4 ms·

A tough situation but based on the info in the article, I have to side with the MPAA on this one. They say the R rating is due to the language used and the cou

A tough situation but based on the info in the article, I have to side with the MPAA on this one. They say the R rating is due to the language used and the counter-argument is that high-schoolers are the ones using this language so it should be PG-13. Doesn't make sense since this assumes that all teenagers speak like the 'bullies' depicted in the film. I would hope that the producers can come up with a solution to have the film rated PG-13 since it will definitely be more widely seen by the target audience in that case. If editing the most offensive cases out is not an option perhaps bleeping them out a-la "The Osbournes" would appease the MPAA. (unrelated but I personally found the censored version of The Osbournes to be much funnier than the uncensored version)

VengefulCynic 15y ago
"Doesn't make sense since this assumes that all teenagers speak like the 'bullies' depicted in the film." The only thing materially communicated by this R rating is that someone says "fuck" more than once in the movie. To call that speaking like a bully is incredibly reductive to the point of turning your argument into a straw man.
- alanning 15y ago
  That is why 'bullies' was in quotes. We don't know who said the words that the MPAA had a problem with and perhaps it wasn't even the bullies using the offensive language. The point is that, according to the article, the counter-argument is that the offensive language was said by a high-schooler so the movie should be viewable by high-schoolers. In effect, attributing the worst case scenario to the general case. How is that a straw man? EDIT: Also hoping for discussion regarding voluntarily censoring (bleeping) since that is something I've never seen before in movies and regardless of how strong the arguments/counter-arguments are, the rating has already been given.
  - qxcv 15y ago
    > In effect, attributing the worst case scenario to the general case. I don't think that's a fair statement. If you watch "R-rated" depictions of brutal violence, the probability that you will be adversely psychologically (or socially) affected by those depictions is pretty close to zero. This is not because you have committed acts of brutal violence yourself, but rather because you are capable of dealing with such things in a mature and rational way. Similarly, the argument here is not that high-schoolers will be unaffected by this film because they have practised the behaviour depicted therein, but because they have dealt with it and understand the implications of such behaviour. Language is a particularly important case because people outside the school system (and even some inside it) tend to believe that children are unspoilt bundles of verbal innocence, whereas in reality the sort of language practised on a day-to-day basis by your average 13-year-old is probably considerably more offensive than the language used in this film. It's ironic that a film like this one should be crushed by the very veil of ignorance which it attempts to lift - social norms change, and the MPAA can't expect to be able to stick its head in the sand and assume that a ratings system based on a fairly static set of "family values" will be relevant forever.
    - alanning 15y ago
      Thank you for the explanation. I think your view of their position, that teenagers will not be adversely affected by exposure to the language is a better interpretation than how I took it when I read the article. Wishful thinking it may be but I am more inclined to consider the typical 13-year-old as more innocent although I do see the potential irony. Still, I would prefer my kids to see the movie without the more extreme curse words than with it so I feel like the MPAA is performing a useful role here; that of alerting potential viewers to the general level of 'unpleasantness' they will encounter. Regardless of the rating we'll still watch it but if the threat of an 'R' causes the producers to bleep the worst language I think its a win since I don't think the overall message regarding bullying will be impacted.
      - yew 15y ago
        The problem with considering the typical 13-year-old as innocent is that you end up making decisions based on inaccurate data. The primary point of this film isn't to be entertaining or pleasing, but to help force people to confront the fact that this sort of thing is actually happening. Removing the unpleasantness would be counterproductive, even if you could still get the message through (less effectively) without the language.
dedward 15y ago
is it just me, or should teachers not be permitted to ask for parental permission to watch the film if they feel like its of benefit to the class? i hope the us education system doesnt just blanket prohibit anything with an r rating u nder Ny circumstances.
- alanning 15y ago
  Speaking from personal experience of having watched Schindler's List in a high-school history class, it certainly is possible to see 'R' rated films in US schools if the teacher wants to show them. Not sure if that's specific to the state (VA) though and I have to believe it would be shown more if it was PG-13. (incidentally, I'm glad we watched it and I think it was important to give perspective but I can see how some parents might have objected considering the brutality of the subject matter. I still remember the shock of seeing that red coat in that pile of bodies...)
  - colonel_panic 15y ago
    You can see R movies as long as there are no Mormons in your class. Poor Mormons... I bet none of their friends called them for at least a month after the big movie-watching week at the end of each school year.
    - simonbrown 15y ago
      How is that their fault?
- epochwolf 15y ago
  In high school, our history teacher showed parts of 3 episodes of Band of Brothers ("Day of Days", "Bastogne", and "Why We Fight"). It was pretty graphic and awesome. The scene in the holocast camp in "Why We Fight" was pretty disturbing. She tied it in pretty neatly with our lessons on WWII. The high school was in Wisconsin. Edit: Forgot about "Why We Fight"
DanBC 15y ago
> (unrelated but I personally found the censored version of The Osbournes to be much funnier than the uncensored version) ...and perhaps that's why it's important to keep the language in? Bleeping it reduces the effect. Something similar happened in Robocop; the scene showing ED-209 machine gunning the junior executive was originally very long. The MPAA gave the film an X rating, so lots of the the movie was cut. The machine gunning was now short, efficient. That turned a scene which was darkly comic, totally ridiculous, into something much more chilling.
- aidenn0 15y ago
  This seems to be pretty regular with violent movies. The scene in fight club where the main character beats up the guy with the blond hair had to be edited, and IMO is much more disturbing in the edited version.

VengefulCynic 15y ago

"Doesn't make sense since this assumes that all teenagers speak like the 'bullies' depicted in the film." The only thing materially communicated by this R rating is that someone says "fuck" more than once in the movie. To call that speaking like a bully is incredibly reductive to the point of turning your argument into a straw man.

alanning 15y ago
That is why 'bullies' was in quotes. We don't know who said the words that the MPAA had a problem with and perhaps it wasn't even the bullies using the offensive language. The point is that, according to the article, the counter-argument is that the offensive language was said by a high-schooler so the movie should be viewable by high-schoolers. In effect, attributing the worst case scenario to the general case. How is that a straw man? EDIT: Also hoping for discussion regarding voluntarily censoring (bleeping) since that is something I've never seen before in movies and regardless of how strong the arguments/counter-arguments are, the rating has already been given.
- qxcv 15y ago
  > In effect, attributing the worst case scenario to the general case. I don't think that's a fair statement. If you watch "R-rated" depictions of brutal violence, the probability that you will be adversely psychologically (or socially) affected by those depictions is pretty close to zero. This is not because you have committed acts of brutal violence yourself, but rather because you are capable of dealing with such things in a mature and rational way. Similarly, the argument here is not that high-schoolers will be unaffected by this film because they have practised the behaviour depicted therein, but because they have dealt with it and understand the implications of such behaviour. Language is a particularly important case because people outside the school system (and even some inside it) tend to believe that children are unspoilt bundles of verbal innocence, whereas in reality the sort of language practised on a day-to-day basis by your average 13-year-old is probably considerably more offensive than the language used in this film. It's ironic that a film like this one should be crushed by the very veil of ignorance which it attempts to lift - social norms change, and the MPAA can't expect to be able to stick its head in the sand and assume that a ratings system based on a fairly static set of "family values" will be relevant forever.
  - alanning 15y ago
    Thank you for the explanation. I think your view of their position, that teenagers will not be adversely affected by exposure to the language is a better interpretation than how I took it when I read the article. Wishful thinking it may be but I am more inclined to consider the typical 13-year-old as more innocent although I do see the potential irony. Still, I would prefer my kids to see the movie without the more extreme curse words than with it so I feel like the MPAA is performing a useful role here; that of alerting potential viewers to the general level of 'unpleasantness' they will encounter. Regardless of the rating we'll still watch it but if the threat of an 'R' causes the producers to bleep the worst language I think its a win since I don't think the overall message regarding bullying will be impacted.
    - yew 15y ago
      The problem with considering the typical 13-year-old as innocent is that you end up making decisions based on inaccurate data. The primary point of this film isn't to be entertaining or pleasing, but to help force people to confront the fact that this sort of thing is actually happening. Removing the unpleasantness would be counterproductive, even if you could still get the message through (less effectively) without the language.

dedward 15y ago

is it just me, or should teachers not be permitted to ask for parental permission to watch the film if they feel like its of benefit to the class? i hope the us education system doesnt just blanket prohibit anything with an r rating u nder Ny circumstances.

alanning 15y ago
Speaking from personal experience of having watched Schindler's List in a high-school history class, it certainly is possible to see 'R' rated films in US schools if the teacher wants to show them. Not sure if that's specific to the state (VA) though and I have to believe it would be shown more if it was PG-13. (incidentally, I'm glad we watched it and I think it was important to give perspective but I can see how some parents might have objected considering the brutality of the subject matter. I still remember the shock of seeing that red coat in that pile of bodies...)
- colonel_panic 15y ago
  You can see R movies as long as there are no Mormons in your class. Poor Mormons... I bet none of their friends called them for at least a month after the big movie-watching week at the end of each school year.
  - simonbrown 15y ago
    How is that their fault?
epochwolf 15y ago
In high school, our history teacher showed parts of 3 episodes of Band of Brothers ("Day of Days", "Bastogne", and "Why We Fight"). It was pretty graphic and awesome. The scene in the holocast camp in "Why We Fight" was pretty disturbing. She tied it in pretty neatly with our lessons on WWII. The high school was in Wisconsin. Edit: Forgot about "Why We Fight"

DanBC 15y ago

> (unrelated but I personally found the censored version of The Osbournes to be much funnier than the uncensored version) ...and perhaps that's why it's important to keep the language in? Bleeping it reduces the effect. Something similar happened in Robocop; the scene showing ED-209 machine gunning the junior executive was originally very long. The MPAA gave the film an X rating, so lots of the the movie was cut. The machine gunning was now short, efficient. That turned a scene which was darkly comic, totally ridiculous, into something much more chilling.

aidenn0 15y ago
This seems to be pretty regular with violent movies. The scene in fight club where the main character beats up the guy with the blond hair had to be edited, and IMO is much more disturbing in the edited version.