comScore
  1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Jane Dough
  8. The Braiser

Officially Official

It’s On: The Battle Over the Bully Rating Heads to Washington, DC

by Jamie Frevele | 11:56 am, March 16th, 2012


The public outcry over the harsh R rating for the documentary Bully has hit a new level and headed straight to the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the people who granted that rating, the Motion Picture Association of America. In an attempt to quell criticism over the rating — which prevents the people who need to see this movie from seeing without adult supervision — the MPAA held a screening and panel discussion to try to convince the highly-influential guests who were invited (including Congressional Representatives) why the R rating was sound. The opposite happened, and now the MPAA is under fire on its own turf. 

In case this is the first you’re hearing of the Weinstein Company‘s Bully and its rating fight with the MPAA, the filmmakers organization — which was, ironically, formed by filmmakers to fight against censorship (by the government) — has given this documentary about teenage students who deal with bullies an R rating, meaning that most teenagers (who might be dealing with similar problems) will not be able to see this movie unless they’re supervised by an adult. Since most teenagers like to do things without their parents, especially when it comes to serious, personal topics like bullying, this means that a lot of the people who should and would want to see Bully won’t be able to see it. Why is it rated R? Sexual content? Graphic violence? Nope, neither. Cursing. It’s rated R for cursing. You know, because we wouldn’t want our kids exposed to cursing, because they never do that!

And while this story has been covered in the news and has prompted tons of online activism (including a petition started by a bullied teenage girl from Michigan that now has over 300,000 signatures), fueled by the Weinstein Company, only now has it gotten as far as the MPAA directly addressing the issue at its official headquarters, signaling that they have heard what everyone has been saying and want to have a discussion. Even though they still believe they were right in their decision, at least they are now actively debating the issue at the highest level rather than just ignoring it and stubbornly standing their ground.

But what they thought would be their closing argument turned out to further fan the flames of controversy. The screening and panel featured the movie’s director, Lee Hirsch, distributor, and one of the subjects, Kelby Johnson, who asked those in attendance, “Since when did curse words become more important than children’s lives?”

The MPAA chief, former Sen. Christopher Dodd (a name you might remember from the SOPA/PIPA debacle), has been trying to defend the rating by saying that if he goes ahead and makes an exception for Bully, then there will be “10 other filmmakers lined up” asking for lighter ratings. That refers to how the MPAA grants its ratings: the organization doesn’t consider the context or the themes. It just has a set of criteria. In this case, using the a profanity like “fuck” more than once automatically gives the movie an R rating. Using it only once will allow a PG-13 rating. Obviously, since Bully takes place in a real school setting, the word “fuck” shows up more than once, notably in one scene that features a bully spewing a tirade of profanity at one of the film’s subjects.

Dodd has said that if that scene is edited down, then the rating will be amended. However, it’s that scene that the filmmakers say is one of the most illustrative scenes in the whole movie, and editing it down will take away from the message they’re trying to convey. Harvey Weinstein has said that he’d move forward with an unrated release if they can’t get the PG-13 rating, though that makes some theater chains unwilling to release it. One exception is AMC Theaters, which has said they would release this particular unrated movie (which teens could see unsupervised), and more chains could possibly follow suit.

David Long, the father of one bullying victim featured in the movie, Tyler Long, who hanged himself after being bullied repeatedly, said that he just doesn’t see the point of the cursing criteria:

“If it can be said once, what’s the difference between one and six? I mean, [the obscenity] is already out there.”

But what is consistently pointed out is the irony of it all — a movie that is intended to inform kids and teens about bullying is being kept from kids and teens by an organization that exists to fight censorship. Dodd himself said that he doesn’t want to disturb the integrity of the film by making the filmmakers change what they made, saying, “I don’t want [the ratings issue] to step all over what Lee crafted.” To which Hirsch countered, “The R is stepping over it, and that’s the problem.”

This is a great moment for us, because we rarely get to mention the ouroboros in posts. And now we can.

We’ll end on this: Bully comes out March 30. It is currently rated R, for language. The Hunger Games, a movie that is about teenagers literally killing each other as instructed by their government, comes out March 23 and is rated PG-13. Well, at least they don’t curse!

(via 24 Frames)

Previously in Bully

TAGS: | | | | |


  • http://www.facebook.com/Gorillazfan Emily Hill

    This is whats wrong with America if not the world you can have a movie about slaughter as an order by the government PG13 yet if it involves one sex scene or cursing it get’s the R treatment last I checked the word FUCK doesn’t hurt anyone

  • Anonymous

    I don’t think the Hunger Games comparison is fair. Sure, it’s about a government killing children as part of their rule, but plot alone shouldn’t make a rating: the Narnia movie also features kids being used as pawns in a life-and-death battle, but there is nothing in that movie that would make it anything more than a moderate kids’ movie.

    I understand why they want to lose the R rating, but I really don’t think it’s necessary. Yes, a few curse words may not hurt anyone, but why should the MPAA give this movie a pass? They’re right; as soon as this one gets a pass, 10 more will be asking for them. It’s not a perfect system, but it does serve a purpose for families/individuals who like to be informed about what they might encounter.

    In fact, it sounds like the unrated version might be even better, considering AMC’s public stance on it. MPAA doesn’t have to compromise their rating system, and the movie is shown.

    This whole argument seems like a lot of hot air.

  • http://profiles.google.com/lowsee Heidi Mason

    Well, it actually does hurt people, but that’s the point of the documentary, to show what damage it’s doing to kids. It’s a word that I personally don’t like to hear at all, but I’m totally on the side of the documentary here.

    As someone who lived through bullying, I can very much say, words hurt, even words that aren’t “swear words.” Words can even kill. I have a very sobering opinion about the phrase “The pen is mightier than the sword.”

  • http://twitter.com/chemrebel N J Mix

    It seems to me the MPAA can’t see the forest for the trees here with the “slippery slope” argument.

  • Anonymous

    So the MPAA is being coerced to alter its opnions by peer pressure?

    Would you like some cheese with that irony?

  • Anonymous

    Yes, how dare kids be exposed to the words that kids use!  Absolute hypocrisy is the highest state to which humans can aspire to, and no change should ever occur to help the first world achieve a greater level of self-awareness and intellectuality.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kaarel-Jakobson/100000313100671 Kaarel Jakobson

     The problem is that the MPAA having to judge movies on a case-by-case basis doesn’t sound like such a bag thing.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, and hopefully a result of widespread viewing of the film will allow peer pressure to make some bullies change their attitudes too.  But before the little bullies can be sorted out, the big ones need a little education.

  • Anonymous

     It’s not hypocrisy, because (gasp) not all kids (or people, for that matter) do use those words.

    I have issues with the MPAA, but they’re bigger things, like depictions of violence getting lower ratings than depictions of sexuality, or male sexuality being considered more acceptable than positive female sexuality. This, however, seems straightforward word-choice.

    But go ahead and be mad about it; it just doesn’t rise to a level of significance for me.

  • http://twitter.com/acidragdoll Bel

     If it opens the floodgates for more films to appeal unfair ratings and we get a ratings system overhaul, why is that a bad thing?

  • Anonymous

    No, the hypocrisy was exactly all of the double-standards that are applied, like you say.  Do you not think that this could be the beginning of changes which could then in turn help the other rating inequalities you mention?

  • Anonymous

     Yeah, I doubt it.

  • Anonymous

    I suggest that everyone watch the documentary – This Film Is Not Yet Rated – and truly see the MPAA for what it is.  Their is a lot to be desired with how they handle the ratings and to see the Weinstein Group want to forego the ratings on their films to me is a smart thing.  Every movie should get rated based not only on content, but on what the movie is trying to convey to the audience.  Documentaries should be handled differently than say the average popcorn movie because they are usually trying to educate people or address a major concern to public.

  • http://profiles.google.com/pastorvor Brian Covey

    Like it or not, the MPAA has a service to provide. You can dislike that service. You may have serious issues with the need or requirement of such a service, but it’s job is what it is. And they are rating this FAIRLY, in exactly the same way they rate all of their movies.
    Why should THIS movie get special treatment? Should the MPAA change the rating so that future MPAA ratings become useless? I mean, if you can rate this movie PG-13 then my kids cannot see ANY PG13 Movies.
    No, the MPAA cannot bend here, nor should they.

    If it is so all fired important that “Kids” see this movie then release the damn thing unrated and call it a day. THAT is how it should happen. Not by tearing down the MPAA because YOU think that this movie is that important.

    I can come up with a very large list of movies that you could say DESERVES this treatment. That if you change THIS rating you should have changed theirs.

    Somehow, the world did not come to an end.

  • Anonymous

    As fair as they are in their service the larger point is that it is a worthless service they provide.

    Horrific, Deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don’t say any naughty woids!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/LKHD6LGDHSQRYUURF6RFW6EYT4 Katherine

     I think your caps lock needs fixing, it seems to be stuck.

    And perhaps MPAA needs to be torn down and rebuilt as something relevant and useful. That’s something that has nothing to this documentary and everything to do with their uneven and unfair standards on all films.

  • Anonymous

    /t does serve a purpose for families/individuals who like to be informed about what they might encounter./

    No, it does not. None of their ratings and warnings actually give any real information.
    Rated R for profanity can mean anything from fuck to slurs. And that is not even starting on what some of their more obscure rating mean:

    PG-13 — Parents Strongly Cautioned. Some Material May Be Inappropriate For Children Under 13. What does inappropriate mean? Subjective bullshit much? No examples whatsoever. PG 13 can mean anything from 6x fuck to several graphic decapitations on screen (LOTR)I’d give them more leeway if they actually had a ticky list and gave us real information and not just their arbitrary bullshit depending on how big the company producing the film is.

  • Anonymous

    dismissing their problems and message because you don’t like the words they use. Derail harder.

  • Frodo Baggins

    I sympathize with what you went through, but this: “Words can even kill.” Really?

  • Frodo Baggins

    “I’d give them more leeway if they actually had a ticky list and gave us real information”

    For that, I’d recommend 
    http://www.commonsensemedia.org/I haven’t used it much myself, not having any kids, but it breaks down potentially objectionable material with far more depth and nuance than MPAA ratings, and in my experience is pretty unbiased politically.

  • Frodo Baggins

    Cheese with irony? Yecch. Everyone knows that the only topping irony needs is a grain of salt.

  • Frodo Baggins

    Let’s call this fight what it is: a clever publicity stunt. Which I’m totally cool with, since it sounds like an actually important and interesting film.

  • http://profiles.google.com/lowsee Heidi Mason

    Yes, really. Think of the people who have committed suicide because of internet bullying, because of just reading words aimed at them with deadly intent. Think also of the people, on discovering some of these suicides, have chanted cruel things such as, “We’re glad he’s dead.”

    If your argument is that words themselves do not directly cause death, that is technically true. But words can leave a person feeling so miserable that he or she feels that death, suicide, is the only answer, the only way out. So I stand by that comment… Words can even kill.

  • Adam Whitley

    words can totally kill just ask blackbolt of the inhumans

  • Adam Whitley

    You’re not big on history I take it?

  • Anonymous

    *tips hat*

    Well played, sir.

X