Mike's Musings: I Believe in Harvey Weinstein!
Okay, that may be overstating things a little bit. Weinstein, a producer whose talent is outmatched by the size of his ego, is a little hard to get behind. This is the guy who split the "Kill Bill" movies in two (which led to an unfortunate Hollywood trend), and released an edited version of "The King's Speech," which shouldn't have been R rated to begin with.
But the film at the center of the controversy is a documentary called "Bully," about, naturally, bullying. Bullying has always been a problem but it has never gotten more than token press after the suicide of Phoebe Prince and the catastrophic losses of LGBT teens. So here is a chance to present a true face on bullying to people who are both victims and perpetrators. So what does the MPAA do? They give it a fucking R rating.
I haven't seen the film, so I can't judge it based on content. But think about it. A film that was meant to be shown in schools to students who are directly impacted by this aren't going to be able to (no teenager is going to see a documentary unless it's shown in school) because that self-righteous organization is so wrapped up in its own bogus system that it won't do what's right.
One could argue that the film contains things that pre-teens and teenagers shouldn't see. Like I said, I haven't seen the film (it opens March 30), but you know what? Teenagers are exposed to bullying day in and day out, and profanity (the MPAA gave the film an R rating for "Some Language") is pervasive in middle schools. For those of you who don't believe me, have your kid record a walk down a hall, and you'll hear more swearing than in all of Quentin Tarantino's movies combined, I shit you not. Additionally, having kids talk like real kids will make it seem more real and less like preaching (which would defeat the purpose entirely).
Another argument is that it could (and probably does) contain disturbing material. You know what? Bullying is disturbing. It's disturbing to watch, listen to and hear about. It's even worse to experience it. I should know. I was bullied mercilessly in middle school, so much so that I seriously considered switching schools, (and in retrospect, I wish I had). The opportunity to make kids take a critical look at bullying has been snuffed out by the MPAA. They've gone low before, but even for them, this is unpardonable.
Would the movie change anything even if it was shown to its intended audience? I'm not sure, but if so, it would probably have to be pretty damn good. Adolescents are pretty aloof to that kind of thing (enough "True Life" horror shows about drunk driving and unprotected sex will do that to you, not that there's anything wrong with showing them to kids). But the chance that it might have an effect, even a tiny one, is something that should be seized upon, and it's been snuffed out by a group of people who are so concerned with their image that they are willing to take away the chance to change things.
Harvey Weinstein has left the MPAA for the forseeable future, and while I congratulate him, I realize that this is probably a publicity stunt (his marketing is widely regarded as the sole reason that "Shakespeare in Love" took home the Best Picture Oscar over the much more beloved "Saving Private Ryan"). That being said, I congratulate him anyway. Someone needs to stand up to Hollywood's nanny police, and for all his flaws, filmmakers couldn't have picked a better person than Harvey.
But the film at the center of the controversy is a documentary called "Bully," about, naturally, bullying. Bullying has always been a problem but it has never gotten more than token press after the suicide of Phoebe Prince and the catastrophic losses of LGBT teens. So here is a chance to present a true face on bullying to people who are both victims and perpetrators. So what does the MPAA do? They give it a fucking R rating.
I haven't seen the film, so I can't judge it based on content. But think about it. A film that was meant to be shown in schools to students who are directly impacted by this aren't going to be able to (no teenager is going to see a documentary unless it's shown in school) because that self-righteous organization is so wrapped up in its own bogus system that it won't do what's right.
One could argue that the film contains things that pre-teens and teenagers shouldn't see. Like I said, I haven't seen the film (it opens March 30), but you know what? Teenagers are exposed to bullying day in and day out, and profanity (the MPAA gave the film an R rating for "Some Language") is pervasive in middle schools. For those of you who don't believe me, have your kid record a walk down a hall, and you'll hear more swearing than in all of Quentin Tarantino's movies combined, I shit you not. Additionally, having kids talk like real kids will make it seem more real and less like preaching (which would defeat the purpose entirely).
Another argument is that it could (and probably does) contain disturbing material. You know what? Bullying is disturbing. It's disturbing to watch, listen to and hear about. It's even worse to experience it. I should know. I was bullied mercilessly in middle school, so much so that I seriously considered switching schools, (and in retrospect, I wish I had). The opportunity to make kids take a critical look at bullying has been snuffed out by the MPAA. They've gone low before, but even for them, this is unpardonable.
Would the movie change anything even if it was shown to its intended audience? I'm not sure, but if so, it would probably have to be pretty damn good. Adolescents are pretty aloof to that kind of thing (enough "True Life" horror shows about drunk driving and unprotected sex will do that to you, not that there's anything wrong with showing them to kids). But the chance that it might have an effect, even a tiny one, is something that should be seized upon, and it's been snuffed out by a group of people who are so concerned with their image that they are willing to take away the chance to change things.
Harvey Weinstein has left the MPAA for the forseeable future, and while I congratulate him, I realize that this is probably a publicity stunt (his marketing is widely regarded as the sole reason that "Shakespeare in Love" took home the Best Picture Oscar over the much more beloved "Saving Private Ryan"). That being said, I congratulate him anyway. Someone needs to stand up to Hollywood's nanny police, and for all his flaws, filmmakers couldn't have picked a better person than Harvey.
Comments
Post a Comment