Crude Language (The Bully Incident)

Swear words

You know them. You say them from time to time. Don't try to deny it. You probably say/said them in school sometimes too. It's not particularly nice but every day school kids are going to hear nasty words in the hallways. 

Bully is an independent documentary about the bullying epidemic that plagues American middle and high schools. It features quite a lot of footage of actual school children being absolutely horrible to each other and the tragic outcomes of such actions. It was meant to show the effect that bullying can have in the hopes that kids might think about what they're saying to each other. Needless to say, there is a lot of nasty language.

Something you folks should know: If a film uses a word like "fuck" more than four times in a film, it will automatically receive and "R" from the MPAA. The tagline for the "R" rating is "Restricted. Children Under 17 Require Accompanying Parent or Adult Guardian".

Bully received an "R" rating for it's realistic depiction of the language used by American school kids. This rating would prevent kids from seeing it without a parent present, and from being shown in public schools.

Naturally the filmmakers tried to appeal the rating to the MPAA board. There were numerous petitions to have the rating changed (you may have received a few emails from Change.com about it, I know I did). The appeals failed and the filmmakers ended up running the film as unrated and later released a PG-13 version with much of the swearing cut out.

This is, I think, the best example of how the MPAA's power can be used to prevent an important message from reaching the public. Whether it was intentional or not, the MPAA's rating would have kept a very good documentary about a difficult issue from reaching the demographic that needed to see it most. 

Sexuality and Violence

One of the biggest points raised by critics of the MPAA rating system is the MPAA's somewhat uneven treatment of materials that depict violence and materials that depict sexuality. In general, the MPAA has been known to rate violent films much more lightly than films that feature sexuality.

For example:
Lets take a movie that's pretty well known for being violent/gory.

Perfect. Now, in case anyone doesn't know much about this film franchise, I'll give you the set-up for the first film (the only one I have seen in its entirety):
Two men find themselves captured by the "Jigsaw Killer" and placed in a situation in which in order to survive, they must mutilate themselves (cut off their feet in order to escape).
A nasty situation to say the least.
Now, self-amputation is not the central theme, but gore and torture do play a huge role in the film. I'm not saying it's good or bad, I'm just saying there's a lot of blood (Feel free to go look up clips of you haven't seen it and don't believe me for whatever reason).
When Saw was originally submitted to the MPAA it received an NC-17 rating, but with some cuts it was eventually released with an R rating for "strong grisly violence and language" (FilmRatings.com). The film remained pretty grisly throughout.

Compare to the film "But I'm a Cheerleader"

Drastic change in tone, but hear me out on this one. 

Setup: Megan is a cheerleader. Her parents suspect she is a lesbian and ship her off to "TrueDirections", a "homosexual rehabilitation camp" where she realizes that she may in fact be gay and falls in love.
It's a comedy about teenagers figuring themselves out in a less than welcoming environment. I'm going to be re-visiting this one in a later post about the MPAA's anti-queer bias, but for now it'll be an example of a film that got an NC-17 for some pretty brief sexuality. Like Saw, But I'm a Cheerleader originally got an NC-17 rating. This is what they had to cut to get an R: Two seconds of a girl touching another girl's (clothed) body, a brief shot of Megan masturbating (over her clothes), and a reference to cunnilingus (The Village Voice). 

It seems a little silly that we can watch a foot being sawed off and a mangled body hanging in razor wire, but two whole seconds of fully clothed caressing is just too much for the average American audience.

Some Background on the MPAA

The MPAA is not officially a "censorship organization". It is an independent "voluntary" organization formed in the late 1960's for the purpose of "informing parents about the content of films so they can determine what movies are appropriate for their kids" (MPAA.org).
The MPAA uses a system of five possible ratings (All descriptions pulled directly from the MPAA site):

G: General Audiences. All Ages Admitted
PG: Parental Guidance Suggested. Some Material May Not Be Suitable For Children
PG-13: Parents Strongly Cautioned. Some Material May Be Inappropriate For Children Under 13
R: Restricted. Children Under 17 Require Accompanying Parent or Adult Guardian
NC-17: No One 17 and Under Admitted

Sounds awesome, right?

In some senses, it is pretty helpful. Any film rated of PG-13 and up gives a little tagline explaining why it got that rating and is a very useful tool for parents. However, the MPAA's ideas of what is appropriate for the eyes of children can be a tad arbitrary. Violence gets a much lighter touch than even the most inexplicit sexuality, and the number of times a certain swear is used can bump a PG or PG-13 to an R.

Also, while the MPAA claims their rating services to be voluntary, and a filmmaker has every right to run a film as "Unrated" if they don't agree with the MPAA's rating, most theaters will not run an unrated movie. Many theaters and video stores will also not run/sell a movie with an NC-17 rating.