..Gary Dretzka
..Noah Forrest
..Leonard Klady
..R.J. Matson
..David Poland
..Douglas Pratt
..Ray Pride
..Michael Wilmington

January 27, 2006

Rating Reality
by Michael Tucker
From the International Documentary Association Magazine

When I arrived in Baghdad in 2003 to document the day to day lives of  the soldiers of Gunner Palace all the soldiers asked is that I “tell it like it is”. In the months that followed, both in Baghdad and in the edit room, that request became the mantra of the film. It was about them: their experience--their story--in their words. Little did I know that the soldier’s words--spoken and sometimes sung in a combat zone--would be soon be individually counted and weighed by the Motion Picture Association of America. 

Shortly after Gunner Palace was acquired by Palm Pictures in September 2004, Palm informed us that we would have to submit the film to the MPAA’s Rating Board. Simply, if we wanted to have a wide release, the film would have to be rated. Only fifteen percent of exhibitors will book films without ratings and in the home video market, a rating is essential to get shelf space with retailers like WalMart (who has a sixty percent market share). It was clear that while the ratings system is voluntary, participation is mandatory if you want to have a mainstream commercial release, so we somewhat begrudgingly sent off a print to the MPAA. 

I didn’t know much about the Ratings Board at the time, so I read up on their rules and recent rulings. What I found surprised me: the Ratings Board is made up of parents and community leaders pulled from one community representative of Americans mores and values, Simi Valley just outside of Los Angeles. The membership is secret and details about demographics of the board are sketchy at best. When a film comes in for rating, 8 to 12 members of the Board screen the film and then make a decision that is supposed to reflect the “majority opinion of American parents”. To make their decisions, the Board refers to a manual that offers guidelines for ratings--from the number of permitted sexual thrusts to the number of times expletives can be ordered. In our case, I was told by numerous people who had submitted films previously for ratings, the issue would the language of the film. Each instance of profanity would be counted. I was told that more than two uses of the word “fuck” would be an automatic “R Rating”. If that was indeed their  yardstick,  then  Gunner Palace would receive and “R” two minutes into the first reel.  

Was there profanity in the film? Yes. Was it worse than anything on the latest RIAA rated CD or what is heard in the hallways of American high schools? No. 

Our hope was that the Rating Board would consider the context and use of the language, understanding that the soldiers in the film are emotionally reacting to the violence and intensity they live in. More, we hoped that they would separate reality from fiction, after all, this wasn’t a sophomoric comedy or a teen slasher flick, it was a documentary about young soldiers living in a combat zone where four of them had been killed and sixty of them wounded. American Pie  it was not. 

Six weeks later we received word that the film had been rated “R” for language. The judgment was clinical, void of any explanation. We were told that our only recourse would be to appeal. I was angry. This wasn’t simply a bureaucratic procedure anymore, it was about how we receive reality. Context was completely lost.  There was something bizarre about trying to rate reality.  I mean, how would they rate Buchenwald or the events of 9/11?  

We decided to appeal based on the fact that the “R” would  effectively restrict young adults from seeing a film that is especially relevant to their generation. It was a position I felt strongly about personally. Like many of the soldiers in the film, I walked into an Army recruitment station when I was sixteen and was wearing a uniform at seventeen. If young Americans can make decisions like that--and if they can actively be recruited by the military when they are 14--then surely they are mature enough to see a film about their peers at war. 

As we prepared for our appeal, we were reminded that Michael Moore and Miramax, with the advice and support of a legal team that included Mario Cuomo, had appealed Fahrenheit 9/11’s original R rating with a similar defense and had lost. In a phone conference were told by Joan Graves, the head of the MPAA’s Classification and Rating Administration, that we were “wasting everyone’s time” when we suggested that perhaps it was time to address the popularity of theatrical documentaries by developing a rating specifically for nonfiction content. She said that the rules were the rules and they wouldn’t budge. 

But was that true? Hadn’t they budged before? The ratings system itself, the brainchild of the MPAA Godfather Jack Valenti, was created in the ‘60’s as a response to an archaic ratings system that was out of step with the times. Over the years, but not in the last fifteen years, the MPAA has adjusted the ratings system to accommodate the Hollywood studios that are its core members.  The PG-13 rating was created in 1984 in response to Steven Spielberg, whose Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Gremlins were a little too violent for a "PG" audience, but not "hard" enough for an "R". The NC-17 rating was launched with Henry and June in 1990 to remove the stigma of the dreaded "X". In the recent past, a few films have successfully appealed an original MPAA rating of "R", most notably, Clint Eastwood's The Bridges of Madison County.  

The more we looked at the system, the more we saw that it was flawed. In many cases, it didn’t even make consistent sense. The best example we found was Go Tigers! a theatrical doc about highschool stadium football that was rated “R for language and a scene of teen drinking” while the fictional feature, Friday Night Lights, was rated “PG-13 for thematic issues, sexual content, language, some teen drinking and rough sports action”. 

To support our argument, we looked for precedents on the big and small screen and we found it when we learned that in November 2004, dozens of ABC affiliates refused to show an uncut version of Saving Private Ryan for fear of being fined for the FCC for obscenity.  The film aired with a taped statement from Senator John McCain that said, "Saving Private Ryan is a powerful and important depiction of the sacrifices made for our country. While it contains violence and profanity, these are not shown in a gratuitous manner."

In support of the broadcast of the film, Jack Valenti wrote an op-ed for Variety entitled Moral Values in Times of War. In his piece, he writes as a veteran of WWII and an admirer of Spielberg's film, "Yes, there is some language in the movie that may cause dismay to some. But this is not just another movie. There is something larger here. It cries out to be seen by every young boy and girl in the land so they can understand what sacrifice, duty, honor, service, valor truly mean, for these simple words, these old words, are the real "moral values" of this free and loving land."

In the days before our appeal, PBS faced a similar problem with the Frontline  documentary, A Company of Soldiers, which also featured hard language from soldiers. Fearing FCC fines, PBS made two versions of the film available--one with expletives bleeped--and let individual stations make their own decisions. Ironically, viewers didn’t complain to the FCC, they complained to PBS about censoring the soldier’s speech. 

On February 24, 2005 we made our appeal  to the 12 members (and one priest/observer) of the CARA appeal board. They screened the film and then Palm Picture’s Andy Robbins and I presented our argument, which went something like this: 

We may not like or agree with what the soldiers say in this film. Some of us may even find their language offensive. However, their voices deserve to be heard--without restriction--in the country that sent them to war. This is a film about war and the reactions of the young people fighting in it. Those reactions are expressed via the language of the day. To restrict access to the film via an "R" rating is essentially censoring an experience. Jack Valenti said it best, "If you don't have freedom of speech, what do you have? We ask CARA to constructively work with us to to bring the soldiers story to an audience that will include teens who are mature enough to see this film.  As a young soldier says in the film, "No need to like this, but please respect it. This if life".

After we gave our appeal, which was rebutted by Joan Graves, we withdrew to a waiting room for their decision. Ms. Graves consoled us with “nice try guys, but this isn’t the venue to change the system”. Three minutes later, one of the MPAA’s moderators came in and told us that the decision was 9 to 3 in favor overturning the “R”. I swear I heard an obscenity uttered before Ms. Graves said, “What will Michael Moore say?”

Our appeal of  Gunner Palace made the cover of  Variety under the headline F-Bombs Catch a Break and the film was cited as the most profane PG-13 movie ever. More than half a year later, I can say that the Appeals Board made the right decision. After a three month theatrical run and two months on DVD, I have yet to receive one complaint about the language in the film and I hear from students and teachers every day who feel that the film uniquely enables young people to connect with the war. 

I wish I could say that we set a precedent in the world of the MPAA, but based on their rules, we haven’t. Producers can’t refer to previous rulings in appeals so our rating means nothing. However, I believe it’s a start and I encourage the IDA  to defend the rights of filmmakers to present reality uncensored.