I hope Bully gets a XXX! NATO's John Fithian treats Harvey Weinstein like an adult, Weinstein responds like a bullying (and lying) child.

As part of the ongoing 'fall-out' of the documentary Bully getting slapped with an R for its profanity, Harvey Weinstein has threatened to leave the MPAA and/or release the film in theaters as 'unrated'.  In response, John Fithian wrote the following letter:

LETTER FROM NATO PRESIDENT & CEO JOHN FITHIAN

Dear Harvey,

The National Association of Theatre Owners partners with the MPAA in the rules and operations of the Classification and Ratings Administration. Exhibition representatives participated yesterday in the appeal of “Bully.” As you know, the appeals board voted to uphold the ratings board’s decision that the prevalence of harsh language in “Bully” warranted an “R” rating. In response, you released a statement criticizing the decision, and threatening to remove your company’s movies from the ratings process.

As the father of a nine-year-old child, I am personally grateful that TWC has addressed the important issue of bullying in such a powerful documentary. The filmmaker and especially the brave young people who participated in this project deserve our attention and respect. Nonetheless, I believe that your public response to the decision of the appeals board is unwise.

Surveys of America’s parents reflect their very strong concern with the use of harsh language in movies. The vast majority of parents surveyed have indicated that the type of language used in “Bully” should receive an automatic “R” rating. You ask us to ignore the preferences of America’s parents and our own ratings rules because of the merit of this movie. Yet were the MPAA and NATO to waive the ratings rules whenever we believed that a particular movie had merit, or was somehow more important than other movies, we would no longer be neutral parties applying consistent standards, but rather censors of content based on personal mores.

You recently released the award-winning movie “King’s Speech” and must know the language rules very well. You should not have been surprised at the rating for “Bully.”

I have nothing but tremendous respect for you and the work of TWC. Our industry is so much the better for your involvement. But if you decide to withdraw your support and participation in the rating system, and begin to release movies without ratings, I will have no choice but to encourage my theater owner members to treat unrated movies from The Weinstein Company in the same manner as they treat unrated movies from anyone else.

In most cases, that means enforcement as though the movies were rated NC-17 – where no one under the age of 18 can be admitted even with accompanying parents or guardians.

Thank you for your consideration of these thoughts. And the best of luck to you on Sunday.

Sincerely yours,

John Fithian
President & CEO
NATO


As you can see, Fithian is correctly pointing out that Weinstein has been in this situation before and that he knows full-well that too much hard profanity can get an R-rating, so he shouldn't have been shocked by the outcome.  He also correctly points out that "Yet were the MPAA and NATO to waive the ratings rules whenever we believed that a particular movie had merit, or was somehow more important than other movies, we would no longer be neutral parties applying consistent standards, but rather censors of content based on personal mores."  Finally he states that should Weinstein decide to release Bully as 'unrated' then the film will be treated the way theaters treat most films that go out without an MPAA rating, which is the equivalent to an NC-17 with all the age-related restrictions that go along with that.  All of the above statements are true, and you'll notice how Fithian talks to Mr. Weinstein in a measured and mature manner, treating Harvey Weinstein as an adult capable of rational dialogue and nuanced thinking.  He even hedges his bets, stating that he too is a father and that he's thrilled that such a film got made, in a sort of 'of course we support the troops' sort of preemptive defense (which seems to be a patronizing necessity these days).  This is how the Weinstein Company responded:

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THEATRE OWNERS THREATENS NC-17 RATING STATUS FOR BULLY

THREAT COMES AFTER THE WEINSTEIN COMPANY’S MPAA APPEAL TO LOWER R RATING IN AN EFFORT TO USE FILM AS AN EDUCATIONAL TOOL FOR CHILDREN

New York, NY – February 28, 2012 – National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) President & CEO John Fithian sent Harvey Weinstein a letter dated February 24 on behalf of NATO stating that they may urge theater owners to treat BULLY as an NC-17 rated film. With an NC-17 rating, children under the age of 18 will not be permitted to see the movie even with a parent or guardian present. The NC-17 threat comes in response to The Weinstein Company’s (TWC) suggestion to release BULLY, which has the sole purpose of educating children and highlighting how bullying has become a national crisis, in theaters unrated after the MPAA failed to lower the R rating given for some language.

Both fathers of four children, TWC Co-Chairmen Harvey and Bob Weinstein see this as first and foremost a personal matter and one deserving its due respect from the MPAA and NATO.

“As a company we have the utmost respect for the National Association of Theatre Owners, but to suggest that the film BULLY could ever be treated like an NC-17 film is completely unconscionable, not to mention unreasonable. In light of the tragedy that occurred yesterday in Ohio, we feel now is the time for the bullying epidemic to take center stage, we need to demand our community takes action,” said Harvey and Bob Weinstein.

In response to NATO’s letter, TWC COO David Glasser said the studio will be fully prepared for this battle and is in negotiations with renowned attorneys Martin Garvis and David Boies to help TWC in their efforts to do whatever needs to be done to give BULLY,  in theaters on March 30, the ability to be shown to audiences everywhere. All efforts and actions will be done to recant NATO’s letter to TWC.

“NATO’s letter is inflammatory and disrespectful not only to the children and families in the film who courageously let us into their lives so this epidemic can be stopped, but to the millions of children, parents, teachers and school officials for whom this film was made. NATO’s decision to treat BULLY as an NC-17 rating was extremely reactionary. I don’t know how they can do this to the children,” said Glasser.

TWC’s sentiments are shared by would-be viewers of the film. A Michigan high school student who is passionate about this cause recently began an online petition, which currently has more than 94,000 signatures, to urge the MPAA the give BULLY its deserved PG-13 rating. The petition is growing by thousands as each hour passes.
http://www.change.org/petitions/mpaa-dont-let-the-bullies-win-give-bully-a-pg-13-instead-of-an-r-rating?utm_medium=email&utm_source=action_alert


As you can see, especially when you read the initial letter first, the inflammatory headline, and the crux of the response is based on at best a base misunderstanding of Fithian's statements regarding unrated films and at worst an outright lie meant to whip up an emotional response.  The letter, which states objective truths and attempts to address the situation in a mature and responsible manner, is derided as 'NATO’s letter is inflammatory and disrespectful not only to the children and families in the film who courageously let us into their lives so this epidemic can be stopped, but to the millions of children, parents, teachers and school officials for whom this film was made'.  Yes, coupled with David Glasser's quote at the end, they are actually pulling the "Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?!" card.  I'd argue that it's shameful, but at this point I'm not sure the offending parties have any shame.  


I'm sure Bully is a fine film and maybe in the broad scheme of things it should have gotten a PG-13 and/or led to a revamp of the MPAA standards regarding profanity.  But, even if its merely a glorified promotional stunt, Harvey Weinstein's inflammatory and intellectually insulting response to an adult trying to have an adult discussion about a business matter is indicative of the sort of reactionary-ism that has long gripped politics and is slowly taking hold in Hollywood as well. We see it Rooney Mara (in-eloquently) mentions that she was repulsed by the character she played on an old Law and Order: Special Victims Unit and gets accused of trashing the show.  We see it when Megan Fox unleashes a firestorm of 'controversy' when she compares Michael Bay to Hitler, which anyone with half-a-brain knows damn-well was in reference to Bay's infamously tyrannical film sets and grueling schedules and not the genocidal policies of the Third Reich.  We see it when Brian White gets accused of 'hating black women' when he discussed the popularity of Tasha Smith's tyrannical character in the Why Did I Get Married? series and how that popularity speaks to certain cultural stereotypes.  We see it when Capcom is forced to offer a formal apology for insensitive/inflammatory/rather immature comments made during a discussion *about* insensitive and inflammatory rhetoric (of a sexual nature) in the online gaming community. It is because of attacks like the one above that there is so little real substance in entertainment journalism.  There is no room for nuance in the public forum, no room for adult discussion or cordial debate.  Now, thanks to Weinstein and others of his disingenuous ilk , there is apparently no room for such things in private conversation either.

Scott Mendelson