MPAA News

Disney, the producers of Deadpool 2 are testing out a move to PG-13 for a projected series of films. The company has produced a festive version called Once Upon a Deadpool which has been cut for a PG-13 rating in the US.

The cuts were insufficient for the BBFC to lower its rating and the film was given a 15 rating.

In Australia the festive release achieved an M rating which is an advisory label recommending the film as suitable for 15 year olds.

As is the default case, the Australian rating is automatically accepted for New Zealand release with the film censor able to step in to consider a New Zealand rating if it is felt necessary. And after the film had released, the New Zealand chief censor did indeed step in and replaced the Australian rating with a New Zealand R13. This is a straight 13 age restriction require all cinema goers to be 13 or over.

Chief censor David Shanks said he had decided to call the film in because of the disparity between the Australian and American assessments and Britain where it was slapped with a 15 classification.

Aware of the popularity of Deadpool 2 and significant interest in this new version from young Kiwis, particularly since it includes the now 16-year-old Dennison in a prominent role), Shanks and the rest of the censorship office included three members of its Youth Advisory Panel (YAP) in the special screening. The panel is made up of a dozen 16-to-20 year olds. Shanks said:

They confirmed many of our impressions, which was that, while significantly toned-down in terms of graphic gore, sexual innuendo and language, this film was still fundamentally a Deadpool film -- which meant that it features wall-to-wall death and violence and dark, adult-oriented humour.

They thought, on balance, an R13 classification would reflect the fact that this film has had some of the graphic content in the original Deadpool 2 toned down -- but the result is really still for teens and above.

Will Deadpool Movies Remain PG-13 Moving Forward?

13th December 2018 See article from movieweb.com by Trevor Norkey

Yes concludes the commentator, producers Disney would be much happier if they could drop the R rating.

Meanwhile the Once Upon a Deadpool poster has offended mormons

13th December 2018 See article from patheos.com

Some Mormons are 'outraged' by a poster for Once Upon a Deadpool, because Deadpool looks too much like the religious character Jesus.

A petition with about 30,000 signatures insists that the poster is a doctored version that plays fast and loose with a sacred image of The Second Coming:

In the original painting Jesus Christ is at the center surrounded by angels. In the poster Deadpool replaces Jesus Christ.

Deadpool is positioned exactly as Jesus Christ was and is wearing a white robe. It is unknown if the picture was used to intentionally mock the Church of Jesus Christ, but it is clear it was copied from the original picture. This is a form a religious discrimination.

We ask that the picture be not used or posted in any manner. That they find another poster to represent their movie.

The House That Jack Built is a 2018 Denmark / France / Germany / Sweden horror thriller by Lars von Trier.
Starring Matt Dillon, Bruno Ganz and Uma Thurman.

Lars von Trier's upcoming drama follows the highly intelligent Jack (Matt Dillon) over a span of 12 years and introduces the murders that define Jack s development as a serial killer. We experience the story from Jack s point of view, while he postulates each murder is an artwork in itself. As the inevitable police intervention is drawing nearer, he is taking greater and greater risks in his attempt to create the ultimate artwork.

US film censors, the MPAA, don't like having two versions running at the same time. This lead to the censure for the film distributors of Lars von Trier's The House that Jack Built for a one day advance screening of the uncut version prior to the general release which features a cut R rated version.

As a result of the MPAA censure, the censorship will now extended to the US online release of the movie. The film's distributor IFC Films originally planned to release von Trier's unrated director's cut on-demand on December 14, while releasing an R-rated version in theaters on the same day. But the MPAA said that IFC's original plan--which would have allowed viewers to digitally rent the R-rated cut and offered the uncut version for digital purchase--was "in violation of the ratings system's rules".

The MPAA went further and threatened sanctions, excluding IFC from the ratings process for up to 90 days. (Most major exhibition chains will not show a film without an MPAA rating.) As a result, IFC has scrapped plans to release the director's cut next week.

According to an IFC publicist, it has tentatively rescheduled the online release of the Director's Cut for June. The R-rated cut, some four minutes shorter, will be released in theaters and for digital rental.

Meanwhile British distributors Curzon Artificial Eye have confirmed to Blu-ray.com that their upcoming Blu-ray release of The House That Jack Built will feature the longer original version of it that was screened at the Cannes Film Festival. Currently, the Blu-ray release is scheduled on March 4. The distributors have also confirmed that they will not be releasing the R-rated version of the film on any home video format.

Update: Uncut at UK cinemas and on DVD/Bu-ray

7th December 2018.

Artificial Eye didn't mention the cinema release in the above statement, but thanks to Peter who reports that the Curzon cinema has confirmed that the UK cinema release will feature the Director's Cut.

Update: Kiss and make up

8th December 2018. See article [pdf] from filmratings.com

Joint Statement from CARA and IFC Films on The House That Jack Built

The Classification and Rating Administration (CARA) and IFC Films have reached a mutually agreed upon resolution to address CARA's concerns associated with The House That Jack Built, Director's Cut (unrated) and The House That Jack Built (rated R). IFC Films acknowledges that there was confusion in the marketplace about the rating and has committed to working with CARA to avoid any confusion going forward.

CARA's ultimate goal is to maintain the trust and confidence of American parents by providing them with accurate, useful information about the level of content in films -- and appreciates IFC Films' cooperation to ensure the proper use of the ratings.

The House That Jack Built is a 2018 Denmark / France / Germany / Sweden horror thriller by Lars von Trier.
Starring Matt Dillon, Bruno Ganz and Uma Thurman.

Lars von Trier's upcoming drama follows the highly intelligent Jack (Matt Dillon) over a span of 12 years and introduces the murders that define Jack s development as a serial killer. We experience the story from Jack s point of view, while he postulates each murder is an artwork in itself. As the inevitable police intervention is drawing nearer, he is taking greater and greater risks in his attempt to create the ultimate artwork.

The MPAA is Going After distributors IFC over a one day special screening of the Director's Cut of The House That Jack Built.

Ahead of the general release of the cut R rated version of Lars von Trier's new film on December 14, the Director's Cut of the film played select theaters, for one night only, and it looks like those screenings have landed IFC Films in trouble with the US film censors of the MPAA.

The MPAA has rules allowing only one version of a film to be shown in cinemas at a time. Ratings can in fact be changed but only after a certain time has elapsed, and with the previous rating being revoked.

As reported by Deadline, IFC now faces potential sanctions over the screenings. The MPAA said in a statement that they have:

Communicated to the distributor, IFC Films, that the screening of an unrated version of the film in such close proximity to the release of the rated version -- without obtaining a waiver -- is in violation of the rating system's rules. The effectiveness of the MPAA ratings depends on our ability to maintain the trust and confidence of American parents. That's why the rules clearly outline the proper use of the ratings. Failure to comply with the rules can create confusion among parents and undermine the rating system -- and may result in the imposition of sanctions against the film's submitter.

A hearing in the very near future will allow IFC to plead their case, and it's possible that the MPAA could revoke the rating they had issued to the film.

The Reliant is a 2018 USA action film by Paul Munger.
Starring Eric Roberts, Kevin Sorbo and Brian Bosworth.

Economic collapse causes widespread rioting and social unrest, leaving a lovesick 19-year-old girl struggling to care for her siblings in a stretch of woods bordered by lawless anarchy, wondering why a good God would let this happen.

The film was rated R by the MPAA for some violence.

The producer's weren't impressed with the rating and decided to appeal the decision, presumably seeking a PG-13 rating.

The Hustle is a 2019 USA comedy by Chris Addison.
Starring Anne Hathaway, Rebel Wilson and Tim Blake Nelson.

The film was originally rated R in the US for some crude sexual references. The producers were not impressed and appealed the rating, seeking a PG-13 rating.

The appeal was successful and the movie was re-rated PG-13 without cuts, this time for crude sexual content and language.

Summary Notes

A remake of the 1988 comedy, 'Dirty Rotten Scoundrels', in which two down-and-out con artists engage in a "loser leaves town" contest.

Show Dogs is a 2018 USA comedy by Raja Gosnell.
Starring Stanley Tucci, Natasha Lyonne and Will Arnett.

Max, a macho, solitary Rottweiler police dog is ordered to go undercover as a primped show dog in a prestigious Dog Show, along with his human partner, to avert a disaster from happening.

The studio behind new family comedy Show Dogs has agreed to a last-minute edit in response to morality groups and bloggers claiming that the film might suggest to children that sexual molestation is something that should be silently endured.

Global Road Entertainment have now confirmed they would be cutting two scenes that some have deemed not appropriate for children. The scenes in question are thought to involve Max, a police rottweiler who has his genitals groped by cop Will Arnett as part of his training to go undercover at dog shows. Initially, Max is upset by the intrusion, but is instructed to go to a zen place. Global Road said:

The company takes these matters very seriously and remains committed to providing quality entertainment for the intended audiences based on the film's rating. We apologise to anybody who feels the original version of Show Dogs sent an inappropriate message. The revised version of the film will be available for viewing nationwide starting this weekend.

In the US, Morality in the Media, now going by the name National Center on Sexual Exploitation, flagged the film for the similarity of tactics used with Max and abusers grooming children, telling them to pretend they are somewhere else and that they will get a reward for withstanding the discomfort.

In the UK, the film was seen by the BBFC some weeks ago and was passed PG uncut. The UK and Irish distributors intend to stick with the BBFC/IFCO approved uncut version. A spokesman for Entertainment One said:

We are taking the BBFC/IFCO guidance on this matter in the UK and Ireland and will be releasing the original version that has been censored and reviewed.

The BBFC said in a statement that:

The scenes in question are entirely innocent and non-sexual and occur within the clear context of preparation for and judging in a dog show. We regard the comments made about the film as suggesting 'grooming' as a misinterpretation of the scenes in question.

Meanwhile in New Zealand, Chief Censor David Shanks made the unusual decision to call the film in for review following a number of complaints. Normally, films rated G or PG arrive in New Zealand without requiring a localised classification. Shanks said in a statement:

We understand the film's distributors are currently re-editing this film in response to public concern. We can confirm that the version distributed in New Zealand will be classified, regardless of any edits made prior to release, the office said in a statement.

Update: Resubmitted to the MPAA

30th May 2018. See article from strangethingsarehappening.com

In the latest rating bulletin, the MPAA have confirmed that the film has been resubmitted after cuts.

It has again been PG rated for suggestive and rude humor, language and some action.

Update: Collective Shout recommends Show Dogs and kindly details the US cuts

5th June 2018. See article from melindatankardreist.com

Open Letter to Australian Cinemas: Don't screen Show Dogs movie

We are writing to you in regards to the children's film Show Dogs, due for release 5 July. Upon its release in the US, it attracted substantial criticism from parents and child advocates over concerns of grooming children for sexual abuse.

The film tells the story of a police dog going undercover at a dog show. There are reportedly several scenes in which the dog, Max, has to have his genitals inspected. When he is uncomfortable and wants to stop he is told to go to a zen place. When he submits and allows his genitals to be touched, he is rewarded by advancing to the next level of the show.

In response to the global backlash, the production company withdrew the film, promising to re-cut it to remove the scenes in question. The film has been re-released, however the scenes remain, with only the encouragement to go to a zen place (essentially, to dissociate) being removed. The meaning remains intact, that unwanted sexual touching is to be endured and may be rewarded.

The film sends a disturbing and dangerous message to children about sexual touching. In Australia, one in five children are thought to be victims of sexual abuse. This film undermines efforts in prevention and education to address the scourge of child sexual abuse.

Collective Shout: for a world free from sexploitation is calling on Australian cinemas to take a stand against child sexual abuse and refuse to screen the film. We hope that cinemas will be prepared to take a role of leadership in the community, to stand up for the rights of children and refuse to profit from this film.

Last August, the American Heart Association and 16 other health and medical groups bought trade ads and sent a letter to the six major movie studios represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, urging them to apply an R rating to any motion picture with tobacco imagery submitted for classification after Friday. The only exceptions would be biographical films about people who smoked or when the film depicted the dangers of smoking.

But with the June deadline here, Chris Ortman, vice president of corporate communications for the MPAA, declined to comment.

Health campaigners always seem to think that their pet issue is the most important thing in the world and to hell with any other opinion. If R ratings are doled out indiscriminately, parents will simply lose faith with the ratings and ignore them. Film ratings need credibility so if parents see examples like 101 Dalmatians being R rated, they will soon concur that R ratings can safely be ignored.

Update: Burnt out thinking

5th June 2018. See article from sj-r.com

Seven U.S. senators sent a letter on Monday to the MPAA to take action to restrict depictions of smoking, including e-cigarette use, in youth-rated movies.

The letter, citing a University of California, San Francisco study claiming that nearly six in 10 PG-13 movies depict tobacco use. The senators wrote:

Although the evidence connecting smoking imagery to youth smoking initiation is strong, MPAA has yet to take meaningful action to discourage tobacco imagery in films or effectively warn viewers and parents of tobacco's presence in a movie. Our nation's dramatic decline in youth tobacco use is a tremendous achievement, but on-screen depictions remain a threat to this progress and threaten to re-normalize tobacco use in our society. We cannot afford to lose any ground in this area.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) at the University of Pennsylvania have claimed in a report that parents would prefer to PG-15 to a PG-13 for Hollywood movies featuring gunplay. The researchers write:

Parents are more willing to let their children see intense gun violence in PG-13 movies when the violence appears to be "justified," used in defense of a loved one or for self-protection, than when it has no socially redeeming purpose, a new study finds.

But even when the gun violence in PG-13 movies appears justified, parents think that the movies are more suitable for teens age 15 and up, two years older than suggested by the movie industry ratings board's PG-13 rating. Parents thought movies with unjustified but bloodless gun violence were more appropriate for 16-year-olds, the study finds.

The study, Parental Desensitization to Gun Violence in PG-13 Movies , by researchers at the Annenberg Public Policy Center was published online in the journal Pediatrics on May 14 and will be in the June issue. Lead author Daniel Romer, research director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC), said:

"The findings suggest that parents may want a new rating, PG-15, for movies with intense violence," "Violent movies often get a PG-13 rating by omitting the consequences of violence such as blood and suffering, and by making the use of violence seem justified. But parents of teenagers say that even scenes of justified violence are upsetting and more appropriate for teens who are at least 15."

The rise of gun violence in PG-13 movies

Past studies by APPC researchers found that gun violence in the most popular PG-13 movies has more than doubled since the rating was introduced in 1984, and now exceeds the gun violence in comparable R-rated films. In the earliest years of the PG-13 rating, less than a third of the 30 top-grossing movies were rated PG-13 but recently more than half were PG-13. In past research on the growing acceptance of gun violence in PG-13 films, APPC researchers found that parents appeared to become desensitized to violence as they watched successive movie clips.

The current experiment was designed to understand whether parents became more accepting of the movie violence because they were being emotionally numbed to it or whether the justification for the violence influenced them. Could justified violence be less upsetting than unjustified violence? And could parents who repeatedly saw the kind of bloodless, justified violence featured in PG-13 movies become so accustomed to it that they experience a kind of "normative desensitization" that leads to greater acceptance of its viewing by children?

The experiment

In an online experiment, the APPC researchers showed movie clips to a national sample of 610 parents who have at least one child between the ages 6 and 17. Parents viewed a series of four 90-second clips of either justified or unjustified violence from popular movies. The scenes of justified violence came from the PG-13 movies "Live Free or Die Hard" (2007), "White House Down" (2013), "Terminator Salvation" (2009), and "Taken" (2008). The clips of unjustified violence came from the PG-13 movies "Skyfall" (2012) and "Jack Reacher" (2012) and the R-rated films "Sicario" (2015) and "Training Day" (2001).

Scenes from the R-rated movies were edited to remove graphic and potentially upsetting consequences such as blood and suffering to mimic the effect of PG-13 movies. (PG-13 means parents are strongly cautioned that some material "may be inappropriate for children under 13." The more restricted R rating means viewers under 17 must be accompanied by a parent or adult.)

Parents less upset by justified violence

Instead of being emotionally desensitized, parents grew increasingly upset as they watched the succession of movie clips, whether the violence was justified or not (see figure above). But parents were less upset by the justified violence and more lenient in deciding the appropriate age for a child to watch it. Most of the parents said the movies with justified violence were suitable starting at age 15, while the movies with unjustified violence were appropriate starting at age 16 (see figure below).

One exception: The parents who were frequent moviegoers were the most permissive, saying that movies with unjustified violence were suitable for 13-year-olds.

As parents watched the series of movie scenes of unjustified gun violence, they became more restrictive on the appropriate age for viewing, the study found. But that wasn't true with the justified scenes of violence, where parents' opinion of the appropriate viewing age held steady. The researchers also found that when watching the successive justified movie clips, parents increasingly regarded the gun violence itself as justified.

Media violence and children

The American Academy of Pediatrics has been long concerned about the effects of media violence. In a statement in 2016, the academy pointed to a body of research showing that viewing violent media content can influence some youth to become more aggressive .

A recent study by Ohio State University researchers found that children 8 to 12 years old who saw scenes of a PG-rated movie with guns played longer with a real gun and pulled the trigger more often than children who saw a movie without guns. Romer said:

"Despite such evidence, we still don't know whether repeatedly seeing movies with justified violence teaches children that using guns is OK if they think it's justified,"

"Hollywood is exploiting the movie rating system by leaving out harmful consequences like blood and suffering from PG-13 films. By sanitizing the effects of violence, moviemakers are able to get a PG-13 rating and a wider audience for their films. But this gun violence may be just as brutal and potentially harmful to young viewers."