Last year, you might recall that I posted an old term paper I wrote back in college about the movie ratings system, and whether it needs to be changed. Well, this year, one movie has inspired me to look back on the issue with regards to one particular genre.
By now, I’m sure that most of my readers have read about the controversy surrounding the documentary, “Bully.” For those who haven’t, a quick recap: last month, The Weinstein Company, and particularly, the notoriously hot-headed Harvey Weinstein, announced that it would be considering cutting off future involvement with the Motion Picture Association of America (the MPAA) after they lost their appeal of “Bully’s” R rating. The film looks at the troubling subject of bullying in schools, which has become a major issue over the past few years after a rash of bullying-related suicides by middle- and high-schoolers; as a result of the subject, the film supposedly includes a great deal of profane language, including several instances of the word, “fuck,” being used on camera. It is this last issue that, evidently, is the primary reason for the film’s R rating; typically, the MPAA only allows one “fuck” per film to qualify for a PG-13 rating. This actually isn’t the first time the Weinstein Company has gone head-to-head over the “F” word with the MPAA; just over a year ago, the MPAA gave the eventual Oscar winner, “The King’s Speech,” an R rating based almost solely on a couple of scenes in which Colin Firth’s titular monarch unleashes a torrent of “fucks” during a session with his speech teacher (Geoffrey Rush).
It’s curious that both cases of excessive “F”-bombs, and whether the films in question really deserved the harsher rating as a result, happened to Weinstein films. In the case of “The King’s Speech,” one can certainly make the argument that the R rating didn’t hurt the film in terms of box-office (and cultural impact) at all; it ended up with over $100 million in the US alone, and was wildly popular with cineastes and general audiences alike. “Bully” is a different story, and really illuminates the out-dated nature of what the MPAA is trying to do. Though based on a true story, “The King’s Speech” is still a narrative feature, with fictional touches to it, and thus is somewhat removed from real life; the filmmakers could have always changed the script, or shot different versions of the offending scenes to avoid the rating, and if teenagers aren’t allowed to see it without parental supervision, it’s not going to be any skin off of their teeth. However, “Bully” is a documentary; what it’s showing is life as it was filmed when the cameras were on that day. More importantly, the R rating means that the film is off-limits for being shown in schools, and limits the exposure of the film to the audience that would undoubtedly benefit the most from watching it. Yes, the filmmakers could always *bleep* the profanity, but I would imagine that would result in some parts of the film being almost unintelligible to the audience. (I haven’t had a chance to see the film myself.)
The controversy surrounding “Bully” makes the overall effectiveness of the MPAA as a ratings board even more suspect than it already was. Cosmetic changes to the way the MPAA does business have helped it gain back some credibility as a guide for parents to inform them as to the nature of content in movies, but that “Bully,” a documentary, where the filmmakers have limited control over what happens on-screen, is given the same, restrictive rating as “The Hangover Part II,” “Project X,” and “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” is kind of ridiculous. While I understand having strict guidelines with regards to language, violence, and sexual content for big-budget productions, I would like to see the “Bully” controversy lead to reforms in the way the ratings board looks at documentaries. Rather than judging the appropriateness of a documentary’s content through the same eyes one would a narrative feature, the MPAA should take a broader view at the film in question, and put it in context of the reality in which it was made. In this era of the 24-hour news cycle, of YouTube and blogging, people are exposed to so much more information about the reality contained in a film such as “Bully,” and would no doubt be more prepared to handle not just the subject matter, but the way it’s presented.
I’ll have much more about the subject when I’ve had the chance to watch the film when it comes out on March 30.
Thanks for listening,
Brian Skutle
www.sonic-cinema.com
