MPAA Upholds R Rating On ‘Bully’
UPDATE, 5:33 PM: The MPAA has issued this response from Joan Graves, chair of the association’s Classification and Rating Administration, which doles out movie ratings. Here it is:
“Bullying is a serious issue and is a subject that parents should discuss with their children. The MPAA agrees with the Weinstein Company that Bully can serve as a vehicle for such important discussions.
The MPAA also has the responsibility, however, to acknowledge and represent the strong feedback from parents throughout the country who want to be informed about content in movies, including language.
The rating and rating descriptor of ‘some language,’ indicate to parents that this movie contains certain language. With that, some parents may choose to take their kids to this movie and others may not, but it is their choice and not ours to make for them. The R rating is not a judgment on the value of any movie. The rating simply conveys to parents that a film has elements strong enough to require careful consideration before allowing their children to view it. Once advised, many parents may take their kids to see an R-rated film. School districts, similarly, handle the determination of showing movies on a case-by-case basis and have their own guidelines for parental approval.”
Privately, an MPAA insider told Deadline’s Nikki Finke that Harvey Weinstein is threatening a “leave of absence” from the MPAA ratings system for “Pure publicity. He is not a member so he can’t take a leave. He might choose not to have his films rated, which is his right. It is up to theaters if they want to show unrated films. Some do. Others don’t.”
PREVIOUS, BREAKING…
Harvey Weinstein today says his company is considering “a leave of absence from the MPAA for the foreseeable future”. It’s not a member of the movie studio lobbying and ratings group. But this follows the association upholding its R-rating on the indie distributor’s documentary Bully. The ruling puts a dent in Harvey Weinstein’s plan for the studio and filmmakers to show the film as a teaching tool in middle schools and high schools (a screening of the film is planned for tomorrow at LA’s Fairfax High). The ratings board originally gave the documentary about school bullying the rating based on language, and Weinstein personally attended the appeals hearing today; the board requires a two-thirds vote, and Weinstein says the Lee Hirsch-directed film fell one vote short of becoming PG-13.
It’s unclear how Weinstein Co would show its films without an MPAA rating; although not required, an unrated film rarely is screened in theaters per a longstanding though nonbinding agreement between exhibitors and the MPAA. The current ratings system has been in place since 1968.
Here’s Weinstein’s statement:
As of today, The Weinstein Company is considering a leave of absence from the MPAA for the foreseeable future. We respect the MPAA and their process but feel this time it has just been a bridge too far.
I have been through many of these appeals, but this one vote loss is a huge blow to me personally. Alex Libby gave an impassioned plea and eloquently defended the need for kids to be able to see this movie on their own, not with their parents, because that is the only way to truly make a change.
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.
I personally am going to ask celebrities and personalities worldwide, from Lady Gaga (who has a foundation of her own) to the Duchess of Cambridge (who was a victim of bullying and donated wedding proceeds) to First Lady Michelle Obama (whose foundation has reached out to us as well), to take a stand with me in eradicating bullying and getting the youth into see this movie without restriction.




is he trying to bully the MPAA?
You’re an idiot.
No, he’s not – he’s just pointing out a notable irony that everyone else seems to be aware of but you.
Since when is having a professional disagreement, and parting ways as a result, considered “bullying”? Stop trying to manipulate the use of this word to grind an axe with Harvey. There’s a big difference between hard-nosed business tactics, and systematic personal attacks on a individual which are designed to humiliate that person and ostracize them from their peers.
I agree with the post from ‘Michael D’ below. Kids in middle school, and especially high school, utilize these words that the MPAA thinks they’re protecting them from with an R rating. In fact, a lot of them have picked up the use of these words from their own parents.
If Harvey wants to show this film in schools, then he should just deal with the school systems and leave the MPAA out of it. The school administrators can handle it the same way they do sex education in more conservative areas of the country….send home a permission note for the parents to sign before the students are allowed to view the film. The MPAA is really not needed for this exercise.
Sure. They also text naked pictures of themselves to each other, so why not just abolish the X rating as well?
If Weinstein doesn’t like the rating, he can always take out whatever garnered the film an “R” and stop his incessant whining.
So your strategy here is to make an extreme analogy in order to derail the conversation about a very serious issue? We’re not talking about X-rated movies, but language.
I don’t understand people like you who seem to be more offended at the notion of foul language than vicious acts of verbal and physical violence directed at defenseless children. If kids are given a chance to see a candid view of what these bullied kids endure, they might become more empathetic and actually stand up for someone else before a life is lost.
So if it so important to him, why not just cut out a few of the words to get a PG-13 rating? Oh, wait, that would mess with the “artistic integrity” of his masterpiece. Translation = I want to make money, get as much publicity for my movie so I can make more money and if it happens to make a dent in bullying so be it.
I agree with Harvey on this one and the MPAA has proved to be waste of space but… Is anyone going to mention the irony of Harvey W, one of the biggest bullies in Hollywood history, being the voice of reason on this? Will he see his own movie and apologize to the people he’s belittled, berated or thrown food at? There are a LOT of bullies in this town. How many will go beyond preaching about kids and look at how they behave on the set and in the boardroom?
WAR OF THE WORLDS: Rated PG-13 for frightening sequences of sci-fi violence and disturbing images.
STAND BY ME: Rated R for language.
Maybe they can recut BULLY to phase out the language, but add depictions of bullying that leads to graphic murder. Adding Steven Spielberg as a producer might do the trick also.
This system has to go. The average 13 year old says and does things that gives a film an R, and they aren’t learning this stuff from movies. It was a stupid system in 1968 and its even stupider now… although im sure Santorum likes it.
Agree with you…totally!
You are really dumb and here’s why. There’s a difference between what a 13 year old hears from his peers and what he hears from adults and figures of authority. If you think what is okay for a 13 year old spaz to say is also okay for an adult to say then your brain is really broken. Go vote for Ron Paul about it or something. Every society has moral standards for a reason, your idea that they are somehow irrelevant because of what kids get up to on Twitter is one of many dumb thoughts promoted by Internet nerds who have little social contact with the outside world.
Sure some 13 year olds say “fuck”. Do you think that then makes it fine for a child’s apparent to allow that same 13 year old to swear around the house or say directly to his parents what he might say behind their back? If so, I pray you never have children, though I am guessing there is little risk of that.
I’m sorry but I can’t not comment here, your comment and stance in general is so maddening.
In this case, your argument holds no water, and here’s why: the words in question are uttered by kids. So in watching the movie, youth audiences would be hearing profanity as spewed by their peers (and NOT by “adults and figures of authority” as you put it)… as would parents watching this film who would hopefully be woken up from their misguided notions of what goes on when their children aren’t in front of them.
This isn’t about “Internet nerds”, as you mistakenly believe it to be. It’s about an epidemic… just look at Anoka-Hennepin for ONE example: a suicide outbreak with bullying at the center of the storm, and a band of ignorant parents and “figures of authority” who refuse to acknowledge the cause and the logical solution in favor of their own archaic belief system. Sad, really.
The message should trump MPAA politics, plain and simple. In response to your prayers for the other poster, I personally pray that you don’t have children because you appear to have a naive view of modern youth… but most of all, if you do, I pray that you and your family are never touched by the tragedies that bullying has the very real potential to lead to because it looks like you might not be doing much to prevent that.
Hate to say it, but Go Harvey, Go!
I don’t think it has to go, but it needs to be fixed to represent reality. Prime example: every non-home-schooled thirteen-year-old in this country is hearing the F word multiple times a day.
The current system the MPAA has on that word is that hearing it twice is okay for a thirteen-year-old, but hearing it three times is only okay for seventeen-year-olds. Kindly explain the rational for that, MPAA.
I’ll bet that if a film had extended scenes with Santorum, it would get an R rating too
Worthy cause. Go, Harvey!
Someone needs to stand out against the random, subjective, and far-too-powerful ratings system. Too bad Harvey’s going to be looked at as a kook rather than a voice of reason.
Its because he IS a kook. A bullying kook trying to push the gaybo agenda on every kid everywhere and even trying to circumvent the parents in the process. Typical liberal.
In what universe do you think that kids EVERYWHERE will be FORCED into seeing this movie? Why would it be a bad thing for kids to watch a documentary about the real effects of bullying?
“Typical” backwards conservative.
Amen. How else can DECENT parents know which films – that represent what is normal, decent and acceptable to them, and what is not – have any idea which movies to bless with their permission to see it? This is why mainstream America believes Hollywood is a sewer.
WTF? Did you seriously just come on here and make such an outrageous homophobic remark? Or did you mean something else by that? I can’t actually see a definition for “gaybo” agenda, but I can for gay agenda and you if that’s what you mean then shame on you!!! Typical close-minded idiot.
Normally I don’t like Harvey Weinstein, but in this case I agree with him 100%.
I’m going to have to go back into therapy for writing this: Harvey’s right.
I may book the appointment right after yours. Wanna carpool?
Santa Monica? Let’s do it.
Same. Groupon, are you listening? Discount for that therapy, please. Three of us here, waiting.
confirming that all three of you need therapy
The MPAA Ratings System caters to the ignorant tight-ass club mentality.
Time for some upheaval to bring some real change.
Yes, we need to have a ratings system, but everyone knows this thing is as out-of-date as it was in the mid 1960′s when the production code finally cracked.
If anybody can stand up to the MPAA (who are the real bullies) it’s Harvey. If anybody can push an unrated film, it’s Harvey. he’s the right man at the right time on this one.
GO HARVEY!
The original “Footloose” was released in 1984. It contained teen drinking and pot use and swearing. And was rated PG. It would be R-Rated today. Today a PG movie doesn’t get made, let alone a wide release, because the rating is so mild as to make you laugh.
The lack of transparency, the lack of clear rules, the inconsistency of ratings, and the focus on sexual/moral shock instead of shock over violence and gore, have made the MPAA into one of the silliest organizations around. Weinstein is absolutely right to ignore them. The loud conservatives in this country will always scream louder and demand that movies be rated R for their precious children and that books be banned because they are terrified that their kids might understand the world as it is instead of the world the imagine by mis-remembering their own squeaky-clean youth.
MPAA needs to be gutted or ignored.
GREMLINS would not get made in today’s climate. It would be an R rated family movie.
s
The core conflict in DIRTY DANCING was a botched, illegal abortion and a teenager losing her virginity. Can you imagine that movie getting made today?
“Today a PG movie doesn’t get made, let alone a wide release, because the rating is so mild as to make you laugh”
ehhh…not so true. Considering that nearly all of the top grossing films in recent history were either PG or PG13…one “R” in there was only rated an “R” in an effort to scare viewers away and that was Mel “Taxicab Confessions” Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ”.
As much as i dislike Harvey, the MPAA is useless and must be put down.
Maybe Harvey should be president of both the MPAA and the Academy. He could bring them both into the 21st century.
Excellent suggestion!
If he’s so concerned with kids seeing this and that troubled by bullying then will he forgo profits and give it away for free on the internet where most kids are likely to see it anyways?
How do you suggest the producers who actually made the film survive?
MPAA = N.R. (Not Relevant)
Harvey Weinstein might just be my new personal hero. For anyone who has seen Kirby Dick’s expose on the MPAA ratings system This Film Is Not Yet Rated, they know that this system is completely irrelevant and destructive to filmmakers. Conveniently, it keeps independent filmmakers from making films whose subject matter actually matters in the world and should be seen, yet gross-out teen comedies and crude exploitative humor and violent movies are somehow given a PG-13 rating, all in favor of the studios. Not like a kid can’t just download a movie he or she wants to see anyways, but a film like this needs to be seen.
Kudos to Weinstein for taking a strong stand (again) against the ratings board. This message film shows how ridiculous and backwards the MPAA is – to ban children and teenagers from seeing a film that addresses a current issue that is literally causing the deaths of their peers, is highly irresponsible
Where Harvey goes, others will follow. And not a moment too soon.
“eradicating bullying”? Start with yourself.
You’re one of the most notorious bullies in the business, Harvey. Always have been, always will be.
I stand by Harvey on this one…. Knowledge is power for our kids and adults as well. Life is so different then it was in 1968.
I applaud the MPAA for not being bullied by the liberals and hippies who think filthy language in any context should be given a free pass. What exactly is the benefit of trying to prevent children from being beaten if they’re simultaneously corrupted by vulgarity in the process? I think I speak for everyone when I say lessons in decency should not come at the cost of decency itself.
Clearly you don’t smell good. You don’t even smell well, because your “sniff test” is totally out of whack. You would honestly equate being beaten by bullies (often to the point of hospitalization, and sometimes death) with hearing foul language? Obviously you need to experience the former as much as you have the latter so that you can actually learn the difference.
I still crack up when people talk about “liberals and hippies”. It’s 2012 lol
And you do not speak for everyone.
And between the MPAA and the Academy with their old white men running the show..things definitely need to get with the times. These were puritanical ideals set a long time ago. They don’t accurately reflect the reality of today.
You know the only countries in the world where ratings systems actually take into account ‘foul language’ is in the USA, UK and Australia?
Man, everyone else in the world is obviously super screwed up because there isn’t someone to protect the little kiddies.
Because portraying bullies as saying “gosh,” “darn,” “heck” and calling someone “goofy” or a “jerk,” will make the film SO much more relate-able to kids in that situation…
The MPAA needs to get it’s head out of the sand and modernize. The ratings system is ill-equipped to accurately reflect the changed nature of today’s social landscape. It’s vilification of sex and indifference to violence should churn the stomach of any rational-thinking person and I’m pleased that someone of stature is finally calling out the MPAA for the real damage they are doing to children in our country with these mixed-up values. Definitely support Harvey here.
As much as we dislike the MPAA, what’s the alternative? Government-run ratings boards, like in the UK or Australia? I don’t think any of us want that, but there has to be some entity giving out these ratings.
The US can’t actually have a government run ratings board now, as motion pictures have 1st amendment protection. That’s why we have the “supposedly voluntary” MPAA system.
The UK’s ratings board is independent actually.
And they don’t take nearly as much offence to swearing as the American one – we got the King’s Speech uncut.
Now we have more proof that CARA is so capricious that a single uptight person can render a movie either dirty or not dirty. When Otto Preminger and United Artists distributed “The Moon is Blue” without a Code seal in 1953, the film not only made a fortune but helped force the Production Code Administration to loosen its girdle. Arthur Penn’s “Bonnie and Clyde” in 1967 delivered the coupe de grace that led, more or less, to the current MPAA Rating System.
Harvey stands on the shoulder of giants.
P.S.: Schools can get permission slips from parents and show it.
The best way to handle a bully is to bully him back. And there is no bigger bully in this business than Harvey. It’s ironic that his is using this film to bully the MPAA.
The MPAA ratings system is archaic, out of touch and completely arbitrary.
It’s time for a new system, one that is more informative of content and less concerned with societal agendas. For example,the MPAA advocates that violence is OK, but language, nudity and sexuality is taboo. That’s a social agenda, not an indicator of what is safe for minors.
However, if language is the only issue, and Harvey really wants to use this movie as a teaching tool rather than just picking another fight with the MPAA, why doesn’t he just bleep the few offending words? Every kid will know what was said and he can still get his PG-13 and screen the film in school districts.
If everyone knows what the bleeped words are, why bother bleeping? It’s just distracting.
bleeping words takes away the impact of actually hearing them uttered.
Normally I’d probably never be cheer Weinstein’s name, lol, but in this case GO HARVEY! The MPAA is a joke with way too much power over the industry. The more people standing up to them, the better.
I saw this doc. at Tribeca Film Festival last April. It was the BEST thing I screened and everyone over the age of 12 should be allowed to see it especially teens and preteens (In fact for some, it should be REQUIRED!)
Good for Harvey. Enough with the MPAA. A few harmless words which we all say and hear warrant an R-rating … but cartoon violence (‘Pirates of the Caribbean” or “Transformers” anyone?) is fine for the whole family. Yeah, right.