Roger Ebert: Hey Kids! Anybody Here Not Heard the F-Word? ("Bully" Anti-Bullying Documentary & MPAA)

[Hissyspit]

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/03/even_as_i_write_on.html

Hey, kids! Anybody here not heard the F-word?

By Roger Ebert on March 15, 2012 10:04 PM | 20 Comments

Even as I write on Thursday night, a screening of "Bully" is taking place in Washington that may or may not result in the film's MPAA rating being changed from R to PG-13. Jen Chaney suggests in her Washington Post blog that a compromise might even be possible. The film is a documentary about how bullying affected five families, and led to two suicides. It was slapped with an R, because of its use of the F-word. Chaney asked Lee Hirsch, the film's director, "whether there was any chance he would consider bleeping out one or two of those expletives if that guaranteed a PG-13 designation for the movie, thereby allowing teen audiences to see it."

Hirsch replied he believes the F-word makes the bullying more real. Yes, and so no doubt it does. In its article on the MPAA ratings, Wikipedia tells us: "If a film uses "one of the harsher sexually derived words" (such as fuck) one to four times, it is routine today for the film to receive a PG-13 rating, provided that the word is used as an expletive and not with a sexual meaning." Apparently "Bully" either exceeds the count or refers to sexuality. I haven't seen the film, but let's say it uses the word more than four times. Then let's say Hirsch removes some of those uses so that it is employed only once. Would that earn him a PG-13? He tells Chaney he's willing to do whatever will help bullied kids. But he adds: "If you take that away, it's one more notch against that experience. It's one more big societal minimizing, or sort of, negating, of the full extent of terror that comes with bullying."

Of course he is right. If a director wants to make a film against bullying, it is not for a committee of MPAA bean-counters to tell him what words he can use. Not many years ago, the word rape was not used in newspapers, on television--or in the movies, for that matter. But there is a crime, and the name of the crime is rape, and if you remove the word you help make the crime invisible.

This is yet another example of the MPAA sidestepping ethical judgments by falling back on the technicalities of its guidelines. It is even more insidious because the MPAA never clearly spells out its guidelines, leaving it to filmmakers to guess--although they often judge by past experience. It seems to me that either the f-word word is permissible, or it is not. If impermissible, nobody should use it at all in a PG-13 film. If permissible, nobody should count. Is it a magic word, a totemistic expression that dare not say its own name? Is it a vulgar equivalent of such a word as G-d?

The MPAA began to set this trap for itself when it got into the ratings business in the first place...

MORE[p]

[HockeyMom]

1. Absolutely

R = 17? That is far too old. Younger kids (PG-13) need to see this. Bullying starts a hell of a lot younger than 17 year olds.

[MADem]

2. "Inconvenient" language. Censorship for the sake of control.

In this case, they are gatekeeping access to a film that children really do need to see.

It's a rather authoritarian POV.

[shcrane71]

5. This is what we get from self-regulating.

The MPAA has to show that it's going *something*; so, they choose 7 dirty words without looking at content. If we truly had a governmental regulatory body, then citizens might have some input. It'd be like a ... democracy.

[MADem]

6. Well, the MPAA came out of Congress, actually--in a back-handed way !

Originally, the movie producers--who produced some right racy films before the days of "The Code" (you'd be shocked at some of the content of many of those rarely viewed gems)--came up with a standard to PREVENT Congress from censoring them. They believed (rightfully, IMO) that the censorship of Congress would be far WORSE.

Can you imagine what would have happened to Michael Moore's films during the Bush Administration, for example? Triple X ratings all round! The politicization of films would be a very real possibility if we had Congress deciding what films were good, what words were good, what ideas were good.

The way our government works, we'd never have a federal referendum on the words that can or cannot be said on film--that just is not a viable construct. Congress makes law, and all that.

The studio owners cleverly figured if they jumped in front of the issue, Congress wouldn't start getting up in their business. They also weren't stupid--they have always given the job to a DC insider who can keep the censorship advocates from Congress at bay (Postmaster General Hayes was the first one; the current holder of the job is Countrywide Chris Dodd, former Democratic Senator from CT). It's a fascinating evolution: http://www.mpaa.org/about/history

In 1922, the presidents of the major motion picture studios, including Samuel Goldwyn, Louis B. Mayer, Jesse Lasky and Joseph Schenck, formed the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association of America to resist mounting calls for government censorship of American films. In addition, the founders of the organization wanted to foster a more favorable public image for the motion picture industry and to safeguard the role of then-silent films’ place in mainstream America.

Former Postmaster General William Hays, a member of President Harding's Cabinet, led the organization and instituted initiatives to forestall government interference in filmmaking. He oversaw the creation of a system of industry-led self-censorship, known as The Production Code or the Hays Code, a regime requiring the review of all film scripts to ensure the absence of "offensive" material.

...In the late 1960s our nation was changing, and so was its cinema. Alongside the progress of the civil rights, women's rights and labor movements, a new kind of American film was emerging - frank and open. Amid our society's expanding freedoms, the movie industry's restrictive regime of self-censorship could not stand. In 1966, former Special Assistant to President Lyndon Johnson, Jack Valenti, was named MPAA President. That same year, sweeping revisions were made to the Hays Code to reflect changing social mores. In 1968, Jack Valenti, who went on to hold the position for 38 years, founded the voluntary film rating system giving creative and artistic freedoms to filmmakers while fulfilling its core purpose of informing parents about the content of films so they can determine what movies are appropriate for their kids. More than forty years later, the system continues to evolve with our society and endures as a shining symbol of American freedom of expression.

Following Jack Valenti's retirement in 2004, former Kansas Congressman and U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman was selected as MPAA Chairman and CEO. Glickman, who held the post until the Spring of 2010, led the association during a period of significant industry transformation. While the advent of the digital era created extraordinary new opportunities for delivering movies to consumers, it also give rise to the most serious threat to the industry's continued health - online copyright theft. ...

[shcrane71]

10. I watched, Birth of a Nation. It was disgusting.

No one knows the names of the people who determine the MPAA ratings. I'm a HUGE fan of transparency, and I don't think that this secret panel of people are creating a better censorship committee than a federally regulatory committee can do.

If the FCC wasn't a victim of regulatory capture, then I think they could do a fine job. With the aftermath of Citizens United, it will be difficult for any federal regulation to have more censorship than what the private sphere is doling out. And, the American people could actually have a voice.

Moore's films could be rated unfit for viewing, but I would still pay to go see them.

[MADem]

12. Well, when I was talking about "racy" films I didn't mean that piece of garbage.

I'm talking about films with rather "mature" content--things like divorce, marital discord, children born without benefit of wedlock, sexual violence, revealing negligees--stuff that got papered over in a big way, or was moralized out the wazoo, once Hays got on the job.

I think there is room to meet in the middle--publish the names of the board members, but keep the selection process well away from the Santorums and Boehners of the world. It just won't end well if we let Congress pick 'em. As it is, the major studios are the ones who say "We" make the decision--they play the Corporate "People" in this drill.

I think, as was said elsewhere, we're past due for an update to the "Valenti standard." It seems like every fifty years or so, we have this discussion. It's beyond time for a simple rehashing/rewriting of the rules, as Ebert points out in the OP link.

[shcrane71]

14. Ah... well, we can't talk about divorce!

I've noticed that ratings are less and less likely at artsy film theaters. Eventually, maybe the MPAA won't have any sort of clout in much of the country.

I agree that the ratings system should have been kept away from the McCarthy's and Santorums. In the future (possibly today), I think censorship is going to be more and more difficult. I think a federal agency, where one can appeal one's rating, is going to make more sense as the Internet brings more transparency to our government.

I could have rose-colored glasses on.

[MADem]

15. The Catholic Church used to put out a list of "forbidden" films every week or two.

My family used to regard it as the "Must See" list. A4, B and C meant "Let's all go to the movies!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Legion_of_Decency

Films were rated according to the following schema:
A: Morally unobjectionable
B: Morally objectionable in part
C: Condemned by the Legion of Decency
The A rating was subsequently divided:
A-I: Suitable for all audiences
A-II: Suitable for adults — then, with the introduction of A-III — suitable for adults and adolescents
A-III: Suitable for adults only
A-IV: For adults with reservations
In 1978, the B and C ratings were combined into a new O rating for "morally offensive" films.

Then again, we were all a bunch of reprobates.

The way things are progressing, there's not much a little kid is "shielded" from for very long in this day and age, if said little kid has a mind to see something.

[shcrane71]

16. By saying "used to", you mean the Catholic church no longer does this?

Drats, I completely missed out on all the fun. My Netflix suggestions rarely come up with "For adults with reservations" finds.

[MADem]

18. I don't know--maybe they do. I haven't been a member of the

church bulletin set for almost a half century. I do remember it from my wayward youth.

[shcrane71]

19. Yay! There's hope.

I'm canvassing all my practicing Catholic friends for their church bulletins. Well, I'll skip the Catholic Workers set as they seem more worried about saving children from poverty than from impropriety.

[MADem]

20. You might be able to find some of them online. nt

[WI_DEM]

3. Roger Ebert--the best film critic and commentator in the country.

[MADem]

7. Yes--he is. And he's right. The MPAA needs to do one of those "updates" they manage to cough up

every half century or so. It's past due!

[longship]

4. R&K for Roger

He's right on target, as usual.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Oh my bleeding ears!!!!

On a serious note the MPAA are idiots.

[msongs]

9. the issue is not the movie, the issue is playing it in public schools nt

[RC]

11. We gotta save the kids from hearing words they use in everday conversations with their peers.

[benld74]

13. F*ck I have!

[SidDithers]

17. The MPAA is a joke...

I think films should be rated by empanelling 6 random movie goers who then vote on whether a film should be PG-13 or R. Films are only rated R if 4 of the 6 random film watchers vote for that rating.

Sid