Bully vs. the MPAA

On March 30th, Lee Hirsh’s documentary on the bullying epidemic in America will be released in theaters. Though whether or not the key demographic that most needs to see the film will be able to is yet to be determined.

With an upsurge in bullying-related suicides in the past few years, it was just a matter of time before a documentary was made on the subject. “Bully,” which is being released by The Weinstein Company, is about how bullying affected the lives of five families. A month ago, the film ran into a problem: it was given an R rating by the MPAA and the rating was upheld on appeal -- meaning no one under the age of 17 will be allowed to go see the film without a parent or guardian present, and that Weinstein’s plan to screen the film for high school students is crushed.

After hearing this news, Michigan high-school student Katy Butler, a victim of bullying herself, started an online petition to have the rating lowered – a petition that has now received wide-spread attention, garnering over 300,000 signatures, and support from nearly 30 members of Congress as well as the likes of Justin Bieber, Johnny Depp and Ellen DeGeneres.

This is something that any filmmaker who wants their movie to have a wide release in theaters has to go through, so why is everyone getting all riled up over this one instance? Because this act is, so to speak, the one that broke the camel's back. The MPAA has a history of playing God in the motion picture industry: either you make the often nonsensical cuts necessary to avoid an R or NC-17 rating, or your film will greatly suffer at the box office. It’s as simple as that. They say that they’re not a censorship organization, but of course, their existence in the first place ends up attributing to just that.

The MPAA is made up of a small group of parents who screen the films and then assign the ratings based on the content. There is no real set of guidelines as to what is and is not permissible for each rating. What one movie can get away with while securing a PG-13 rating, another is slapped with an R for showing the same thing. In the case of “Bully,” the reason it is so “deserving” of an R rating: language. Six uses of the F-word, to be exact.

That’s 5 times more than is allowed for a PG-13 rating. It’s also 36 times less than the amount of F-bombs used in 2005 war documentary “Gunner Palace,” which was given a PG-13 rating on appeal. How’s that for putting things in perspective?


While the situation appears to be as simple as the MPAA getting off their high horse and lowering the rating from an R to a PG-13, to them that action would mean much more: it would mean admitting to an imperfect system, one that doesn’t have a clear, logical set of guidelines.

It would mean forever being viewed as a group that makes exceptions. And that scares the hell out of them. Even with proof that previous members have done so in the past.

We’re talking about an organization that constantly contradicts itself – one that shuns sex and nudity, but lets films with violence have far more wiggle room. Let’s take the upcoming movie “The Hunger Games,” for instance: it’s about 24 teens fighting to the death. Surely there will some blood and violence, no matter how clever the camerawork is. PG-13 rating. Then “Bully” comes along, and because it makes use of the F-word six times, it is immediately deemed inappropriate for teenagers. Really?

Let me ask you something -- what 13 year olds hasn’t heard the F-word before? What difference does it make if the word is said one or six times? It’s not like we’d be exposing children to this deadly, life-altering word that will scar them forever. I think kids need to be freaked out. They need a wake-up call, to show that the things they do and the words they inflict upon others have consequences. Kids who are exposed to the film won’t come out traumatized by the use of the F-word. Hopes are, they’ll come out deeply affected and enlightened on a problem that exists around them on a day-to-day basis, one that many turn a blind eye to.


In the likely case that the MPAA doesn’t budge, The Weinstein Company has a few options, though none are very desirable. They could cut out some of the scenes in question or bleep out the profanity. But that would diminish the overall impact, something Weinstein and Hirsch refuse to do. Kelby Johnson, one of the bullied teens featured in the film, put it best when he said, “Our reality is not censored.”

The more probable option would be for The Weinstein Company to release the film without a rating – though that brings along its own set of problems. By not accepting the MPAA’s ruling and releasing “Bully” without a rating, the film may be treated in some theaters as an NC-17 movie -- which would make it impossible for teens to see the film in those theaters, guardian or not.

I can’t tell you if “Bully” is going to be a great movie. It may end up being overly emotionally manipulative. It may end up being the best documentary in years. What I do know is that “Bully” digs deep into a horrific and ongoing problem. If there is even a chance that this documentary can make a difference, then the MPAA should find their humanity and admit that people seeing this film is more important than a few curse words.

Everyone loves an underdog story…I just fear that the bullies may emerge victorious in the ongoing war between The Weinstein Company and the MPAA.

To sign the petition, click here