#@&*%

I wrote the following for The South Bend Tribune on April 18, 2012.   While some of the details may be a bit dated, the overall premise still vexes me to this day and if anyone can explain to me why things are the way they are with regards to the MPAA, I would be interested.  And, yes, I have seen Kirby Dick's documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated.  All that film does is vex me even more.  Please, by all means... discuss...



In the last few years, the subject of bullying among our nation’s youth has been in the news quite a bit. I don’t remember bullying being particularly newsworthy when I was growing up. As I recall, it was just part of life. I was fairly heavyset and made pretty good grades in school. To put it mildly, I was a fat nerd. Therefore, I just kind of accepted it as a part of life and moved on when I could.

Of course, 20 years ago we didn’t have the prevalence of the Internet and only really rich people had cell phones. Today, it’s a different story. Not only do we have cell phones, we have phones that can take pictures and transmit them to anyone and everyone. Lives can be ruined at the press of a button.

A new documentary film aimed at teens that addresses this problem and seeks to end it has recently been released. It’s titled simply Bully and follows the lives of high school students and how bullying affects them. The film, while highly praised by critics, was given an R-rating by the Motion Picture Association of America because of frequent use of the dreaded “F-word.” An R rating (for those of you who actually pay attention to these things) means that no one under the age of 17 is admitted into the theater to see the film without a parent or guardian present. Assuming that the ticket clerks in movie theaters actually enforce this rule, that means that many of the people who need to see this film, specifically teens, wouldn’t be able to.

Harvey Weinstein, whose company distributes Bully, appealed to the MPAA’s ratings board to lower the rating to a PG-13 so that it could more easily reach its intended audience. The board refused. Weinstein, who has fought this fight before — most notably over last year’s Best Picture Oscar winner, The King’s Speech–decided to release the film unrated. Most unrated films are treated by theaters as if they have an NC-17 rating, meaning that no one under 17 is allowed in to see it, even with adult supervision.

According to imdb.com, “Finally, the filmmakers agreed to cut some, but not all, of the relevant language, and the MPAA did agree to re-rate the movie PG-13. The PG-13 version does keep intact all the language in the scene that was the main point of contention between the filmmakers and the MPAA, in which a 12-year-old is physically and verbally attacked on his school bus by his classmates.”

This whole thing concerns me for many reasons. First of all, I think this film is an important one that needed to be made and it needs to be seen by as many people as possible. Clearly bullying has become a real problem in this country and something needs to be done about it. I think the first step is talking about it, which this film obviously wants to do. I don’t think it should be rated R, but I also don’t think that the filmmakers should have edited the film to satisfy a handful of people who are in a position to dictate what is appropriate for someone of a certain age to see. I really feel that parents should be the final judge of what their children see. Unfortunately, I realize that not all parents are as diligent in their duties as mine were.

My second concern is with the MPAA’s ratings board itself. Its members seem to have taken it upon themselves to protect our youth from hearing foul language. I have news for them: It’s not working! If you have a documentary that depicts actual teens actually being bullied, both physically and verbally, then obviously the teen population is already familiar with the words that you don’t want them to hear, let alone say. Bleeping the word and/or blurring the mouths of those who use it, as they do on network television, doesn’t make any difference. We still know what’s being said. The same is true of euphemisms. Let’s be honest — we all know what the “F” in “F-word” stands for.

Which brings me to my biggest concern: changing standards in society. It would appear that in the last 40 years or so, we as a society have become freer and more open in the way we express ourselves. However, in spite of that, especially in the last 20 years, the MPAA has become stricter in its film ratings. (For the purposes of this writing, I’m only addressing language. Sex and violence are completely different issues.)

When I was in college, a professor in the telecommunications department at Ball State University informed me that a film got an R rating with its fourth utterance of the “F-word.” And when I look at the films of that time, that seems to be accurate. Films like 1995′s The American President and 1997′s As Good As It Gets both have PG-13 ratings and each use the word or some variation of it three times. 1989′s When Harry Met Sally… has exactly four and has an R.

Today, when I listen to commentary tracks on DVDs, I constantly hear filmmakers say things like, “We were only allowed to use the word one time and still maintain a PG-13 rating.” Assuming that films now get an R rating for the second use of the word, does that mean that all those PG-13 rated films of the mid-90s are now inappropriate for younger viewers because they used it more frequently? Should we go back and re-rate all these films to reflect what the MPAA ratings board currently thinks is appropriate for our children? Should a film like 1976′s All the President’s Men, which is rated PG, now carry an R? It uses some variation of that word a total of 11 times (yes, I counted!). If the film were to be re-released theatrically, would it have to have a different rating than the one assigned to it 36 years ago?

In the end, I think that the MPAA’s rating board is the real bully in this case. I’m not saying that films shouldn’t have ratings. Films like 2009′s The Hangover and last year’s smash Bridesmaids are clearly aimed at adults and we need some way of conveying that in a film’s marketing campaign. But in the case of Bully, the film has the potential to change lives for the better, particularly those of bullied teens. And yet, the MPAA seems intent on protecting children from hearing and seeing on a movie screen that which they already deal with on a daily basis. Are they really this afraid of words? I can’t decide if the ratings board is prudish, out of touch, or just in denial. Perhaps it’s all three.

Valentine's Day Can Suck It!

A few years back, I was thumbing through the Encyclopædia Britannica.  I wanted to know the origins of this Cupid chap who is supposed to be flying around this week.  He's Roman, in case you didn't know (I didn't, which is why I was looking him up in the first place).  He apparently enjoys archery and he is a menace to our society.  Britannica says that "his wounds inspired love or passion in his every victim."  WOUNDS????  VICTIM????  He's hunting human prey, for Christ's sake!  Clearly this guy is a terrorist and needs to be stopped at all cost!  We need to ship his wing-ed little ass off to Guantánamo and find out what his real agenda is!

As you may have guessed, I find Valentine's Day to be a disgusting and crass holiday.  Even in the days when I had a girlfriend, I still wasn't fond of it (although I will admit it was a lot more fun).  Personally, I don't understand the concept of it.  Some poor schlub gets his head lobbed off and I'm supposed to be romantic about it?  "Y'know, honey, we can go out to dinner and a movie anytime.  Why don't we watch someone get martyred?"  I don't know about the rest of you, but I certainly get hot whenever I think of someone getting decapitated.  Valentine's Day... Bah!  Humbug!

Now don't get me wrong.  I'm a hopeless romantic.  Or maybe I'm just hopeless...the jury is still out on that.  Consequently, I'm not a fan of what I call "institutionalized romance."  I don't like being told when I should be romantic.  I prefer to do it on my own, whenever the mood strikes me.

I normally try hard not to rain on anyone's parade.  And the other 364.25 days out of the year, I don't.  As such, I feel entitled to have one day out of the year when I can.  So, every February 14, I dress in my finest black suit, don a pair of sunglasses, and proclaim myself to be the anti-Cupid.

Can you blame me?  Beginning the day after Christmas, retail outlets and the media promote it ad nauseam.  They promote it as a holiday for lovers (and, I suppose, rightfully so).  Never mind how many people are consequently ostracized for the crime of being single.  No one ever talks about those who celebrate this "holiday" alone.  Valentine's Day and those who orchestrate it couldn't care less about us.  I guess that's only fair.  After all, we couldn't care about them.  I guess we're like the homeless.  If they don't see us, we don't really exist.

Seriously, what kind of crap is that?  There are a lot of us lonely, embittered people out there.  Where are our cards and flowers and candy?  Where is our holiday?  Who speaks for us?

At this point, I'm reminded of the words of Rob Fleming, the protagonist of my favourite novel, Nick Hornby's High Fidelity (or Rob Gordon if you're a fan of the film starring John Cusack), who points out that people worry about kids playing with guns or playing violent video games because they might turn into violent people themselves.  But nobody worries about these same kids listening to literally thousands of songs about pain, heartbreak, and loss.  Fleming poses an interesting question:  "Did I listen to music because I was miserable?  Or was I miserable because I listened to music?"

Either way, all we socially unacceptable single people seem to have on our behalf are the countless pop songs that people have been writing and performing since the dawn of civilization.  They say what those who force this holiday upon us are too ashamed to admit.  As members of the J. Geils Band, Peter Wolf and Seth Justman claimed "Love Stinks."  Felice and Boudleaux Bryant said that "Love Hurts."  Bob Dylan declared that "Love is Just a Four-Letter Word."  The late, great Leonard Cohen pointed out that "There Ain't No Cure For Love."  And my idols, the Rolling Stones, professed love to be a "Bitch."  As someone who's been passed over in favour of married men and suicidal drunks, I can attest to the fact that all of those are accurate.

I'm sure there are a lot of you out there who are deeply in love with your soul mate.  You may be happily married and have a litter of offspring and you still swoon every time you see each other.  That's great.  I'm happy for you... seriously, I am.  All I ask is that you stop rubbing it in the faces of those of us who aren't as lucky as you.

A Haiku

Trying to forget,
While trying to remember.
I'm drinking again.