C is for Censorship...

 

...And apparently Harvey Weinstein thinks C stands for Coin.  

The Weinstein Company, which distributed director Tom Hooper's The King Speech, is debating re-cutting the film to eliminate what the MPAA considers "foul" language.  This would earn the twelve-time-Oscar-nominee a PG-13 or even PG rating and open it to a younger audience.  Which would, in turn, open it to more profit, Mr. Weinstein's ultimate goal.  There are two things that are shameful in this scenario: first, that the company in charge of such a successful and highly-praised film might actually slice it into pieces and destroy its artistic integrity, and second that the Motion Picture Association of America stamped The King's Speech with the perpostuous R rating to begin with.

Let's start with The Weinstein Company.  It was only a few weeks ago, when Harvey and his men fought publicly to lower the rating of another of their films Blue Valentine (starring Michelle Williams and Ryan Gosling).  The MPAA had slapped this story of a struggling marriage with the rating-of-death: NC-17.  All because of an implied oral sex scene.  Between two married adults.  So, justifiably up-in-arms, Harvey Weinstein demanded that the MPAA reconsider.  And they did, lowering the rating and allowing the film to garner a modest (worldwide) gross of $5.8 million.  So far, without any tampering, The King's Speech has earned upwards of $60 million, domestically.  When you add the great success it has had abroad, the number climbs to around $109 million.  That's some seven times the size of the film's budget.  In industry terms, we call this a financial success.

The particularly frustrating note of this whole rumor debacle, is that even the edits Harvey Weinstein intends to impress on the film won't be completed until after the Academy Awards ceremony.  The slices abandoned on the cutting room floor aren't even meant to open the film to a broader public audience who might root for it on Oscar night.  No.  The hope is that if The King's Speech wins the big prizes (as it very well may), audiences, especially unmonitored children wandering the mall on a Saturday evening, will turn over their ten dollars for a PG version.

See their faces?  They don't understand (as most of us don't) why there should be all this hullabaloo over a couple of "F" words.

So now let's turn our focus over to the Motion Picture Association of America.  After much structured review, the MPAA gave The King's Speech an R rating which means that, and I quote, "it contains some adult material."  Sure, that's true enough.  The Classification and Ratings Administration's website continues by saying "Parents are urged to learn more about the motion picture before taking their young children with them."  Also fair.  This is where Harvey Weinstein and his company might step in.  They are expanding both the theatrical distribution and the advertising of The King's Speech to celebrate all the accolades it has received.  Why not, in this new campaign, clarify through their marketing that this R rating is solely based on language.  There is no sex.  There is no violence.  In fact, the swearing in the film is the product of speech therapy, does not imply fornication, and is not directed at any other character.  There is absoloutely no malice to any of the language which, one would think, might tempt the MPAA to be more lenient. 

Below is the scene that caused The King's Speech to be categorized as too mature for American audiences under the age of 17.  Apparently the children of MPAA employees have never heard the word fuck, and they mean to keep it that way.

In the United Kingdom, The King's Speech has a rating of 12A which means that anyone twelve or older is allowed to purchase a ticket.  So why can a barely-teenage British kid understand the purpose of this scene and an American high-schooler with a driver's license cannot?

Let's look at the rating of another Oscar-nominated film, Joel and Ethan Coen's True Grit.  The Motion Picture Association of America designated this film as PG-13.  This was surprising to critics and viewers alike, who had anticipated the Coens to uphold their violent reputation.  The lower rating made True Grit a holiday success, earning $36.8 million over the Christmas weekend and making it the biggest opener of a Coen Brothers movie ever.  People of all ages came to see the gun-slinging Marshal Rooster Cogburn and the precocious Mattie Ross go on a wild west adventure.

So, I must admit that it shocked me when, halfway through the film, a man was shot straight in the head, his brains splattering on the wall behind him, and another man's fingers were chopped off.  Sitting in the seats next to me were my two cousins: a thirteen and sixteen year old.  

The MPAA believes this violence is appropriate enough for American teenagers to witness, but God forbid they hear broad use of the "F" word.  What does this say about American culture, especially with regards to cinematic entertainment?  Hopefully, the Weinstein Company will hear enough customer complaints and withdraw from their plan to butcher this highly-acclaimed film.  Perhaps, even the MPAA will receive a few letters of outrage, declaring in bold text that Americans are mature enough to tell the difference between vulgarity and swearing in the context of therapy.  But in the end, the change will come from us as a collective audience and culture.  What can we handle and what should are kids be able to manage?

Because the film industry needs us as much as we want them.  C is also for (power of the) Consumer.