Once again The Weinstein Company finds itself in a battle over ratings and this time - for a change - public opinion is on their side and this time - also for a change - it appears they are very likely to lose.
The film in question is documentary feature Bully, a film which aims to expose the issue of schoolyard bullying and which has been hit with an R rating due to language.
It's a rating the Weinsteins are not happy with and have appealed but the appeal was quickly denied, with the MPAA stating - correctly - that the rules around language are very clear and if a parent wants their child to see the film that they are still perfectly free to take them.
But whether the rule is clear or not TWC is incensed that the ruling is being applied to a film such as this - an issue film played completely straight up, without any sort of exploitative angle, revolving around a very serious issue facing children - and effectively blocking the audience the film was made for from seeing it.
The TWC response: A threat to simply stop submitting their films for MPAA ratings. To which the MPAA responded basically by saying "That's fine, we're a voluntary organization anyway. Take it up with the theater owners if you want to do that."
And now the theater owners have responded, with John Fithian of the National Association Of Theater Owners issuing a letter stating that if TWC were to release their films unrated they would be treated the same way as any unrated film. Namely, they would be treated as NC-17. Naturally TWC is fuming about this and, on the surface, it appears they have a very good point. But then Fithian points out this:
It's an interesting argument and one that opens up a potentially thorny but valuable discussion into the nature and role of ratings and how bodies such as the MPAA may or may not need to be overhauled and evaluated on a regular basis to keep up with the shifting times.
The film in question is documentary feature Bully, a film which aims to expose the issue of schoolyard bullying and which has been hit with an R rating due to language.
It's a rating the Weinsteins are not happy with and have appealed but the appeal was quickly denied, with the MPAA stating - correctly - that the rules around language are very clear and if a parent wants their child to see the film that they are still perfectly free to take them.
But whether the rule is clear or not TWC is incensed that the ruling is being applied to a film such as this - an issue film played completely straight up, without any sort of exploitative angle, revolving around a very serious issue facing children - and effectively blocking the audience the film was made for from seeing it.
The TWC response: A threat to simply stop submitting their films for MPAA ratings. To which the MPAA responded basically by saying "That's fine, we're a voluntary organization anyway. Take it up with the theater owners if you want to do that."
And now the theater owners have responded, with John Fithian of the National Association Of Theater Owners issuing a letter stating that if TWC were to release their films unrated they would be treated the same way as any unrated film. Namely, they would be treated as NC-17. Naturally TWC is fuming about this and, on the surface, it appears they have a very good point. But then Fithian points out this:
And I've got to say it's very hard to argue against that point. People tend to argue that the MPAA is arbitrary now but imagine what it would be like if we went down this particular road. Imagine how this could be applied in reverse ... if a film like Bully can buck the rules because it is deemed to have merit then what happens to films that don't necessarily tick the specific boxes for sex, violence or language but which the MPAA considers distasteful for moral reasons? Do we want to go down that road?As a father of a 9-year-old child, I am personally grateful that TWC has addressed the important issue of bullying in such a powerful documentary. 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.
It's an interesting argument and one that opens up a potentially thorny but valuable discussion into the nature and role of ratings and how bodies such as the MPAA may or may not need to be overhauled and evaluated on a regular basis to keep up with the shifting times.