, similar to the "Rated E ages 10 and up". Only it sounds even sillier. I was also pretty much joking about the flame-war thing.
To me the MPAA rating for this one is COMPLETELY irrelevant. I think parents should be seeing with their kids anyway. I think its important that it opens up a dialogue between parents and their children, so that both can walk away all the more enlightened. But the rating does effect the willingness of parents to bring their children. What's interesting here is that because they're doing it unrated, its receiving enough media attention that that probably won't matter.
but yeah the entire MPAA ratings system needs some major revisiting, and not just for documentaries. They need to actually examine the films with the film's message in mind, scenes with the context in mind, and not just focus on individual shots/ clips of dialogue that contain potentially offensive material when viewed alone.
IE: A documentary featuring what kids face in school every day, is not going to scar kids with its language. They've clearly heard it before, its right there on the screen. A film that features two consenting adults in love having sex could probably stand to be viewed a little more leniently than one that features rough, lude sex or a rape scene. Its not the same thing and shouldn't be looked at the same. I could go on.
but yeah the entire MPAA ratings system needs some major revisiting, and not just for documentaries. They need to actually examine the films with the film's message in mind, scenes with the context in mind, and not just focus on individual shots/ clips of dialogue that contain potentially offensive material when viewed alone.
IE: A documentary featuring what kids face in school every day, is not going to scar kids with its language. They've clearly heard it before, its right there on the screen. A film that features two consenting adults in love having sex could probably stand to be viewed a little more leniently than one that features rough, lude sex or a rape scene. Its not the same thing and shouldn't be looked at the same. I could go on.
ElJuski
Staff member
I mean, I get what you're saying, but you're not looking at documentaries as the broad spectrum it is.
But really the rating system for any movie, not just documentaries, is for the dogs anyways.
Remember when Rated X was a thing? If you do, than you should take your meds grampa. It's nap time! That is how irrelevant such ratings are. Midnight Cowboys by today's standards is on the boderline of PG-13/R. Man thikin' bout that ending still makes me cry. OH RATZO!
So your argument revolves primarily around the belief that if it's real, then kids should be able to see it without parental permission, regardless of content? Or that standards should be relaxed if it's "real"?
I would like you first to give a loophole free definition of a "documentary" that would clearly differentiate between "real" and "scripted" so that we can choose examples of existing "documentaries" and "scripted films" that would gut your argument that children should be able to watch "documentaries" without restriction, or with relaxed standards, or with different standards that couldn't also apply equally well to scripted films.
Without a clear delineation, though, it would be pointless to argue with you about your silly belief that one visula art is fundamentally different than another visual art in its ability to impact the attitudes and beliefs of others.
In fact, one might be able to turn your argument around and say that since documentaries are real and do have meaningful impact on youth's identities and belief of what is normal human behavior, they should be held to significantly higher standards.
But first we'll need common ground to define what counts as a documentary and what doesn't. I'll let you decide what that is.
MPAA will still be better than the alternative. Having some Government Official decide what you can and can not see.
I'm arguing that the context objectionable material is presented in is more important than just material being objectionable. A documentary about an ethnic cleansing could come up with images and descriptions that would make Eli Roth blush but that would not make it equal to Hostel. An R-Rating means, usually though there may be a few exceptions, that schools do not even have the option of showing it. Sometimes that applies to unrated material as well. What documentaries should get from the MPAA is an unbiased fact sheet describing their content - the kind of thing a teacher would be able to print off and send home as part of a permission slip.
THAT IS NOT MY ARGUMENT. My argument is that saying "This film, which documents real life goings on and has educational potential, has naughty words or violent images in it so let's place it in the same category as The Hangover and ensure that it can never be used widely as an educational tool below the college level" is fucking stupid. If you put health class videos about birth and sexual development in front of the MPAA, you'd probably end up with some R-ratings for graphic content. Should those videos be taken out of schools?
fade
Staff member
I see what Norris is going for here. He's making a "spirit of the rule" versus "letter of the rule" argument. A documentary that strictly falls under R rating on technical points still may not qualify as that gestalt that makes something R. There's a load of connotation, like the R should apply to movies where R was the intent, rather than a side effect of filming a slice of reality.
But, I don't agree. I have to agree with Steinman. People want to know whether there's language in this film, and until their kid is 17, they have a right to determine whether that's appropriate (just like the actually DO with sex ed videos shown in school). They may appreciate the message and still hate that there is so much language, and that's their right, whether we like it or not. It really is that simple to a lot of people who want the ratings to tell them how much cursing or adult situations to expect at a glance.
But, I don't agree. I have to agree with Steinman. People want to know whether there's language in this film, and until their kid is 17, they have a right to determine whether that's appropriate (just like the actually DO with sex ed videos shown in school). They may appreciate the message and still hate that there is so much language, and that's their right, whether we like it or not. It really is that simple to a lot of people who want the ratings to tell them how much cursing or adult situations to expect at a glance.
Oh yeah, having it rated publicly is much worse than bitter old men and women and the church doing it arcanely in complete secrecy.
The MPAA operates in secrecy, the government is required to have a certain level of transparency.
And our films are rated by a government board yet our ratings are all significantly more lenient than the ones in the States.
Though I have seen more R (Canadian NC-17) movies in Canada than I think they've released in the US. According to Wikipedia, BC is ruining it for everyone by some BC theaters refusing to screen R rated movies. I know that isn't the case here, Cineplex theaters here have always shown the R rated movies. I can't imagine Cineplex in BC would be any different.
Because actually researching what your (in the general sense, not the personal) will be exposed to is haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaard. I don't care if the MPAA breaks it down like:
This documentary film contains profanity:
- 5 nonsexual instances of the work "Fuck".
- 4 non-literal instances of the word "Shit".
- 2 blasphemous instances of "God Damn".
- 1 blasphemous instance of "Gadzooks".
- Gay men kissing heavily.
- Women enjoying sex.
fade
Staff member
Researching movies IS haaaaaaard. I can go find 50 different opinions on any movie right now, many of which vary in how "inappropriate" they feel the film might be. Add this to the fact that little billy just ran up and said that his friends are going to see Bully, which starts in 5 minutes, and boy if only there was some group that went through these movies and told me what general standard of appropriateness it stood up to, which I understand to be in terms of language, violence, sex, and nudity, regardless of content.
YOU don't care if the MPAA breaks things down that way, but many people do. Some people just don't want their kids exposed to that kind of language regardless of content. That may bother you to no end, and maybe rightly so, but that's what many, many people care about. That's the problem. ANY rating system is always going to be subjective. I could make an argument very similar to yours about a film that might be considered highly artistic, but that contains lots of violence, sex, and swearing. It probably could be used as an educational tool, to demonstrate artistic technique.
YOU don't care if the MPAA breaks things down that way, but many people do. Some people just don't want their kids exposed to that kind of language regardless of content. That may bother you to no end, and maybe rightly so, but that's what many, many people care about. That's the problem. ANY rating system is always going to be subjective. I could make an argument very similar to yours about a film that might be considered highly artistic, but that contains lots of violence, sex, and swearing. It probably could be used as an educational tool, to demonstrate artistic technique.
So after all that, and after releasing the film unrated, they went back and edited it anyway to get a PG-13 for another release.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...edited-bully/2012/04/05/gIQAHjfHyS_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...edited-bully/2012/04/05/gIQAHjfHyS_story.html
Couldn't they just bleep out the swear words? Would that not solve the problem?
In the meantime, apparently there's a very major omission from the movie:
Tyler was not only gay (which I don't know if it's mentioned in the movie or not), but he also had aspergers. Aspergers Syndrome is a form of autism. To leave this out of the film is ridiculous because while it doesn't condone or support the bullies, it does give you additional reasoning as to why they were bullying him. Hurm.
In the meantime, apparently there's a very major omission from the movie:
Tyler was not only gay (which I don't know if it's mentioned in the movie or not), but he also had aspergers. Aspergers Syndrome is a form of autism. To leave this out of the film is ridiculous because while it doesn't condone or support the bullies, it does give you additional reasoning as to why they were bullying him. Hurm.
That's a different Tyler. The film is about Aspergers' sufferer Tyler Long who was bullied to death, but there is also a far more well known gay teen named Tyler Clementi was bullied to death. He's the young man whose college roommate video taped him on a date, for the purpose of shaming him.
You didn't watch the video. The video is criticizing the filmmakers so omitting any mention of Tyler Long's autism because it was what he was bullied for (more accurately, it caused the things that he was bullied for). He compares it never mentioning Tyler Clementi was gay if one were to make a documentary about him.
Frankly, I agree with the video.
I'm not saying that at all. But the fact is, the aspergers is a pretty defining trait.
EDIT: Ah, my bad, Covar.
EDIT: Ah, my bad, Covar.
- Status