By MCN Editor editor@moviecitynews.com

Rev. Jesse Jackson Speaks Out About MPAA Ruling For BULLY Documentary

PRESS RELEASE

The latest news in the MPAA’s decision to dismiss The Weinstein Company’s appeal for the film Bully: The documentary examines a raw, heart wrenching look into the lives of families and students impacted by the atrocities of bullying. By denying a young audience access to the film, Bully cannot serve as an educational tool to expose the reality of the situation.  Please click here to see the trailer.

Rev. Jesse Jackson supports The Weinstein Company and issued a statement in favor of a PG-13 rating:

“BULLY is a movie that depicts the nightmare that some kids face every day in schools across America.  This harsh reality must not be edited especially considering how bullying has become a horrible form of violence.  It drives individuals to suicide and even retaliation.  Children are afraid to go to school and therefore their educational productivity decreases.  It creates violent reactions in our children and they must be allowed to see the movie as it was intended to help raise awareness, increase empathy and change minds.”

The documentary film also has the support of a passionate Michigan high school student who created a petition to reverse the MPAA ruling. Katy Butler, once a victim of bullying, has secured hundreds of thousands of signatures in only 2 days to urge the MPAA to give Bully it’s deserved PG-13 rating. See the petition here.

* * *

Be Sociable, Share!

One Response to “Rev. Jesse Jackson Speaks Out About MPAA Ruling For BULLY Documentary”

  1. Scarlet Harden says:

    PG 13

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon