The Weinstein Company Assembles Legal Team to Challenge MPAA Ratings for THE KING’S SPEECH and BLUE VALENTINE

by     Posted 3 years, 247 days ago

kings_speech_blue_valentine_slice

The Weinstein Company has a couple of serious awards contenders with The King Speech’s and Blue Valentine.  While critical acclaim for these films has already come out of the festival circuit, the Weinsteins are trying to get these films in front of as many people as possible.  Standing in the way is the MPAA, which has slapped The King’s Speech with an R-rating for langugage and Blue Valentine with an NC-17 for apparently being too emotionally devastating.

The Weinstein Company has assembled a legal team to fight the ratings, since the “R” would lower The King’s Speech‘s potential box office and the “NC-17″ would outright kill Blue Valentine.  Hit the jump for more.

The press release issued by The Weinstein Company is below followed by my comments and a suggestion as to a possible long-term solution for the MPAA regarding these kinds of controversies.

LOS ANGELES, CA (November 18, 2010) – In response to the ratings given to two of its upcoming films, The Weinstein Company (TWC) announced today that it has engaged a formidable legal team to challenge the NC-17 rating for BLUE VALENTINE and the R rating for THE KING’S SPEECH given by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), according to TWC Co-Chair Harvey Weinstein.

“While we respect the MPAA, I think we can all agree that we are living with an outdated ratings system that gives torture porn, horror and ultraviolent films the same rating as films with so-called inappropriate language,” explains Weinstein.

In mounting the challenge, TWC has assembled a team of top attorneys including David Boies, who serves as legal advisor on both films, Bert Fields, who is overseeing the appeal for THE KING’S SPEECH, and Alan R. Friedman, the lead attorney for BLUE VALENTINE.

the_kings_speech_movie_poster_01THE KING’S SPEECH drew an R rating due to its multiple occurrences of strong language, even though it is used in a non-aggressive, non-sexual, therapeutic way. Director Tom Hooper states, “I hope that language can be judged by its context just as violence is currently judged in context. The f-word in ‘The King’s Speech’ is not being used in its sexual sense, or in its aggressive sense, but as a release mechanism to help a man overcome a stammer in the context of speech therapy, in a scene that is also very funny. This was a technique that David Seidler, the writer, encountered as a boy in the 1940s – discovering he didn’t stammer on curse words was hugely helpful to him overcoming his speech problems. Fortunately in the UK we have been granted a 12A, and the on screen certificate will explain that there is some bad language “used in the context of speech therapy”. I hope that in the light of this context the R rating for the movie can be reconsidered.”

Prompted by the decision from the British Board of Film Classification to lower the rating of THE KING’S SPEECH to 12A, the equivalent of our PG-13, and to use the specific warning: “Contains strong language in a speech therapist context,” as well as the outcry from parents, teens and educators who have already seen the film, TWC has requested what is referred to as a Special Hearing with the MPAA. The Special Hearing is necessary because the film is now within 25 business days of its theatrical release. “We were so encouraged by the British Film Board’s decision to lower the rating in England that it motivated us to fully support the Special Hearing that TWC has requested. We feel that school kids in America would otherwise miss out on the opportunity to see this film which at its core is a film about overcoming adversity, based on moral themes of friendship and self belief,” comments Iain Canning.

Not only has the film received support from filmgoers, but also from a chorus of key journalists, including Patrick Goldstein of the Los Angeles Times, Dave Karger of Entertainment Weekly, and countless other editors and writers. The other motivation for proceeding with the 11th-hour appeal is in response to audiences who believe the current powder-keg issue of childhood bullying, and its effects long into adulthood, subtlety illustrated in the film, should reach pre-teen and teenage viewers.

Attorney Fields adds, “This rating for THE KING’S SPEECH is arbitrary and irrational. In my view, it violates The Weinstein Company’s right to freedom of speech under the state and US constitution. It should strike fear in the heart of every director and producer.”

blue_valentine_poster_ryan_gosling_michelle_williamsBLUE VALENTINE, starring Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams, in a film already acclaimed by critics, tells the honest and personal story of a troubled marriage, and yet apparently drew an NC-17 due to one scene, a sexually intimate sequence between a married couple trying to repair their broken relationship.

Gosling comments, “You have to question a cinematic culture which preaches artistic expression, and yet would support a decision that is clearly a product of a patriarchy-dominant society, which tries to control how women are depicted on screen. The MPAA is okay supporting scenes that portray women in scenarios of sexual torture and violence for entertainment purposes, but they are trying to force us to look away from a scene that shows a woman in a sexual scenario, which is both complicit and complex. It’s misogynistic in nature to try and control a woman’s sexual presentation of self. I consider this an issue that is bigger than this film.”

“The MPAA’s decision on Blue Valentine unmasks a taboo in our culture, that an honest portrayal of a relationship is more threatening than a sensationalized one,” says Williams. “Mainstream films often depict sex and violence in a manner that is disturbing and very far from reality. Yet, the MPAA regularly awards these films with a more audience friendly rating, enabling our culture’s desensitization to violence, rape, torture and brutality. Our film does not depict any of these attributes. It’s simply a candid look at the difficulties couples face in sustaining their relationships over time. Blue Valentine opens a door for couples to have a dialogue about the everyday realities of many relationships. This film was made in the spirit of love, honesty and intimacy. I hope that the MPAA will hear our pleas and reconsider their decision.”

In order to appeal, TWC is forced to accept the NC-17 rating for now, the first step in the appeals process. Initially TWC sought to go outside of the ratings board, and release the film unrated, however in the last 10 days so much support of the film has been garnered that TWC has decided to move forward with an official MPAA appeal. “Over the past year I have witnessed audiences all over the world personally relating to the story and characters, so brilliantly and bravely performed by Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams” states director, Derek Cianfrance. He adds, “The one positive to come out of this miss-directed decision, is the passionate outpouring of support from the industry, the media, and the fans of the film. I have yet to meet someone who has seen the film who agrees with this ultra-conservative decision.”

“Stamping this film with the rarely used NC-17 is a travesty,” says attorney Friedman. “That rating is out of sync with R ratings awarded to films for sexual conduct, where the scenes in question are far less sensitively handled. The scene, consistent with the entire film, like all of BLUE VALENTINE, was shot with great care and tact. In fact, the NC-17 suggests a coarseness of content that is nowhere to be seen. I look forward to providing the appeal board with the chance to correct this mistake by lowering the rating to an R.”

As both films are slated for an end of the year release and are considered by many to be leading awards contenders, TWC hopes to come to a resolution on an expedited timetable.

THE KING’S SPEECH, starring Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, and Helena Bonham Carter is directed by Tom Hooper, written by David Seidler and produced by Iain Canning, Emile Sherman and Gareth Unwin, will have an exclusive Thanksgiving release.

BLUE VALENTINE, directed by Derek Cianfrance, produced by Jamie Patricof, Lynette Howell and Alex Orlovsky, will be released on December 31 and expands nationwide January 2011.

I am slightly perplexed by their attorney Bert Field’s argument that the rating for The King’s Speech, “violates The Weinstein Company’s right to freedom of speech under the state and US constitution.”  The first amendment protects people from the government prohibiting speech.  The MPAA is a self-governing body and films don’t have to adhere to its rules if they don’t wish.  TWC could theoretically release The King’s Speech without an MPAA rating.  However, it would tank at the box office since most theaters won’t show unrated or NC-17 rated movies.

The Weinstein Company co-chair Harvey Weinstein makes an excellent point in a press release when he says:

“While we respect the MPAA, I think we can all agree that we are living with an outdated ratings system that gives torture porn, horror and ultraviolent films the same rating as films with so-called inappropriate language,”

The problem (other than the MPAA’s perverse leniency on violence while taking a puritanical stand on sex and language) is the limited ratings system.  The MPAA needs to create a new rating that exists between PG-13 and R.  The new rating could function as a minor-R, lowering the age of admission without an adult to 15 on certain films.  The gulf between PG-13 and R is simply too vast and films like The King’s Speech, films whose greatest offense is language, fall in and the Academy errs on the side of caution.

It’s not like it takes an act of congress to create a new rating.  As I said before, the MPAA is a self-governing body and if they want to create a new rating, they can.  This case over The King’s Speech could be the perfect opportunity to do so.




Like Us


Comments:

FB Comments

  • thatguy

    Is an intermediate rating really necessary? I don’t really think there’s a very large gap between 13 and 17 maturity-wise… I mean sure, you go through “the puberty”, but I don’t really think my knowledge and application of swear words, sex or other mature subject matter was altered a whole lot in that four year span.

    As for the ratings fiasco… I can understand the complaint when you have a film that gets “caught between two ratings” like these films, but I can’t really think of many ways that we can improve the ratings system, and to be quite honest I don’t really hear many suggestions either, just lots of reacting. One thing that Gosling and Weinstein opine about is how torture porn and the like is okay but we’re all shocked and appalled when presented with something more “real”. I would agree with that assesment, but on the flip side I would say that’s exactly the way it SHOULD be! Fantastical violence, sex and the like is more acceptable because it’s… well, fantastical! Real-life violence and sex are incredibly mature subject matters, but when this content is “fantasized”, it is reduced to a caricature and becomes more acceptable. There’s a reason why I laugh when the guys’ head explodes in Scanners, but cringe when Franco cuts his arm off in 127 hours.

    I do agree that there are some changes needed, at least in regards to language, but it’s really not a very cut-and-dry type of situation so I do find myself to be a bit more sympathetic to the MPAA.

  • Michael

    A new rating is needed between the PG-13 and the R. As well as new distinctions need to be made regarding the PG-13. Why do parents insist on taking their children under the age of 13 to PG-13 rated films? The PG-13 rating isn’t meant for families with younger children, but for parents with older children, meaning teenagers. There is too much of a discrepancy between the rating’s intention and what actually happens with parents. With that said The King’s Speech should have a PG-13 even with the language, not some 15 rating, as that would just be ridiculous. Like the movie Once a few years ago, neither movie is going to psychologically harm a teenager or any film goer of any age. I do agree with a rating between the PG-13 and the R, but that rating should be aimed more at teenagers. Movies that have more language, more violence, and even more sex and nudity than a PG-13 should get the rating. Movies that would be good candidates for the new 15 rating are Green Zone, United 93, The Hurt Locker, Almost Famous, Public Enemies, Tombstone, the upcoming final installments of the Twilight Saga, Silk, Lost In Translation, Junebug, and even something like Fast Times at Ridgemont High. All of those movies that I just listed are examples of movies that it wouldn’t hurt an older teenager to see, but are inappropriate for families with younger children under the age of 13 to watch together.

  • Pingback: Picks from the Vine (Nov. 23-25) « Remy's Mixes & Stuff

Click Here