View Poll Results: Bully (Hirsch, 2012) - The (Discussions and) Reviews Thread
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Twikoff is bullying me into not seeing this film.
1
100.00%
Voters: 1. You may not vote on this poll
Bully (Hirsch, 2012) - The (Discussions and) Reviews Thread
03-27-12, 02:02 PM
#26
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Bully (Hirsch, 2012) - The (Discussions and) Reviews Thread
As it stands right now, I almost wish they would go ahead and release as an R. At least that way more kids will have access to it than if it was treated as an NC-17.
03-27-12, 05:01 PM
#27
Re: Bully (Hirsch, 2012) - The (Discussions and) Reviews Thread
When i was in Grade School, my class went to see Amistad an R rated movie. Parents had to give permission to go but pretty much every student ended up going. Why can't schools do the same with this film?
03-27-12, 06:06 PM
#28
Re: Bully (Hirsch, 2012) - The (Discussions and) Reviews Thread
They play that Scared Straight bullshit on tv unedited because it's deemed "important" they showed Schindlers List unedited and show it to kids so in other words it's all bullshit.
03-28-12, 11:04 AM
#29
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Re: Bully (Hirsch, 2012) - The (Discussions and) Reviews Thread
There was a great article from Salon posted last night regarding the MPAA and their response to the film.
03-28-12, 12:56 PM
#30
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Bully (Hirsch, 2012) - The (Discussions and) Reviews Thread
The MPAA and NATO could've done the right thing and almost become heroes in this situation. They could've agreed to release the movie as PG-13 but post signs stating that the language was a little more harsher than with a normal PG-13.
03-28-12, 01:46 PM
#31
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Re: Bully (Hirsch, 2012) - The (Discussions and) Reviews Thread
In fact:
Originally Posted by Variety, April 2007
In a rare reversal, the MPAA's Ratings Review Board voted 6-2 on Thursday to shift the rating of ThinkFilm's "The Hip Hop Project" from R to PG-13.
Set for release May 11 in 15 cities, the film tells the story of a formerly homeless teenager who inspires a group of Gotham teens to transform their life stories into hip-hop-driven works of art.
The MPAA has come under fire in the past couple of years over the nearly 40-year-old ratings system. Topper Dan Glickman has acknowledged, for example, that the NC-17 rating has not operated as it was intended -- as a fully integrated filter for mainstream adult content.
Think execs and those behind "Hip-Hop" likened it to "Gunner Palace," the 2005 Iraq war doc that depicted young soldiers' tours of duty. It likewise garnered a reversal to PG-13 despite containing 30 variations on the f-word. Typically, more than two kicks any pic into R territory.
"This motion picture is a call to end the destructive forces of violence, misogyny and criminality that dominate the music our children are listening to," said director Matt Ruskin. "This is the first film to show an alternative that is positive, growth-oriented and honest in a way that is accessible to young people. The overwhelming majority of parents, educators and medical professionals who have seen this film have told us that they are desperate to provide their children with this model for change."
Chris "Kazi" Rolle, founder of the Hip Hop Project, said the filmmakers appealed the rating because teens are the film's most essential audience demo.
"Just as I didn't have a parent to take me to the movies when I was a teenager," he said, "many of the young people who would benefit most from this film would have been denied access if the R rating stood."
Set for release May 11 in 15 cities, the film tells the story of a formerly homeless teenager who inspires a group of Gotham teens to transform their life stories into hip-hop-driven works of art.
The MPAA has come under fire in the past couple of years over the nearly 40-year-old ratings system. Topper Dan Glickman has acknowledged, for example, that the NC-17 rating has not operated as it was intended -- as a fully integrated filter for mainstream adult content.
Think execs and those behind "Hip-Hop" likened it to "Gunner Palace," the 2005 Iraq war doc that depicted young soldiers' tours of duty. It likewise garnered a reversal to PG-13 despite containing 30 variations on the f-word. Typically, more than two kicks any pic into R territory.
"This motion picture is a call to end the destructive forces of violence, misogyny and criminality that dominate the music our children are listening to," said director Matt Ruskin. "This is the first film to show an alternative that is positive, growth-oriented and honest in a way that is accessible to young people. The overwhelming majority of parents, educators and medical professionals who have seen this film have told us that they are desperate to provide their children with this model for change."
Chris "Kazi" Rolle, founder of the Hip Hop Project, said the filmmakers appealed the rating because teens are the film's most essential audience demo.
"Just as I didn't have a parent to take me to the movies when I was a teenager," he said, "many of the young people who would benefit most from this film would have been denied access if the R rating stood."
Originally Posted by Documentary.org, February 2006
When I arrived in Baghdad in 2003 to document the day-to-day lives of the soldiers in my film Gunner Palace, all they asked was that I "tell it like it is." In the months that followed, both in Baghdad and in the edit room, that request became the mantra of the film. It was about them--their experience, their story--in their words. Little did I know that the soldier's words--spoken and sometimes sung in a combat zone--would be individually counted and weighed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).
Shortly after Gunner Palace was acquired by Palm Pictures in September 2004, Palm informed us that if we wanted to have a wide release, we would have to submit the film to the MPAA's Rating Board. Only 15 percent of exhibitors will book films without ratings and in the home video market, a rating is essential to get shelf space with retailers like Wal-Mart (which has a 60 percent market share). While the ratings system is voluntary, participation is mandatory if you want to have a mainstream commercial release, so we somewhat begrudgingly sent off a print to the MPAA.
I didn't know much about the Ratings Board at the time, so I read up on its rules and recent rulings. What I found surprised me: The Ratings Board is made up of parents and community leaders from just one community supposedly representative of American mores and values--Simi Valley, just outside of Los Angeles. The membership is secret, and details about demographics of the board are sketchy at best. A submitted film is screened before eight to 12 members of the board, who then make a decision that is supposed to reflect the "majority opinion of American parents." The board refers to a manual that offers guidelines for ratings--from the number of permitted sexual thrusts to the number of times expletives can be uttered. In our case, I was told by numerous people who had submitted films for ratings that the issue would the language in the film and that more than two uses of the word "fuck" would mean an automatic "R" rating. If that was indeed their yardstick, then Gunner Palace would receive an "R" two minutes into the first reel.
Our hope was that the Rating Board would consider the context and use of the language, understanding that the soldiers in the film are emotionally reacting to the violence and intensity they live in. Moreover, we hoped that the board members would separate reality from fiction. This wasn't a sophomoric comedy or a teen slasher flick; it was a documentary about young soldiers living in a combat zone where four of them had been killed and 60 wounded.
Six weeks later, we received word that the film had been rated "R" for language. The judgment was clinical, void of any explanation. We were told that our only recourse would be to appeal. I was angry. This wasn't simply a bureaucratic procedure anymore; it was about how we
perceive reality. Context was completely lost.
We decided to appeal based on the fact that the "R" would effectively restrict young adults from seeing a film that is especially relevant to their generation. It was a position I felt strongly about. Like many of the soldiers in the film, I walked into an Army recruitment station when I was 16 and was wearing a uniform at 17. If young Americans can make decisions like that--and if they can actively be recruited by the military when they are 14--then surely they are mature enough to see a film about their peers at war.
As we prepared for our appeal, we were reminded that Michael Moore and his consortium of distributors, with the advice and support of a legal team that included Mario Cuomo, had appealed Fahrenheit 9/11's original "R" rating with a similar defense and had lost. In a phone conference we were told by Joan Graves, the head of the MPAA's Classification and Rating Administration (CARA), that we were "wasting everyone's time" when we suggested that perhaps it was time to address the popularity of theatrical documentaries by developing a rating specifically for nonfiction content. She said that the rules were the rules and the MPAA wouldn't budge.
The more we looked at the system, the more we saw that it was flawed. In many cases, it didn't even make consistent sense. The best example we found was Go Tigers!, a theatrical doc about high school football that was rated "R for language and a scene of teen drinking" while a fiction feature about the same subject, Friday Night Lights, was rated "PG-13 for thematic issues, sexual content, language, some teen drinking and rough sports action."
To support our argument, we found a precedent: In November 2004, dozens of ABC affiliates refused to show an uncut version of Saving Private Ryan for fear of being fined for the FCC for obscenity. The film aired with a taped statement from Senator John McCain that said, "Saving Private Ryan is a powerful and important depiction of the sacrifices made for our country. While it contains violence and profanity, these are not shown in a gratuitous manner."
Also in support of the broadcast of the film, former MPAA chief Jack Valenti wrote an op-ed for Variety entitled "Moral Values in Times of War." He writes, "Yes, there is some language in the movie that may cause dismay to some. But this is not just another movie...It cries out to be seen by every young boy and girl in the land so they can understand what sacrifice, duty, honor, service and valor truly mean ..."
In the days before our appeal, PBS faced a similar problem with the Frontline documentary A Company of Soldiers, which also featured hard language from soldiers. Fearing FCC fines, PBS made two versions of the film available--one with expletives bleeped--and let individual stations make their own decisions. Ironically, viewers didn't complain to the FCC; they complained to PBS about censoring the soldiers' speech.
On February 24, 2005 we made our appeal to the 12 members (and one priest/observer) of the CARA appeal board. They screened the film and then Palm Pictures' Andy Robbins and I presented our argument, in which we maintained, "To restrict access to the film via an 'R' rating is essentially censoring an experience." We asked CARA "to constructively work with us to bring the soldiers' story to an audience that will include teens who are mature enough to see this film. As a young soldier says in the film, 'No need to like this, but please respect it. This is life.'"
After our appeal, which was rebutted by Graves, we withdrew to a waiting room for the decision. Graves consoled us with, "Nice try, guys, but this isn't the venue to change the system." Three minutes later, one of the MPAA's moderators came in and told us that the decision was 9 to 3 in favor overturning the "R." I swear I heard an obscenity uttered before Graves said, "What will Michael Moore say?"
Our appeal of Gunner Palace made the cover of Variety under the headline "F-Bombs Catch a Break," and the film was cited as the most profane PG-13 movie ever. But more than half a year later, after a three-month theatrical run and two months on DVD, I have yet to receive one complaint about the language in the film, and I hear from students and teachers every day who feel that the film uniquely enables young people to connect with the war.
I wish I could say that we set a precedent in the world of the MPAA, but based on their rules, we haven't. Producers can't refer to previous rulings in appeals, so our rating means nothing. However, I believe it's a start, and I encourage the IDA to defend the rights of filmmakers to present reality uncensored.
Shortly after Gunner Palace was acquired by Palm Pictures in September 2004, Palm informed us that if we wanted to have a wide release, we would have to submit the film to the MPAA's Rating Board. Only 15 percent of exhibitors will book films without ratings and in the home video market, a rating is essential to get shelf space with retailers like Wal-Mart (which has a 60 percent market share). While the ratings system is voluntary, participation is mandatory if you want to have a mainstream commercial release, so we somewhat begrudgingly sent off a print to the MPAA.
I didn't know much about the Ratings Board at the time, so I read up on its rules and recent rulings. What I found surprised me: The Ratings Board is made up of parents and community leaders from just one community supposedly representative of American mores and values--Simi Valley, just outside of Los Angeles. The membership is secret, and details about demographics of the board are sketchy at best. A submitted film is screened before eight to 12 members of the board, who then make a decision that is supposed to reflect the "majority opinion of American parents." The board refers to a manual that offers guidelines for ratings--from the number of permitted sexual thrusts to the number of times expletives can be uttered. In our case, I was told by numerous people who had submitted films for ratings that the issue would the language in the film and that more than two uses of the word "fuck" would mean an automatic "R" rating. If that was indeed their yardstick, then Gunner Palace would receive an "R" two minutes into the first reel.
Our hope was that the Rating Board would consider the context and use of the language, understanding that the soldiers in the film are emotionally reacting to the violence and intensity they live in. Moreover, we hoped that the board members would separate reality from fiction. This wasn't a sophomoric comedy or a teen slasher flick; it was a documentary about young soldiers living in a combat zone where four of them had been killed and 60 wounded.
Six weeks later, we received word that the film had been rated "R" for language. The judgment was clinical, void of any explanation. We were told that our only recourse would be to appeal. I was angry. This wasn't simply a bureaucratic procedure anymore; it was about how we
perceive reality. Context was completely lost.
We decided to appeal based on the fact that the "R" would effectively restrict young adults from seeing a film that is especially relevant to their generation. It was a position I felt strongly about. Like many of the soldiers in the film, I walked into an Army recruitment station when I was 16 and was wearing a uniform at 17. If young Americans can make decisions like that--and if they can actively be recruited by the military when they are 14--then surely they are mature enough to see a film about their peers at war.
As we prepared for our appeal, we were reminded that Michael Moore and his consortium of distributors, with the advice and support of a legal team that included Mario Cuomo, had appealed Fahrenheit 9/11's original "R" rating with a similar defense and had lost. In a phone conference we were told by Joan Graves, the head of the MPAA's Classification and Rating Administration (CARA), that we were "wasting everyone's time" when we suggested that perhaps it was time to address the popularity of theatrical documentaries by developing a rating specifically for nonfiction content. She said that the rules were the rules and the MPAA wouldn't budge.
The more we looked at the system, the more we saw that it was flawed. In many cases, it didn't even make consistent sense. The best example we found was Go Tigers!, a theatrical doc about high school football that was rated "R for language and a scene of teen drinking" while a fiction feature about the same subject, Friday Night Lights, was rated "PG-13 for thematic issues, sexual content, language, some teen drinking and rough sports action."
To support our argument, we found a precedent: In November 2004, dozens of ABC affiliates refused to show an uncut version of Saving Private Ryan for fear of being fined for the FCC for obscenity. The film aired with a taped statement from Senator John McCain that said, "Saving Private Ryan is a powerful and important depiction of the sacrifices made for our country. While it contains violence and profanity, these are not shown in a gratuitous manner."
Also in support of the broadcast of the film, former MPAA chief Jack Valenti wrote an op-ed for Variety entitled "Moral Values in Times of War." He writes, "Yes, there is some language in the movie that may cause dismay to some. But this is not just another movie...It cries out to be seen by every young boy and girl in the land so they can understand what sacrifice, duty, honor, service and valor truly mean ..."
In the days before our appeal, PBS faced a similar problem with the Frontline documentary A Company of Soldiers, which also featured hard language from soldiers. Fearing FCC fines, PBS made two versions of the film available--one with expletives bleeped--and let individual stations make their own decisions. Ironically, viewers didn't complain to the FCC; they complained to PBS about censoring the soldiers' speech.
On February 24, 2005 we made our appeal to the 12 members (and one priest/observer) of the CARA appeal board. They screened the film and then Palm Pictures' Andy Robbins and I presented our argument, in which we maintained, "To restrict access to the film via an 'R' rating is essentially censoring an experience." We asked CARA "to constructively work with us to bring the soldiers' story to an audience that will include teens who are mature enough to see this film. As a young soldier says in the film, 'No need to like this, but please respect it. This is life.'"
After our appeal, which was rebutted by Graves, we withdrew to a waiting room for the decision. Graves consoled us with, "Nice try, guys, but this isn't the venue to change the system." Three minutes later, one of the MPAA's moderators came in and told us that the decision was 9 to 3 in favor overturning the "R." I swear I heard an obscenity uttered before Graves said, "What will Michael Moore say?"
Our appeal of Gunner Palace made the cover of Variety under the headline "F-Bombs Catch a Break," and the film was cited as the most profane PG-13 movie ever. But more than half a year later, after a three-month theatrical run and two months on DVD, I have yet to receive one complaint about the language in the film, and I hear from students and teachers every day who feel that the film uniquely enables young people to connect with the war.
I wish I could say that we set a precedent in the world of the MPAA, but based on their rules, we haven't. Producers can't refer to previous rulings in appeals, so our rating means nothing. However, I believe it's a start, and I encourage the IDA to defend the rights of filmmakers to present reality uncensored.
CARA had the opportunity to bring the film to a PG-13 even if Graves believes giving Gunner Palace and The Hip Hop Project PG-13 ratings were both mistakes. Instead, they gave Harvey Weinstein more free publicity and power than one should ever give him. Weinstein will come out looking like a hero and a savior for getting the film out there whereas this will start an entirely new wave of bad press and publicity for the MPAA and CARA.
Which I'm all for. If Weinstein wants to start a battle with the MPAA, I'm all for it.
03-28-12, 03:55 PM
#33
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Re: Bully (Hirsch, 2012) - The (Discussions and) Reviews Thread
I could see the film gain a lot of traction if it goes that route. However, rumor is TWC is already brokering a deal with AMC to get the film in their theaters.
EDIT: The Weinsteins are also going the Eventful route at the moment offering those to demand the film and the top ten cities will get an exclusive screening with Q&A afterwards. http://movies.eventful.com/competitions/bully2012
The film opens at the Landmark in Los Angeles (independent chain owned by Mark Cuban) and the Angelika (another independent chain) in New York this Friday.
On Friday, April 13th, the film will open in Chicago (AMC RiverEast), San Francisco (AMC Meteron), Seattle (AMC Pacific Place), Philadelphia (Landmark Ritz), Boston (Landmark Kendall Square) and Minneapolis (Landmark Lagoon). More playdates will be announced within the next week or two.
Last edited by Matthew Chmiel; 03-28-12 at 04:00 PM.
03-28-12, 11:01 PM
#34
Moderator
Re: Bully (Hirsch, 2012) - The (Discussions and) Reviews Thread
AMC mentions this:
"This film is not rated. AMC Theatres will permit guests younger than 17 who want to see the movie without a parent or guardian to do so if they provide a signed permission slip."
http://go.amctheatres.com/bully
I'm not sure how this will actually work, but hey it's a step towards to getting this movie seen by teenagers.
"This film is not rated. AMC Theatres will permit guests younger than 17 who want to see the movie without a parent or guardian to do so if they provide a signed permission slip."
http://go.amctheatres.com/bully
I'm not sure how this will actually work, but hey it's a step towards to getting this movie seen by teenagers.
03-28-12, 11:50 PM
#35
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Bully (Hirsch, 2012) - The (Discussions and) Reviews Thread
Nice. The permission slip is very simple. Plus there's no way they can verify the signature but I'm okay with that.
04-05-12, 08:51 PM
#37
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Bully (Hirsch, 2012) - The (Discussions and) Reviews Thread
Weinstein Co. Changes Course, Edits 'Bully' for PG-13 Rating
The ratings board acts swiftly in granting the PG-13 and allows the Weinstein Co. and filmmaker Lee Hirsch to retain one crucial scene after other language trims were made.
The Classification and Ratings Administration has lowered the rating of high-profile documentary Bully from an R to a PG-13 after the Weinstein Co. resubmitted an edited version of the film.
Bully, which focuses on the bullying epidemic in America's schools, was assigned an R for six uses of the F-word. Rules allow only one use of the word in a PG-13 film.
After viewing the resubmitted version, the ratings board is allowing three uses of "f---" in a victory for the Weinstein Co. and director Lee Hirsch, who did not want to cut a crucial scene where the word was used several times as Alex Libby -- a main subject of the film -- was bullied on a bus. Language exceptions can be made if there is a two-thirds vote by the ratings board.
The Weinstein Co. and Hirsch heralded the exception a win.
"I feel completely vidicated with this resolution," said Hirsh, who earlier this week blasted the MPAA for its langauge rules. "While I retain my belief that PG-13 has always been the appropriate rating for this film, as reinforced by Canada's rating of a PG, we have today scored a victory from the MPAA," Hirsch said.
Harvey Weinstein and Hirsch had unsuccessfully fought to overturn the R rating during an appeals process, sparking off a nationwide debate that put the ratings system under a microscope. The duo have kept the story in headlines for weeks.
In separate statements, the Motion Picture Association of America and the National Association of Theater Owners, which jointly administer the ratings system, said they were pleased that the Weinstein Co. ultimately decided to make trims.
"We are pleased the Weinstein Co. respected the rules and processes of the voluntary ratings system by editing and resubmiting Bully in order to receive the PG-13 rating," NATO said Thursday.
In its statement, the MPAA said: "In the case of Bully, the ratings system has worked exactly as it is supposed to: parents have been kept informed of the content of each version of the film, and they have been given the information they need to make movie-going decisions on behalf of their kids."
Bully opened unrated last weekend in five theaters in New York and Los Angeles, including three AMC theaters. Most exhibitors refuse to carry unrated films, but AMC still required kids younger than 17 to have the written or verbal permission of an adult, essentially meaning it was still treating Bully like an R-rated movie.
Regal Entertainment was expected to follow the same policy once Bully started expanding its run, along with smaller circuits, making it difficult for Bully to be widely seen by kids.
On April 13, Bully makes a major expansion into 55 markets with the new rating.
Harvey Weinstein gave a special shout out to MPAA chair-CEO Christopher Dodd, who held a special screening of Bully for educators in Washington, even as the ratings debate swirled.
"Senator Dodd's support gives voice to the millions of children who suffer from bullying, and on behalf of TWC, the filmmakers, the families in the film and the millions of children and parents who will now see this film, I thank him for recognizing that this very real issue cannot afford to go unnoticed," Weinstein said.
Weinstein is famous for his battles with the ratings board. Last year, he fought to overturn the R rating assigned to The King's Speech for language. As with Bully, he ultimately resubmitted the film so as to secure a PG-13 rating and woo families.
The Classification and Ratings Administration has lowered the rating of high-profile documentary Bully from an R to a PG-13 after the Weinstein Co. resubmitted an edited version of the film.
Bully, which focuses on the bullying epidemic in America's schools, was assigned an R for six uses of the F-word. Rules allow only one use of the word in a PG-13 film.
After viewing the resubmitted version, the ratings board is allowing three uses of "f---" in a victory for the Weinstein Co. and director Lee Hirsch, who did not want to cut a crucial scene where the word was used several times as Alex Libby -- a main subject of the film -- was bullied on a bus. Language exceptions can be made if there is a two-thirds vote by the ratings board.
The Weinstein Co. and Hirsch heralded the exception a win.
"I feel completely vidicated with this resolution," said Hirsh, who earlier this week blasted the MPAA for its langauge rules. "While I retain my belief that PG-13 has always been the appropriate rating for this film, as reinforced by Canada's rating of a PG, we have today scored a victory from the MPAA," Hirsch said.
Harvey Weinstein and Hirsch had unsuccessfully fought to overturn the R rating during an appeals process, sparking off a nationwide debate that put the ratings system under a microscope. The duo have kept the story in headlines for weeks.
In separate statements, the Motion Picture Association of America and the National Association of Theater Owners, which jointly administer the ratings system, said they were pleased that the Weinstein Co. ultimately decided to make trims.
"We are pleased the Weinstein Co. respected the rules and processes of the voluntary ratings system by editing and resubmiting Bully in order to receive the PG-13 rating," NATO said Thursday.
In its statement, the MPAA said: "In the case of Bully, the ratings system has worked exactly as it is supposed to: parents have been kept informed of the content of each version of the film, and they have been given the information they need to make movie-going decisions on behalf of their kids."
Bully opened unrated last weekend in five theaters in New York and Los Angeles, including three AMC theaters. Most exhibitors refuse to carry unrated films, but AMC still required kids younger than 17 to have the written or verbal permission of an adult, essentially meaning it was still treating Bully like an R-rated movie.
Regal Entertainment was expected to follow the same policy once Bully started expanding its run, along with smaller circuits, making it difficult for Bully to be widely seen by kids.
On April 13, Bully makes a major expansion into 55 markets with the new rating.
Harvey Weinstein gave a special shout out to MPAA chair-CEO Christopher Dodd, who held a special screening of Bully for educators in Washington, even as the ratings debate swirled.
"Senator Dodd's support gives voice to the millions of children who suffer from bullying, and on behalf of TWC, the filmmakers, the families in the film and the millions of children and parents who will now see this film, I thank him for recognizing that this very real issue cannot afford to go unnoticed," Weinstein said.
Weinstein is famous for his battles with the ratings board. Last year, he fought to overturn the R rating assigned to The King's Speech for language. As with Bully, he ultimately resubmitted the film so as to secure a PG-13 rating and woo families.
04-05-12, 09:08 PM
#38
Moderator
