Michael Moore Seeks PG-13 Rating On 'Fahrenheit 9/11'

Michael Moore Seeks PG-13 Rating On 'Fahrenheit 9/11'

POSTED: 6:58 am EDT June 15, 2004

LOS ANGELES -- Distributors of Michael Moore's documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" are appealing to get a PG-13 rating, instead of R.

A screening by the Motion Picture Association of America's appeals board has been set for June 22, just three days before "Fahrenheit 9/11" hits theaters. But the film's distributors are trying to move that screening up to this week to expedite a decision, said Tom Ortenberg, president of Lions Gate Films, one of the companies releasing the film.

An R rating means those younger than 17 cant' see the movie unless accompanied by an adult. The MPAA ratings board gave "Fahrenheit 9/11" an R rating for "violent and disturbing images and for language."

"I think the message of the movie is so important that it should be available to be seen by as wide an audience as possible," Ortenberg said Monday. "Frankly, I don't consider any of the images in the film any more disturbing than what we have all seen on the cable news networks and the gratuitous violence that fills the screen of so many PG-13-rated action pictures."

more... http://www.thekcrachannel.com/entertainment/3419348/detail.html

I remember as a kid being much more interested in seeing a movie if it was "R" versus "PG"... "PG-13" didn't even exist at the time. And I never had a problem getting in without a parent or guardian.

I agree with his point about the cable news networks, though.

:bounce:

If Michael Moore had been subject to an artistically choreographed half-hour-long flogging, had a crown of thorns nailed to his head, been forced to drag a heavy wooden crossbeam up a hill and then suffered death by crucifixion on it, maybe he would have also gotten a PG-13.

Casting Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson would also have helped.

--bkl

I didn't see it, but I did see the "South Park" episode that made fun of it.

....and Eric Cartman

I was under the clear impression it was PG-13, with the rationale that young people had to be allowed to see it for the salvation of their souls.

I've been wrong about a lot of things, so it wouldn't suprise me.

--bkl
In addition to The Rock, it never hurts to have Lucy Liu around.

but good christians made an exception

a parent can take any minor to an R rated movie. (well, technically a 17 year old can see it with out... as R is 17+)

a parent can take any minor to an R rated movie. (well, technically a 17 year old can see it with out... as R is 17+)

...violent and disturbing images and for language...

This is a documentary about life in America. Is the Motion Picture Association of America implying that we live in an "R"-rated country???

As I recall, the GOP rushed the testimony of the Whitewater debacle to the Internet as fast as it could (even overnight!), even though some of the language and situations were "R." No matter that countless young adults and kids under 17 could read the reports; anything to bring down a Democratic president!!!

GOP="Grand Ol' hyPocrisy"

...research paper, or similar such undertaking - comparison and contrast between F-911 and films with similarly strong content that received PG-13 ratings. It is common knowledge that the MPAA "white hats" ratings on films for marketing purposes. I am sure the rating for F-911 was given on a "black hat" basis.

For example, A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) was rated PG-13, but it most certainly contained "violent and disturbing images." Some of these images were sufficiently offensive to the public (ex. the Flesh Fair) that the film didn't do as well at the box office as Mr. Spielberg might have hoped.

A comparison between A.I. and F-911 should be more than sufficient to make Michael Moore's case. Of course, we're talking about Jack Valenti, who I am sure isn't particularly inclined to cut MM the kinds of breaks he routinely gives people like Steven Spielberg. Thus, if I were Michael Moore, I would be inclined to take the MPAA to court. Even if I were to lose, at least I would expose to the public exactly how fuzzy the rating system is. That alone would be worth the court costs.

Not to mention the publicity.

It's not like we're talking about something with Spiderman's appeal here.

Besides, most under 17's who want to see it can get their parents to take them.

I'm agnostic on the propriety of the rating--haven't seen the film.

You know those damn librul teachers that would want to show it in class or snippets from it, but now that it is R, it can be much tougher to show in a classroom.