Warning: 'Gunner' is PG-13+
NATO chief, Valenti issue explanation of 'Gunner' rating
March 3, 2005
In an unprecedented move, National Association of Theatre Owners president John Fithian and former MPAA president Jack Valenti issued a comment Wednesday on the PG-13 rating that the documentary "Gunner Palace" won on appeal last week.
Michael Tucker and Petra Epperlein's documentary -- which depicts U.S. soldiers living in a bombed-out palace in Baghdad that had been owned by one of Saddam Hussein's sons -- will open Friday in select cities via New York-based Palm Pictures.
In their statement, Fithian and Valenti -- Valenti continues to supervise the ratings system -- went beyond the brief explanatory descriptions usually provided to explain a rating to offer a more detailed description of the movie's contents. It read, in part: "Because 'Gunner Palace's' realistic portrayal of soldiers in combat presents frequent use of strong language not heard in previous PG-13-rated films, including multiple use of sexually derived expletives, we want parents to take note of this important cautionary warning so they can better guide their children's movie viewing."
The film originally received an R rating from NATO and the MPAA's jointly controlled rating board -- comprised entirely of parents -- because of its strong language. The R rating would have made the movie off-limits to people younger than 17 unless accompanied by a parent or guardian.
But after an emotional appeal by the filmmakers, the appeals board, made up of industry professionals, overturned the ruling in favor of the less-restrictive PG-13. The PG-13 rating was given for strong language throughout, violent situations and some drug references (HR 2/25).
According to the MPAA and NATO, the groups decided to issue the additional statement to proactively warn parents of the film's content because its rating does not reflect the usual guidelines set forth by the ratings system. Both groups made clear that they are neither criticizing the film's distributor nor superseding the judgment of the ratings or appeals boards.
"The content of this picture deviates so far from any previous PG-13-rated film that we believed it was important to give America's parents more information about the picture," Fithian said. "The language in the picture exceeds that contained in any PG-13-rated film in history. It's important for parents to understand that before making decisions about their children's moviegoing."
Joan Graves, head of the Classifications and Rating Administration of the MPAA, said that more than one use of the word "fuck" usually results in an R rating, as does more than one use of the word in a sexual manner. "Gunner" has more than 30 uses of "fuck," in addition to several uses of the word "pussy," another word usually relegated to R-rated films.
"I believe the ratings board was correct in its original rating," Graves said.
The appeals board overturned the original rating based on Palm's argument that children old enough to be recruited by the military have a right to see what life as a soldier is like.
"I'm not sure what the statement adds that the rating doesn't take care of itself," Palm Pictures head of theatrical marketing Andy Robbins said. "I believe we won the appeal on the basis of the fact that in the context of war, the language isn't profane but heard with anxiety and emotion behind it. If the military has unfettered access to our youth, shouldn't our youth have unfettered access to our military?"
It's not yet clear whether any action will be taken by the exhibition community. According to one source, Regal Entertainment Group, the largest U.S. theater chain, has sent the letter to its theater managers, though a Regal spokesman was unavailable for comment. AMC Theatres and Loews Cineplex were unavailable for comment at press time.
Los Angeles-based Laemmle Theaters, which will be playing the film Friday, has not decided what action it will take. "We may consider posting the special statement somewhere at the theater, but I really don't expect too many parents to show up with young children," Laemmle Theatres president Greg Laemmle said. "We applaud the appeals board in making this decision because it does allow high school-age children the opportunity to see the film so that they can be fully informed when approached by recruiting officers."
The action of the appeals board has provoked some observers close to the process to argue that changes need to be made in the appeals board. According to one source, the board is made up of industry professionals based in Los Angeles -- primarily studio representatives and film buyers from the exhibition community -- and its decisions reflect the studios' interests rather than the best interest of families.
"They changed the policy, which is not what's supposed to happen," said the source, who declined to be named.
Valenti, who created the modern ratings system, disagreed.
"I don't think the appeals board needs reform. They've overturned only one-third of the 260 appeals that they've received in its history," he said. "This is the first time we've put a statement like this out, but it's the first time we've had a documentary about men and women at war, while the war is going on. If it was a (fictional) movie about the war (as opposed to a documentary), I believe they would not have overturned the rating," he said. "The more information you give the parents, the higher the integrity of the ratings system. All we're doing is alerting parents about the film."
Michael Tucker and Petra Epperlein's documentary -- which depicts U.S. soldiers living in a bombed-out palace in Baghdad that had been owned by one of Saddam Hussein's sons -- will open Friday in select cities via New York-based Palm Pictures.
In their statement, Fithian and Valenti -- Valenti continues to supervise the ratings system -- went beyond the brief explanatory descriptions usually provided to explain a rating to offer a more detailed description of the movie's contents. It read, in part: "Because 'Gunner Palace's' realistic portrayal of soldiers in combat presents frequent use of strong language not heard in previous PG-13-rated films, including multiple use of sexually derived expletives, we want parents to take note of this important cautionary warning so they can better guide their children's movie viewing."
The film originally received an R rating from NATO and the MPAA's jointly controlled rating board -- comprised entirely of parents -- because of its strong language. The R rating would have made the movie off-limits to people younger than 17 unless accompanied by a parent or guardian.
But after an emotional appeal by the filmmakers, the appeals board, made up of industry professionals, overturned the ruling in favor of the less-restrictive PG-13. The PG-13 rating was given for strong language throughout, violent situations and some drug references (HR 2/25).
According to the MPAA and NATO, the groups decided to issue the additional statement to proactively warn parents of the film's content because its rating does not reflect the usual guidelines set forth by the ratings system. Both groups made clear that they are neither criticizing the film's distributor nor superseding the judgment of the ratings or appeals boards.
"The content of this picture deviates so far from any previous PG-13-rated film that we believed it was important to give America's parents more information about the picture," Fithian said. "The language in the picture exceeds that contained in any PG-13-rated film in history. It's important for parents to understand that before making decisions about their children's moviegoing."
Joan Graves, head of the Classifications and Rating Administration of the MPAA, said that more than one use of the word "fuck" usually results in an R rating, as does more than one use of the word in a sexual manner. "Gunner" has more than 30 uses of "fuck," in addition to several uses of the word "pussy," another word usually relegated to R-rated films.
"I believe the ratings board was correct in its original rating," Graves said.
The appeals board overturned the original rating based on Palm's argument that children old enough to be recruited by the military have a right to see what life as a soldier is like.
"I'm not sure what the statement adds that the rating doesn't take care of itself," Palm Pictures head of theatrical marketing Andy Robbins said. "I believe we won the appeal on the basis of the fact that in the context of war, the language isn't profane but heard with anxiety and emotion behind it. If the military has unfettered access to our youth, shouldn't our youth have unfettered access to our military?"
It's not yet clear whether any action will be taken by the exhibition community. According to one source, Regal Entertainment Group, the largest U.S. theater chain, has sent the letter to its theater managers, though a Regal spokesman was unavailable for comment. AMC Theatres and Loews Cineplex were unavailable for comment at press time.
Los Angeles-based Laemmle Theaters, which will be playing the film Friday, has not decided what action it will take. "We may consider posting the special statement somewhere at the theater, but I really don't expect too many parents to show up with young children," Laemmle Theatres president Greg Laemmle said. "We applaud the appeals board in making this decision because it does allow high school-age children the opportunity to see the film so that they can be fully informed when approached by recruiting officers."
The action of the appeals board has provoked some observers close to the process to argue that changes need to be made in the appeals board. According to one source, the board is made up of industry professionals based in Los Angeles -- primarily studio representatives and film buyers from the exhibition community -- and its decisions reflect the studios' interests rather than the best interest of families.
"They changed the policy, which is not what's supposed to happen," said the source, who declined to be named.
Valenti, who created the modern ratings system, disagreed.
"I don't think the appeals board needs reform. They've overturned only one-third of the 260 appeals that they've received in its history," he said. "This is the first time we've put a statement like this out, but it's the first time we've had a documentary about men and women at war, while the war is going on. If it was a (fictional) movie about the war (as opposed to a documentary), I believe they would not have overturned the rating," he said. "The more information you give the parents, the higher the integrity of the ratings system. All we're doing is alerting parents about the film."
Share on LinkedIn
