The fight over Bully continues, with the National Association of Theatre Owners now making its own threats. News came out last week that the MPAA upheld its R-rating for The Weinstein Company’s Tribeca 2011 doc about school bullying and since then the Weinstein Co has considered releasing the doc unrated and even to boycott the MPAA altogether, a move could have implications for its future releases. If TWC indeed goes ahead with releasing the film unrated, NATO said today in a letter to Weinstein boss Harvey Weinstein that it will urge members to consider the Lee Hirsch-directed film an NC-17 movie. In the letter (see below), NATO president and CEO John Fithian
said he would “have no choice but to encourage my theater owner members to treat unrated movies from The Weinstein Company in the same manner as they treat unrated movies from anyone else. In most cases, that means enforcement as though the movies were rated NC-17 — where no one under the age of 18 can be admitted even with accompanying parents or guardians.”
TWC said Tuesday in a statement its sole purpose for releasing the film is “educating children and highlighting how bullying has become a national crisis.” It added that Weinstein principals Harvey and his brother Bob were father to four children and see this as a “personal matter and one deserving its due respect from the MPAA and NATO.”
Meanwhile, a Michigan high school student began petition urging the MPAA to give Bully a PG-13, which would make it more accessible to middle school and high school students. As of Tuesday afternoon, it had 94,000 signatures.
Here’s the NATO letter to Harvey Weinstein:
Dear Harvey,
The National Association of Theatre Owners partners with the MPAA in the rules and operations of the Classification and Ratings Administration. Exhibition representatives participated yesterday in the appeal of “Bully.” As you know, the appeals board voted to uphold the ratings board’s decision that the prevalence of harsh language in “Bully” warranted an “R” rating. In response, you released a statement criticizing the decision, and threatening to remove your company’s movies from the ratings process.
As the father of a nine-year-old child, I am personally grateful that TWC has addressed the important issue of bullying in such a powerful documentary. The filmmaker and especially the brave young people who participated in this project deserve our attention and respect. Nonetheless, I believe that your public response to the decision of the appeals board is unwise.
Surveys of America’s parents reflect their very strong concern with the use of harsh language in movies. The vast majority of parents surveyed have indicated that the type of language used in “Bully” should receive an automatic “R” rating. You ask us to ignore the preferences of America’s parents and our own ratings rules because of the merit of this movie. Yet were the MPAA and NATO to waive the ratings rules whenever we believed that a particular movie had merit, or was somehow more important than other movies, we would no longer be neutral parties applying consistent standards, but rather censors of content based on personal mores.
You recently released the award-winning movie “King’s Speech” and must know the language rules very well. You should not have been surprised at the rating for “Bully.”
I have nothing but tremendous respect for you and the work of TWC. Our industry is so much the better for your involvement. But if you decide to withdraw your support and participation in the rating system, and begin to release movies without ratings, I will have no choice but to encourage my theater owner members to treat unrated movies from The Weinstein Company in the same manner as they treat unrated movies from anyone else.
In most cases, that means enforcement as though the movies were rated NC-17 – where no one under the age of 18 can be admitted even with accompanying parents or guardians.
Thank you for your consideration of these thoughts. And the best of luck to you on Sunday.
Sincerely yours,
John Fithian
President & CEO
NATO


nc-17 you got to be joking. it is about bully and the aftermath affect on the victim and the family. it is no wonder that most filmaker decide to used director cut when they release a film. i am hopping that the filmaker will win the battle. your truly charles david haskell
Katy Butler, Michigan high school student, created a petition at change.org to fight the R rating and get it changed to PG-13. Sign the petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/mpaa-dont-let-the-bullies-win-give-bully-a-pg-13-instead-of-an-r-rating?utm_medium=email&utm_source=action_alert
The New York Times did an article on change.org earlier this year saying how these petitions have worked on other issues to change things. I hope it works for BULLY!!!
Harvey is right in this situation, although boycotting the MPAA in future seems a step to far. To teach kids about Bullying requires letting them see and hear the real thing. I think parents are right to be concerned about what kids see and hear in the movies, and every parent has the right and responsibility to protect their children, but maybe in this case parents are not really being helped by making it harder for their kids to see this movie. Maybe an honest, uncensored look at Bullying will help parents and children to tackle Bullying more effectively by getting more honest look at what it is. The MPAA is not a machine, they are people who are supposed to make a judgment. Maybe they should look at what the overall message of the movie is and it’s value in that light, instead of counting how many curse words there are.
i dont get it..NC17 for a movie aimed to teach about bullying to kids under 17 HMMMMMMM language?? have you been to a mall or a skate park or playground lately?? all you hear is foul language and in the music especially rap-hip hop..some one is misguided..
Didn’t read the article, did you? They threatened NC-17 NOT because of the language or anything having to do with the film, really. Weinstein wanted to boycott the ratings because his movie got an R and the MPAA said that theater owners will have to treat unrated movies like NC-17 movies.
If some producer got ticked his movie got a PG when he thought it should get a G, and he decides to forgo the MPAA, then the theater would treat that movie like an NC-17 movie, too.
So they are bullying an anti-bullying movie?
What a sad, sad state of affairs. BULLY is a film that should be seen by as many children and parents as possible. It conveys a powerful message that just possibly could have reversed yesterday’s tragedy in Ohio. However, I strongly believe that the MPAA must hold to their position on the “R” and that everyone will suffer if NATO enforces an “NC-17.” As a concerned father and grandfather, I hope that Harvey Weinstein will reconsider his position and allow BULLY to be shared with as many filmgoers as possible and realize that the message it delivers is so much more important than the rating. If not, we all lose.
I said my first ‘bad word’ at 12, which was very late…most kids I knew were cussing at around 8 years of age. Censors generally do not care about reality, they care about gratifying their sense of false moral worth or their holier than thou lackeys greasing their palms. The ratings system is rooted in fascist censorship which is not the answer. Let the schools and parents decide, and give the film a lower rating. If this film gets an NC17 by ‘NATO’, then I know kids who themselves will boycott Nato theaters for at least a year.
MPAA = Bully
Oh John…never in writing…and now this is leaked today of all day’s after a third child has died in the shootings in Cleveland.
You’ve been spun friend.
While the NATO charter and ties to MPAA rulings are well established one could make the case that it’s situations like this that warrant examination of the process and consideration for change and for FUCKS SAKE MAN if there ever was a reason to point to the validity of VOD – defending an antiquated rating system and taking this type of stance is IT.
Just bleep out the offensive words for the release and then have an unrated on dvd — which is where it would be heading anyways to teach in schools right?
I guess this is the “Bullying” technique harvey uses to win undeserving oscars.
Shame on MPAA and NATO for their lack of compassion and flexibility. There should be a rating reserved for special movies like this. It’s ironic on many levels that the Weinstein’s are being bullied about their doc about bullying.
VOD seems to be the way this will be seen anyway.
I remember a few years ago there was a documentary about soldiers in Iraq that had lots of swearing. The MPAA gave it a PG-13 because according to them it was important for people to see the movie and the language was part of the culture of soldiers. Why don’t they do the same thing here?
If you haven’t seen the trailer yet, please do so. You will agree EVERY high-schooler should see this film. Any organization that tries to prevent it is seriously misguided and out of touc. Because of “dirty words”???…. words American kids hear every day? We’re talking about 11-year-olds hanging themselves because of bullying. Harvey, keep up this good fight. And no, I don’t work for anyone involved in this film in any way.
A bully tries to release a film about bullying, gets a bad rating, tries to bully the MPAA, and gets bullied by NATO instead.
Threats, intimidation….Soooo….who’s the bully?
The MPAA needs to update their antiquated ratings criteria to be more in line with countries like Canada, whose film review board in Ontario consistently gives appropriate ratings and comments for films, and rates films with violence stricter than films containing only language and/or sexuality. The King’s Speech was rated in Ontario with a fair and appropriate examination of the context in which profanity was used and awarded it a PG rating. If I am not mistaken, it was awarded a G in the province of Québec. The MPAA, an organization that believes onscreen violence and murder are appropriate for thirteen year olds but saying a four letter word more than once is only appropriate for those over seventeen, are not looking out for the well being of the parents and children they claim to serve.
Just release a BLEEPED version for the the theatrical release so you can get a PG-13 and a non rated version for the DVD.
Done. This ain’t rocket science.
Yeah, that would be a great idea if 13 year olds were struggling to cope with mobs of other kids actually yelling the word “bleep” at them.
Exhibitors are under no legal obligation to obey CARA/MPAA ratings except insofar as ignoring them may place them at odds with local ordinances, none of which anyone wants to spend money overturning. Jack Valenti set up the rating system as an advisory to parents, not a commandment to theatres, and the fact that the system’s criteria change over the years dooms any law citing them to be patently invalid.
As always, exhibitors are myopic and reactionary. Trouble is, they hold the money after the b.o. shuts down.
By all means, treat the film, if released unrated, as if it were NC-17. Heaven forbid theater owners view a film and treat by its own merits. Maybe if theater owners did this more often audiences and studios wouldn’t be so hamstrung by the MPAA.
hAH! Right on, irony.
NATO, do you really think you have any control over Regal, AMC, Cinemark, etc…? They will base their film buying on commercial merits of a film not someone far removed from the business.
First to “subnormal magazine ” NATO does not rate films. The letter said it that they would advise exhibitors to treat the film as if it had a NC 17 rating if released unrated.
Secondly, I agree with “Clink” this should have been done with a phone call not a letter. Now we have a line in the sand and a who’s got the bigger dick contest.
I’ll save my spiteful words for the MPAA for a later date.
However, something about this whole situation looks just like anti-trust and colluding behavior.
The Theatre owners should take a stand that they have a brain of their own and deem this content to be worthy of viewing for those under 17, where it may make a real difference in the lives of thousands.
It’s interesting. A lot of Hollywood was on the wrong side of the SOPA debate. This is yet another example of extreme censorship.
In the history of film and in society there has been no more or less violence, contemptible human actions attributable to a rating of a film.
End the sham.
So theater owners will turn away people under 17? riiiiiiiiiiight. They would kill to fill up any of their theaters about now. Lets still a nail in the coffin that is MPAA and NATO.
ridiculous, the mpaa and nato have lost their minds, what an absurd decision