“Bully” v. the MPAA

We were here a couple of years ago with the Weinstein-distributed film “Blue Valentine”. 

And now we were here again a couple of months ago with “Bully”.

The problem here is that for the past 50+ years the MPAA has been deciding for us what we should watch and what we shouldn’t watch. The MPAA is not an association appointed by Congress to oversee the content that are featured in movies. But, in a sort of indirect way it has received its support. But let's start at the beginning, shall we! Jack Valenti was its president for 38 years. And just who is Jack Valenti, you ask? Well, he was a political opportunist. He just happened to be present at the swearing in of President Lyndon B. Johnson immediately after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. During the run of his presidency over the association, he received full support from Washington D.C. And here is where we have the 'issue'. The 'issue' here is that the MPAA preaches religiously that they have no hidden agendas, other than to protect children from watching inappropriate material in theaters. Why, I just think that that’s very convenient, considering that every scene that is “frowned upon” by the members of the board of reviewers is a sex scene. But films with high content of violence are given a PG-13.

Can somebody explain that to me?

But here’s what really cooks me up inside. They claim that they are neutral in matters of religious beliefs, ethics, morals, blah, blah, blah. But when you watch the documentary “This Film Is Not Yet Rated” it clearly shows when a movie is given a PG-13 rating and R rating. Violent movies tend to be favored more over than movies where there are intense sex scenes. Now let me be clear, I’m not vouching for movies to be explicit in sexual content, you can look that up online, if you know what I mean (and I think you do, *wink wink*).

Anyhoo, what I’m saying is that when the MPAA idolizes violence so much in place of a scene where two people are doing something that is so completely natural, loving each other in a physical way, a series of red flags come up in my radar.

Now what does that have to do with “Bully”?

Well, it has to do with “Bully”, in the sense that in a couple of scenes during the documentary, the bullies were cursing with F-bombs all over the place, and the association found that to be inappropriate for children to watch. Lord knows how many suicides occurred last year alone due to bullying. Everybody knows that bullying can have tragic consequences, and the way it happens is by degrading other human beings, treating them with disrespect, cursing them out and everything. If these kids, who already know this type of vocabulary and they are using it against others, why is it so harmful for them to watch it happen by people who practice it as they do, in a theater?

This has been a year of reflection on who really has your back. On who really has your child’s best interest at heart when it comes to “public servants”.

This documentary presented something so important to watch, and this organization has only been bullying not only the director, but the people who can benefit from watching such strong and emotional material as what “Bully”is presenting.

You know filmmaking isn’t only about making money, at least not to me. Sometimes people forget that filmmaking is an art. And art can be many things, among them a form of expression of a repressed truth, or a truth that has become lost in the day to day routine that is life, or simply because people refuse to see it. This film could’ve had such a strong-er impact had the association seen the truth in it.

And what a simple truth it was.