Bully Won't Have A Rating
After losing their battle with the MPAA, producers of the movie Bully have decided that instead of releasing the movie with an R rating, they will just release it with no rating. This way it can still be seen in schools. My question is this. Instead of fighting so hard to leave the swearing in, why don't they just beep out one or two of them so every kid is given the chance to see the movie. Just saying the movie will not have a rating does not ensure it will be seen in schools. I understand the vision of the artist making the movie, but if the point is to make sure every child sees, it, don;t you think you should make it possible and do whatever it takes?
26 comments:
I think bleeping would have been the best bet. Bleeping over foul words would have the same effect as actually hearing them. I mean lets face it...we hear a bleep and whats the first thing that comes to mind? Someone just swore! AHAH!
Some school systems do not permit films which are unrated or not G/PG.
Agreed, Enty.
I read somewhere that this whole ratings battle with the MPAA was just a tactic Harvey Weinstein to get publicity. As Enty pointed out, if they really wanted as many children to see the film as possible, they would've just made a few insignificant edits. But by gaming up a controversy, Harvey's gained untold amounts of free publicity.
Ellen Degeneres interviewed one of the families featured in this movie. Broke my heart hearing their story.
I hope, despite the "no rating", that every parent will see this movie and in turn have their kids see, so they can have an open dialogue about the topic.
I don't know, I think by leaving the questionable words unedited will help the shock value, which is kind of the point of the film. You suddenly realize how powerful words can be when bad ones are directed at *you* ... having them bleeped will lessen the impact.
The MPAA are the assholes here, not the filmmakers.
Not sure exactly which words they're objecting to, but if they're the usual four-letter ones, then what's the point? Kids have heard them anyway. Just cut them out. A good movie doesn't entirely depend on cheap swearing. It shows a failure of imagination.
If they're the standard hatespeech words, then they probably belong in the movie so kids can discuss their impact. And deal with the contradiction that people within a group can words affectionately when the same words used from outside the group are considered vile and hateful.
"...if the point is to make sure every child sees, it, don;t you think you should make it possible and do whatever it takes?"
Yes.
Is the rating brou ha-ha really over swear words alone? That gives a movie an "R" rating? The MPAA should hang out in a middle school sometime.
I think it would have been nice if this movie was released to schools first so they can show it as a special night with parents and students together, then have a panel discussion. But then people would have to be polite, rather than singling out the parent/s of the bully/ies in front of everyone and then a large melee erupting.
One thing I really dislike about myself is that I can come up with an idea, then immediately see the pros and cons. Damn.
But I do like this idea.
As I have read the MPAA rule is 2 uses of the word "fuck" makes it an R rating.
The director didn't want to edit or beep out the words as it would lose impact. And Harvey Weinstein is still pissed at the MPAA for making Blue Valentine NC-17. So he is trying to punish them by using Bully to whack them over the head with it.
I do hope whatever the reason political or otherwise. The schools don't beg off it and the kids get to see it for free in schools.
Hmmmm....so, murdering, blood and guts get a PG-13 rating (Hunger Games), yet Bully will get a NR because of swear words. I'm pretty sure watching children getting slaughtered before your eyes is a bit more disturbing than someone saying the F or S word.
Our system's policy is to only show PG-13 or lower. I became aware of this because my HS age daugher is going on a trip with the band over spring break.
The kids will know the words being used, even if they are beeped out. Geez, even some TV shows only beep a minimal part of the word. You know the beginning letter and ending letter, which kind of negates the beeping. You know what is being said.
I saw an interview with Harvey Weinstein about this movie, in which he decried bullying, talked about how important of an issue (and therefore movie) this is, and said as far as making changes for the MPAA, sometimes you need to stand up for what you believe and refuse to back down.
I was very impressed.
Until I remembered all the stories I've read on here about Harvey Weinstein using the casting couch, thereby bullying females who want a chance to act. What does he do when they stand up for what they believe and refuse to back down? Not cast them? If so, Hypocrite!
Bullying is an important subject. I just hope someone shoves the inconsistancy of his words and his actions in his face, in a very public way.
I read the post and agreed with Enty 100% and then I read Chopchop's post and changed my mind. Both sides have great points. With all the hype it has gotten as a great message, I personally can't wait to see it so all this hoopla has done nothing but create buzz which is good in this case.
Harvey Weinstein producing a movie about bullying? Hilarious. Oh, it's anti-bullying? Riding the do-gooder wave du jour. And duh the swears are totally for publicity. He'll take them out. I'll reserve judgment until seeing the thing but this reeks of opportunistic pseudo-earnest PC lameness. Kids bullying each other has gone on since forever and suddenly it's a big serious issue meriting movies in schools. Because god forbid the kids should actually learn something useful in school. Everyone gets hazed by their peers at some point. Obviously it's not pleasant but it is part of growing up. It helps you to deal with social confrontations later when it really counts, as an adult.
Swearing and abusive language are a daily part of the lives of the victims featured in the film. It might be distasteful but that's kind of the point. To bleep it would be dishonest and tacky. The producers should be congratulated in taking a stand against senseless censorship, and against the nit-wittery of those vacant and morally misguided enough to think that the mental and physical abuse of children is somehow less offensive that a sweary word.
@amartel, I am going to have to disagree with you. Yes, bullying is a part of growing up, but "hazing", as you put it, should not happen. There is a need for the awareness about bullying. Kids are killing themselves, and that is not okay. There has always been bullying, I will agree with you there. But with internet, kids are always around their abusers. Before, you got bullied at school or in your neighborhood, but your home was a safe haven. Now there is social media where kids are kids... they say hurtful things that they don't realize have such repercussions to their victims, because they are children.
I am not trying to start stuff, but I just wanted to point out the other side. Thanks.
Being bullied did not help me function in the adult world. Being bullied gave me social anxiety and haunts my adult life daily. "It's always happened" doesn't make it right, and "it's always happened" should not lead blindly to "and it always will."
@WUWT I still carry emotional scars from being bullied as well, which is why my oldest son is homeschooled. And I agree with you 100%. Just because it happens everyday doesn't mean it should.
I'm generally against editing the film. I knew every expletive in the book before I was 8, and it didn't stop me from knowing the context of what kind of language to use when.
I've thought the MPAA was kind of an arbitrary compromise when movies like Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and others in the mid-sixties made the Hays Code-- the MPAA's de facto predecessor--woefully out of date. Ebert had something like a 25-year shouting match with Frank Valenti over how stupid MPAA's rating system was. I more or less agree with Ebert's argument on that. A movie like _Total Recall_ whose body count was something like three dozen, yet Greenaway's film _The Cook, The Thief..._, released the same year, which has similar violence was considered over the top and was banished to X territory (I think this was the last film to get this before NC-17 ratings came out).
I am still undecided, though, because it's Harvey Weinstein, and he's such a bastard. Kudos to him for going to bat on some really great films. Who else can say that one of their movies got a guy off Death Row? In Texas? If you weren't such a pig, Harv, I'd probably support your "cause".
^ ...was something like three dozen, gets an R rating, yet...
Is this really about swearing or could it be about other things in the movie?
Many people are uncomfortable with how awful and depraved bullying is and i wonder if there are some disturbing scenes that include the words and swear words and really their discomfort at showing true bullying is why the movie is getting an R rating.
I did not know this film was based on a book and know nothing about all this, it just makes me wonder.
People love to sit in their ivory towers saying something is wrong and something must be done but when confronted with a raw visual of the reality of something like bullying they cannot stomach it and therefore feel the need, due to ther superiority complex, to protect the public from the discomfort they felt when confronted with reality.
The irony is that most, if not all, of the public has actually experienced or are experiencing what those superior people, in all their "wisdom and experience"
are trying to protect them from seeing or hearing in a movie.
I am sure you can hear the venom in my words and the sarcasm when referring to superior people with wisdom and experience.
The movie's about bullying, cruel & torturous as it is, and we're worried about a few words the kids have already heard before?
Now that's fucked up.
Post a Comment