

Overrated: Bully's R Rating Should Mean the End of the MPAA - Bud
http://www.good.is/post/overrated-bully-s-r-rating-should-mean-the-end-of-the-mpaa2/

======
andrewparker
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_panic
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.

~~~
rquantz
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.

------
angrycoder
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.

~~~
neilparikh
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
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.

------
tsotha
>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.

------
b0ner_t0ner
The worst case was still when Once: <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0907657/>
received an R-rating.

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

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

~~~
SoftwareMaven
(Time to burn some karma for going against the grain..)

On the other hand, I find movies with constant foul language tedious to watch.
I'm happy that movie producers have a financial incentive to really think
about whether language really adds to the story or is being thrown in because
it is easier to have an actor say f*ck than to have her actually, you know,
act out her character's emotions.

Yes, the MPAA is prudish and has gotten more prudish over the years (there is
no way the original Exorcist would be rated R today). I also think ratings
could be made more objective (but some subjectiveness will remain). Finally,
the MPAA shouldn't be the ones doing the rating, simply because of the
conflicts of interest involved.

~~~
defen
It really depends on the movie. I see your point about it sometimes being a
lazy way to cover up for poor acting, or just to go for shock value, but
consider "Die Hard" - the word "fuck" (and variations on it) is used 50 times,
mostly by John McClane. I think that helps contribute to the atmosphere of his
being a regular guy who's in way over his head, doing his best to survive in
an impossible situation.

Either way though, I don't think it should be the ratings agency's job to
enforce artistic quality. Either movies that lazily use profanity will fail on
their own lack of merit, or they'll succeed; in which case I would argue that
the public is getting what it's asking for.

Side note: I think it's poor form to lead a comment with "I know this will get
downvoted" or "time to burn some karma" etc. It comes off as a pretty annoying
attempt to psychologically manipulate readers.

------
wccrawford
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.

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

------
alanning
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)

~~~
dedward
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.

~~~
alanning
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...)

~~~
colonel_panic
You can see R movies as long as there are no Mormons in your class. Poor
Mormons... I bet none of their friends called them for at least a month after
the big movie-watching week at the end of each school year.

~~~
simonbrown
How is that their fault?

------
AJ007
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.

------
Tycho
Can't they just bleep out the swearing?

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

------
steve8918
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.

~~~
neilparikh
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"

