The Bully Project (new 2012 documentary)

[blue]

Of course, there are other cultures that don't shield so much, or at least, go about what they do shield in other ways, usually. There are people within our own cultures, generally subcultures with different beliefs on how to go about things, who take a different approach to what or how things are handled, but which tend to be more realistic about what's out there and how to deal with it.

Oh, I don't know. I just can't help but feel like some things have gone too far, to absurd lengths, because someone, somewhere thought that was the way to go. Not that I'd necessarily do any better, but...why is it, exactly, that so much of our culture seems to have gotten so overly strict or protective, even fearful or denying what's plainly there?

One can safely ignore that the earth moves around the sun, until one wants to move beyond the earth.

One can safely ignore more earthly and mundane things, until one is faced with those things right there in front of one.

But if one faces what's real and denies the truth, then one often finds that reality comes in twos and threes and tens and hundreds, and bites one in the ass, most painfully so.

(What? I've been trying to write lately, and reading and watching historical fiction, science fiction, fantasy, and a few other odds and ends besides. Yes, the wording got a bit stuffy and flowery there for a second. Right up until it met the bricks and the concrete and steel.)

(Oh relax, I'm just grousing to get it off my chest...and because I really wish things would get better, instead of wishing they'd get better.)

[EleCivil]

There's an interesting documentary about the MPAA ratings board called This Film Is Not Yet Rated. It's available for streaming on Netflix. It reveals how completely subjective the ratings process is, and how impossible it is to get ratings overturned - the ratings board won't give straight answers on what needs to be cut in order to drop a rating, or they will give a list of offending scenes/dialogue, and once it has been edited, they give a different list. Very interesting watch.

My school's policy is to not show anything rated higher than PG, so even if it's dropped to PG-13, we're out of luck. Granted, most of us know how to lock our doors and do what we need to do in our classrooms...but we are a non-union school, so we know we're taking a huge risk every time - one complaint and we're gone.

[The Pecman]

I could tell a few stories about the MPAA, having worked on films that had to be recut because of ratings problems. My experience is, in the case of sexual content, the MPAA ratings people will not write down on paper what triggered the more-severe rating. You talk to them on the phone, and they tell you in general terms what the problems were. In some cases, it's literally 1 or 2 seconds of image content that's the difference between a PG-13 and an R, or (god forbid) an R and an NC-17. And there are no rules -- all you can do is judge by how movies were rated in the past. And that's no guarantee it won't change in the future.

I once worked on a horror film where there was a teenage sex scene with (I'm not making this up) "thrusting buttocks." At the time (early 1990s), that was an automatic X. That required losing five seconds to get an R. If they had just pulled the sheets up... no problem. For some reason, "girl on top" is not a problem, and that's what normally winds up in American pictures.

Back in the 1980s, I worked on a compilation film called Terror in the Aisles, which had clips from about 100 horror movies, all of which were R-rated and PG/PG-13 rated films. The movie kept getting an X! The ratings board comment was, "well, it's true that the shots came from lower-rated films, but the intensity of seeing so many shots together required us to give it an X." I think that wound up getting five minutes cut out of it to get the rating down to an R.

The scary thing is: there are no rules. The MPAA capriciously changes this crap every other year. Sometimes, it's political; sometimes, it's the efforts of one single person inside the organization. What gets an R in 1990 or 1995 might get an NC-17 today. This Film Is Not Yet Rated gets into this in great detail, and it's weird and scary. I believe the deal is, there's about 5 people who watch each film: a rabbi, a priest, a minister, a married woman with children, a person of color, and a middle-aged white guy (basically covering the cross-section of faiths, sexes, races, and ages). They watch the film, take a vote, and majority wins. They don't disclose who the people are, or how the voting went except what the final rating is. And you pay $5000 every time your film gets screened again to be rated! It's a racket, I tells ya...

The thing that drives everybody in Hollywood crazy is that the MPAA rarely makes any exceptions. I think they're particularly nervous about this one, because it's a non-entertainment documentary making a very serious statement about a difficult problem. It's not like it's Sylvestor Stallone using the "F" word, or glimpsing some naked guy's crotch in a shower.

This is a real complicated, messy situation. But Harvey Weinstein is getting tons of publicity for the film, I'll give him that. Read this:

Why Is MPAA Partnering With Harvey Weinstein On Free Publicity For ‘Bully’?

[Cole Parker]

... I believe the deal is, there's about 5 people who watch each film: a rabbi, a priest, a minister, a married woman with children, a person of color, and a middle-aged white guy (basically covering the cross-section of faiths, sexes, races, and ages).

Isn't that amazing? The largest, largest by far, group of moviegoers isn't even represented in the judging group. I don't remember the numbers, but think something like 80% of the people that see the average film are teenagers. Yet unless Pec's wrong--and I doubt that--they don't get a say in the ratings. Why shouldn't their evaluation be as important as anyone else's? They know the sensibilities of fellow teens better than anyone.

C

[colinian]

My granddad told me about the Legion of Decency which was very active when he was growing up. Wikipedia has a good article here.

Colin

[Chris James]

Censorship is something every author cringes at hearing about and brings up images of the thought police. The MPAA sounds like a bunch of old ladies with a red marker going through films and circling the things they see as objectionable. The key word in my comment here is "old."

If there is indeed a religious slant to this rating board then I feel the studios should toss them all out or boycott the rating system. Since film production is all about the money, I see the studios being the bear in Hollywood who could eat rating boards alive if they all agreed. But since a coup is not likely then I suggest we seek some fresh, young minds to populate the board. I have a suggestion:

http://www.lights-camera-jackson.com/bully-needs-to-be-pg-131.php

This young man doesn't mince his words or hold back when he feels something is wrong in films. I often visit his site to see what kind of review he gives a film before I go see it. He had to take a parent to go see Bully and I get the impression he thought that unnecessary. I do have some concerns about this young man's site since it is a member of a Family Values association group.

A little research will show you that also in that circle are several very homophobic family values organizations and so I feel there is some guilt by association here. But the kid is 13 and his objective is to write about fun films for family entertainment. By lobbying in his blog for the showing of Bully to all ages, I think LCJ has stepped beyond his usual character and made a political statement.

If he continues to step forward, follows through with his career as a critic, then as he grows older perhaps he will see that the Family Values bunch is no different than the MPAA. I think every parent should take their kid to see Bully, in fact, it ought to be a homework assignment from schools.

[The Pecman]

Isn't that amazing? The largest, largest by far, group of moviegoers isn't even represented in the judging group. I don't remember the numbers, but think something like 80% of the people that see the average film are teenagers.

It ain't that high, but it's a good-sized chunk. My memory is that 50% of the moviegoing audience is under 30. When a movie fails (like the recent Disney blockbuster John Carter), it's generally because, for whatever reason, it didn't connect with that audience.

The problem as I see it for the MPAA is, they probably feel -- with some justification -- that non-adults are probably not qualified to decide what children can see. For example, the line between a PG film and a PG-13 film is subtle. The usual rule of thumb is, "G" films have very little violence, or it's all off-screen. "PG" films have some action and violence and very mild langauge; "PG-13" films will allow a certain number of on-screen deaths if it's not excessive, and the language can be a little racier. (They're even allowing one or two curse words, under non-sexual conditions.)

The "F" word almost always gets an automatic "R." Frontal nudity almost always gets an R (male or female). Extreme blood and gore gets an automatic "R." A certain amount of sexual content gets an "R." Again, the line that gets crossed on the way to an "NC-17" gets blurry, but usually it's a matter of degree. And a porno film goes further still.

An important thing to remember is: the MPAA ratings board was started in order to try to avoid having the government establish rules for censorship and determining what's permitted in films shown to members of the public. The idea was, if the motion picture industry itself did it, at least it wasn't government censorship per se, and that's what led to the "Motion Picture Code" (aka the Hays Office). The slippery slope is, what triggers certain ratings in different years or decades is completely different over time, and is completely inconsistent even within a 5-year period. The appeals process, which Weinstein is going through right now, is also fraught with problems.

Here's what the director has to say about it to CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/03/14/hln-prime-news-bully-gets-r-rating.hln?iref=allsearch

[The Pecman]

Forgot to add this front-page story from a recent issue of the industry trade paper The Hollywood Reporter:

Support Grows Behind Protest of Bully Rating

In an unusual turn of events, AMC Entertainment CEO Gerry Lopez has joined the rallying cry to overturn the R rating for language that was assigned to Lee Hirsch’s documentary Bully.

Hollywood support also is growing. Meryl Streep and her daughter Mamie Gummer will co-host a screening of the film in New York, and Johnny Depp has offered his help. The Weinstein Co. will release Bully, which centers on the bullying epidemic in U.S. schools, on March 30 in theaters.

Lopez’s stand is noteworthy because exhibitors generally are on the side of the ratings system, which is administered both by the MPAA and the National Association of Theatre Owners.

Leo Hirsch’s documentary Bully has galvanized a national movement, since the very audience it was made for will be restricted in seeing it.

Lopez criticized hard-and- fast rules that limit the use of the F-word. It can only be used once in a movie that’s rated PG-13. Violence and sex are more subjective. Hirsch did not want to cut his film, noting the language reflects reality.

“To automatically default Bully is a mistake,” Lopez said. “Automatic default to a rating ... is a mistake. The message, the movie and its social relevance defy that kind of formulaic, conventional thinking. AMC will show this movie, and we invite our guests to engage in the dialogue its relevant message will inevitably provoke.”

Bully has galvanized a national movement, since the very audience it was made for will be restricted in seeing it.

Michigan high school student Katy Butler, a victim of bullying, started a petition that has been signed by 300,000 people — including one of Lopez’s sons.

On Capitol Hill, more than 20 lawmakers have signed a bipartisan letter to the MPAA urging that the rating be overturned. And on Tuesday, Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) tweeted that she too supports lowering the rating to PG-13. As with Lopez, it’s unusual to have lawmakers asking that a rating be lowered.

Other notable names joining the cause include Justin Bieber, who recently tweeted that he’ll help the Weinstein Co. in any way he can, and New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees. A T-shirt being designed by Tommy Hilfiger based on the Bully poster will be sold in Hilfiger stores, with a portion of the proceeds benefiting Facing History and Ourselves.

Hollywood Reporter 3/14/2012 issue link

[Cole Parker]

It ain't that high, but it's a good-sized chunk. My memory is that 50% of the moviegoing audience is under 30. When a movie fails (like the recent Disney blockbuster John Carter), it's generally because, for whatever reason, it didn't connect with that audience.

I thought if we were both guessing at this, maybe I could actually look it up. This is what I found. From the NY Times:

Studios will continue to tailor the bulk of their releases to younger audiences, and for good reason. In 2010, North Americans ages 12 to 24 made up only 18 percent of the population, but bought 32 percent of the 1.34 billion tickets sold, according to the annual industry snapshot by the Motion Picture Association of America, released on Wednesday.

By contrast, people over 50 made up 32 percent of the population, but bought only 21 percent of the tickets. That is a slight uptick from 2009, when the over-50 audience bought 19 percent of the total tickets sold.

They write that ticket sales to older people are rising because that segment of the population is growing, and ticket prices are forcing younger people to watch fewer movies.

What stops me from buying tickets is that so many of them are inane, poorly written, dependent on cars and buildings blowing up for drama, and were better delivered from the pages of the book they were taken from.

Yeah, I know, this is off topic from the Bully movie. I get sidetracked. Sorry.

C

[DesDownunder]

Never one to ignore a sidetrack, we were told, as Cinema workers, that the cinema company I worked for had taken notice of a survey that showed only 18-25 years olds go to the movies. The movie that was used for the survey was said to be, Rocky II. It was decided by the cinema owners that they should orientate the business towards 18-25 year olds and forget about older audiences. I was present in the manager's office when a couple of years later (1984), he had to fax the figures through to head office for a movie that was definitely not aimed at 18-25 year olds. The CEO of the company rang the manager and told him that he was to redistribute the ticket sales across two other screens which were showing "teen" movies, as he (the CEO) believed that a mistake had been made when the tickets were sold in the box office. No amount of reassurance that the cinema with the mature age movie was full with patrons, would convince the CEO that he should accept the ticket sales as they were.

Of course I was not privy to the final outcome of this fiasco, but the mature movie ran for many months in a cinema of near a thousand seats. No mean feat in those days. I would assume that a correction was made to the opening night figures.

However the story shows the idiocy that drives the film industry into those violent, meaningless, plot deprived movies that are able to attract audiences who purchase the soda and popcorn. Remember the cinema makes the majority of its money at the candy bar, whilst most of the ticket sales goes back to the movie distributor.

To my mind this explains why we have the movies we do, and why the independent and European movies are so attractive for 'non-commercial' cinemas.

If you apply the fuss over the language of Bully and put that into the formula for distribution, you may well come to the conclusion that four letter words of the foul language variety will entice more popcorn sales, as well as more ticket sales, but perhaps I am just an old cynic.

[eric312]

I've been following this since I first heard about it. Not only have I signed the petition, but I am also one of the people who have emailed the MPAA about changing the rating. Give a voice to the victims of this epidemic. Sign the petition. Email the MPAA and let them know this is the 21st century, not the 19th. The people they are "protecting" from those seven "awful" words have heard, and more than likely, used them before. The only thing an R rating will accomplish is preventing the people who NEED to see this film the ability to see it without a parent.

Sorry. I HATE bullies with a passion! I think I'm done with my rant for now.

[E.J.]

Just an update. The movie is being released without a rating. Most theaters around here probably wont show it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/mar/27/weinstein-release-bully-unrated-censors

[DesDownunder]

We don't have censorship in Australia, except for when they ban something.

We have a classification board which sits in judgement of any and all movies, publications and games.

I don't have a problem with material being classified, but in the case of movies like Bully it is absurd to apply the same rules of classification as would be applied to entertainment oriented movies. Bully is an educational documentary of community concern. Alas, there are some people who are going to see it as an instructional manual on how to bully...that is the way bullies react to such things. It's similar to that teacher, in the trailer preview, who proclaims that the kids on the bus are, "justs as good as gold." I just want to strangle the patronising woman -perhaps I should be censored for saying that, but I would hope that it is seen as an expression of speech, not an actual goal of mine.

It seems like Bully has not yet been submitted for classification to the Australian board. It will be interesting to see what they do with it.

However bear in mind that Australia banned the original 1933 King Kong because it was too horrifying. They reclassified it in 1972, (M) and again in 1988 (PG).

So I am not expecting too much from them as they think similarly to the U.S. MPAA.

Personally, I find censorship abhorrent, but advisory classifications are fine. Limiting the exhibition of a movie so that the target audience can't see it, is absurd. As is often the way, the people who need to see a movie are the ones who don't get to see to it, let alone understand why they need to see it. In that case self-censorship can be just as restrictive as the official kind.

[Chris James]

The most popular film in the U.S. at the moment is Hunger Games...I'll let that soak in for a second.

This film depicts teen on teen violence and death in a game show/reality show environment. Personally I do not plan to see it but the reviews and plot are posted on various sites. The film is rated PG-13 for the violence and some bad language. WTF?

The only controversy over the film is that they cast black actors in the two leading roles and many people who read the book thought they should be white. That absurdity seems to make the news, why doesn't the soft rating? Let's face it, 50-100 years from now the majority color of the population will be slightly brown due to the diminishing role of European ancestry.

We may disagree with the MPAA rating for Bully over language issues, but they come off as whimps over the rating applied to Hunger Games. Can't you just feel the behind the scenes activity that allows such obvious nonsense to go on? Major studios vs. independent...I think the ratings are not impartial and someone needs to audit the bank accounts of those who apply the ratings.

[The Pecman]

They cut a lot of violence out of Hunger Games in order to make sure it got a PG-13. Lionsgate was very, very careful about that -- they knew that the teen audience was a key to its success. The book is far more intense, and it was scaled down quite a bit to feature off-screen deaths and violence as much as possible. Other films, like the upcoming Prometheus, are probably going to have to go with an R, which will cut at least 25% of its potential audience.

There is a movement to create a new kind of R rating that would selectively allow 13 year olds, if it was language-only content under certain circumstances. But I seem to recall in the 1980s, when the PG-13 rating happened (due to the violence in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom), the MPAA was quick to say, "we're not going to come out with a new revised rating every time an edgy movie comes out."

[eric312]

The MPAA has finally agreed to change the rating for Bully. It is now rated PG-13!

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pg-13-rating-granted-for-bully-by-mpaa-without-cutting-crucial-scene-146358165.html

[Gee Whillickers]

Is that the censored version, though? Or the original?

[E.J.]

from the above link....

The Weinstein Company (TWC), aided by the guidance and consultation from attorneys David Boies and Ted Olson, announced today that the MPAA has lowered the R rating, given for some language, for BULLY to a PG-13 in time for the film's April 13th expansion to 55 markets. The scene that has been at the forefront of the battle with the MPAA, the intense scene in the film that shows teen Alex Libby being bullied and harassed on a bus, has been left fully intact and unedited. BULLY director Lee Hirsch felt editing the scene was not an option, and subsequently refused to do so, since it is too important to the truth and integrity behind the film. Also a victory is the exception the MPAA made by allowing the film to be released with the new rating before 90 days, which is the length of time their policy states a film must wait to be in theaters after a rating change to avoid confusion or inconvenience for moviegoers.

[Cole Parker]

The statement I saw about this said the 'edited version' of Bully has now been given a PG-13.

That seems to fly in the face of what was said here, unless, they agreed to edit some other scene. The original complaint was that the F word was repeated several times. I have no idea if they deleted some of those or not.

C

[The Pecman]

Yes, they cut 3 "F" words, but the scene is otherwise intact. I think that's a reasonable compromise, and everybody will still understand the context and point of the scene. I'm glad they were able to work something out -- this is an important film that people should see.

More here:

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/bully-gets-pg-13-rating-after-editing-36839

[DesDownunder]

Once more do the protectors of public 'morality' show themselves as being more concerned with exclaiming 'fuck' rather than combating the actual violence perpetrated on others.

An alien, listening in to our conversations and having determined that the word fuck means a sexual act, might think it is okay for him to continue on his voyage of space discovery, content in the knowledge that any species that uses a word which describes sex, in so much of their daily conversation, is a well balanced rational and sane society.

Aliens can get things wrong, too, it seems.

[blue]

I really want to see the movie. I also want to get it on disc or download (paid, legit!).

But the discussion on the F-word has me thinking of writing a very snarky piece using the F-word in a few ways, simply because of the absurdity of decisions like these. Keep in mind, I'm one of these, "rarely cusses in public or in print" sort of guys. It isn't that I don't cuss in private or think it. It's just that I was raised that I'm not supposed to do that in public, it's not nice, and that has fu--, I mean, stuck with me.

If I do write something, expect it to be George Carlin-esque. Or something in that neighborhood. Maybe.

I don't get it. I really, really don't. I'm all for polite, civilized behavior, some standards, but...come on, this is the real world. Any twelve year old has heard that word and all the others, especially if he has been in a locker room or bathroom or the school playing field. Or if he's watched TV or gone to a movie.

What I really don't get, though, is -- How is it OK to show massive violence, large-scale and small-scale, yet anything involving affection or lovemaking or nudity is somehow not OK, and cussing, cursing, "coarse language" is not OK either? We live in the real world. It's messy out there. It can get ugly, violent, passionate (in the sense of strong feelings of any kind), and yes, passionate in love, or lacking in some or all clothing. This happens among human beings, no matter how devout or strict. Now, I am not likely to be hugely comfortable with some things in a mixed audience, but...then again, as I said, this is real life. Just because I don't live a certain way or get uncomfortable, does not mean that other people haven't lived that way (comfortably or not) for thousands of years.

Why is it that the word, "fuck" is so bad? Yes, I was raised that that's a very bad word. You don't say that in mixed company, polite conversation, etc. Yet the history of the word is, it was at one time a perfectly normal and proper way to say...what it still says. The folk etymology you'll sometimes see as "official," that it was somehow an acronym for some medieval proclamation's prohibition (regarding various acts including f***ing) is probably just a story, considering other Germanic languages have a word similar to Old English "fyccian," which is just what you think it is.

Yes, they did that back then. How DID you think you got here?

People still do it. They still use it as the highest expression of love and one of the lowest insults. That is the nature of the human being, contradictory.

Yes, middle school and high school kids DO know that word and all the other four letter words. Why it isn't acceptable, or why showing a kid being insulted and beaten, in order to get across the point that insulting and beating a kid is a BAD thing, is somehow worthy of a rating preventing that from being shown, which might actually HELP kids or others...I do not understand people sometimes. I certainly do not understand committees and organized groups sometimes.

To be concise: Why is it that some people get their priorities so screwed up that they would prevent people from seeing something that might actually help people, just because some people get upset that there is violence, rude language, and sexually-charged words? Being so afraid of it that you refuse to acknowledge it and show and deal with it is only contributing to the problem. Refusing to help is no better than being a bully yourself.

[Cole Parker]

I think humans and human society need a few words that are off limits in polite company, to show when we're really mad, to allow us to express ourselves when with a group of buddies to show we're on the edge of things like they are, for all sorts of reasons. Fuck is one of those words for us. Little old ladies want to be able to quivver and shake and say, "Oh, my!" and act aghast when hearing them. And parents want to protect their kids from hearing them just as a matter of course.

So I see nothing wrong with having words like that. How we protect their impact, their nastiness, their puissance, is up to us as a society.

C

[Chris James]

How many "fucks" does it take? In the original uncut version of Bully there were five instances of the word which allowed the MPAA to give it an R rating. In order to allow the film a PG-13 rating, the producers removed two of them, but that still leaves three times that the word "fuck" appears in the dialogue. It seems the MPAA is now pleased with itself.

You know you can't fool all of the people all of the time...and so on. I seriously doubt if there are any kids who don't know the word, and there are many who use it every day. Who are we fooling here? I think this whole controversy is pathetic considering the importance of showing a film like this to every kid in this country. But let's stop a moment and consider the reasons why. I say let's blame the adults who are in it to make money.

Violence in this country is acceptable, and even encouraged in film to sell tickets. We glorify things like the WWF, those bad acting wrestlers who act bad and act badly. Just look at the audience as grown, steroid enhanced men slam one another with chairs in what is a scripted egotistical soap opera of the wrestling world. Violence reigns supreme on the stage in their world and yet we see the camera pan the audience filled with impressionable youth. Yeah kid, its just fine to bash someone...take that home and think about it.

Bullying is born and bred by those who would make entertainment of it, so why are we surprised that it appears in our schools? Isn't the classroom just an extension of the wrestling ring? Be rude, be cruel and everyone will think of you as a hero, and you too can end up on the WWF. All I have to say to that is "Fuck," what a sick bunch of fucks we have become.

[colinian]

Count 'em:

fuck

fuck

fuck

That's three, apparent the magic number, right?

WRONG!

The magic number is:

[insert drumbeat]

ONE!

Figure it out. There are now ZERO fucks in The Bully Project PG-rated movie.

Fuckin'-a!

Colin