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.
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.
I think that premise is flawed in today's environment. It assumes that minors get a lot of their information about sex from MPAA rated movies. That might have been true in the 1990's, but ever since file sharing and the web took off, porn has been ubiquitous. Not to mention the last few years with all the porn-centric youtube clones.
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.
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"
All films can make a profit. A doc like this has deals with foreign public television distributors and other entities where if it's box office reaches some minimal american threshold they automatically will buy the film regardless of their take on it. Production costs are low enough that in fact they can have a really good ROI, even if it doesn't contribute huge amounts to the overall company bottom line.
>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.
It's been a long time since I've seen Once, but it's a touching love story. As far as I remember, there's no violence, graphic sex or anything remotely objectionable or disturbing besides your aforementioned f-bombs. The R rating may not be shocking since we know how the MPAA rates thing, but it certainly doesn't make sense that Once is less appropriate for teens than movies containing violence, sex and other things parents typically object to their kids seeing.
Here's the top grossing PG-13 movies:
http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic/mpaa.htm?page=PG-1...
I think you'll find Once to be more innocuous than almost all of the movies on that list.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
"Doesn't make sense since this assumes that all teenagers speak like the 'bullies' depicted in the film."
The only thing materially communicated by this R rating is that someone says "fuck" more than once in the movie. To call that speaking like a bully is incredibly reductive to the point of turning your argument into a straw man.
That is why 'bullies' was in quotes. We don't know who said the words that the MPAA had a problem with and perhaps it wasn't even the bullies using the offensive language. The point is that, according to the article, the counter-argument is that the offensive language was said by a high-schooler so the movie should be viewable by high-schoolers. In effect, attributing the worst case scenario to the general case.
How is that a straw man?
EDIT: Also hoping for discussion regarding voluntarily censoring (bleeping) since that is something I've never seen before in movies and regardless of how strong the arguments/counter-arguments are, the rating has already been given.
> In effect, attributing the worst case scenario to the general case.
I don't think that's a fair statement. If you watch "R-rated" depictions of brutal violence, the probability that you will be adversely psychologically (or socially) affected by those depictions is pretty close to zero. This is not because you have committed acts of brutal violence yourself, but rather because you are capable of dealing with such things in a mature and rational way. Similarly, the argument here is not that high-schoolers will be unaffected by this film because they have practised the behaviour depicted therein, but because they have dealt with it and understand the implications of such behaviour.
Language is a particularly important case because people outside the school system (and even some inside it) tend to believe that children are unspoilt bundles of verbal innocence, whereas in reality the sort of language practised on a day-to-day basis by your average 13-year-old is probably considerably more offensive than the language used in this film. It's ironic that a film like this one should be crushed by the very veil of ignorance which it attempts to lift - social norms change, and the MPAA can't expect to be able to stick its head in the sand and assume that a ratings system based on a fairly static set of "family values" will be relevant forever.
Thank you for the explanation. I think your view of their position, that teenagers will not be adversely affected by exposure to the language is a better interpretation than how I took it when I read the article.
Wishful thinking it may be but I am more inclined to consider the typical 13-year-old as more innocent although I do see the potential irony.
Still, I would prefer my kids to see the movie without the more extreme curse words than with it so I feel like the MPAA is performing a useful role here; that of alerting potential viewers to the general level of 'unpleasantness' they will encounter.
Regardless of the rating we'll still watch it but if the threat of an 'R' causes the producers to bleep the worst language I think its a win since I don't think the overall message regarding bullying will be impacted.
The problem with considering the typical 13-year-old as innocent is that you end up making decisions based on inaccurate data.
The primary point of this film isn't to be entertaining or pleasing, but to help force people to confront the fact that this sort of thing is actually happening. Removing the unpleasantness would be counterproductive, even if you could still get the message through (less effectively) without the language.
> (unrelated but I personally found the censored version of The Osbournes to be much funnier than the uncensored version)
...and perhaps that's why it's important to keep the language in? Bleeping it reduces the effect.
Something similar happened in Robocop; the scene showing ED-209 machine gunning the junior executive was originally very long. The MPAA gave the film an X rating, so lots of the the movie was cut. The machine gunning was now short, efficient. That turned a scene which was darkly comic, totally ridiculous, into something much more chilling.
This seems to be pretty regular with violent movies. The scene in fight club where the main character beats up the guy with the blond hair had to be edited, and IMO is much more disturbing in the edited version.
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.
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...)
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.
In high school, our history teacher showed parts of 3 episodes of Band of Brothers ("Day of Days", "Bastogne", and "Why We Fight"). It was pretty graphic and awesome. The scene in the holocast camp in "Why We Fight" was pretty disturbing.
She tied it in pretty neatly with our lessons on WWII. The high school was in Wisconsin.
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.
The MPAA isn't a distributor. They offer a rating system that has become the defacto system for rating movies and if you don't use them you'll have trouble getting placed into theaters.
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.
