This tame movie got an R rating. GLAAD has an idea why, and it’s not good.

There are no scenes depicting graphic violence, nudity, or drug use in "3 Generations," a film starring Elle Fanning, Namoi Watts, and Susan Sarandon.

Yet, incredibly, it has an R rating. Why?

Actors Elle Fanning (left), Naomi Watts (middle), and Susan Sarandon (right). Photo by George Nicholis/The Weinstein Company.


LGBTQ rights advocates have an idea.

The film follows the story of Ray, a transgender teen — and his gender likely explains its restrictive rating, if you ask Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of GLAAD.

Ellis penned an open letter to executives at the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) — the organization responsible for rating films in the U.S. — slamming the group for what GLAAD considers an unreasonable assessment of who should be able to watch "3 Generations."

An R rating means, without adult supervision, no one under 17 years old will be allowed to see the film in theaters.

"The Motion Picture Association of America should represent all Americans, including transgender youth," Ellis wrote. "Your decision to give 3 Generations a restrictive 'R' rating sends a dangerous message to this already marginalized community."

Although the film has been under fire for not casting a trans actor to portray Ray — trans actors are too often overlooked for complex, consequential roles, and casting cisgender actors to play trans parts can actually be harmful — most LGBTQ advocates say "3 Generations" still brings much needed representation to the big screen.

"A parent’s unconditional love for their child is not a story that should be restricted," Ellis continued. "In fact, it is a story that could help parents and young people across this country and around the world."

"3 Generations" receiving an R rating is disappointing. But — considering the MPAA's past blunders — it's not all that surprising.

The MPAA has been criticized before for discriminating against LGBTQ-themed films by deeming their content as less appropriate for children and teens — just because of characters' sexual orientation or gender identity.

Many called foul, for instance, when 2014's "Love Is Strange," starring John Lithgow and Alfred Molina as the loving lead couple, was given an R rating. The sole contributing factor? Scenes with two men kissing, some argued.

This discrimination has also bled into more modern entertainment mediums like YouTube. The social media giant drew fire in March for unfairly categorizing much of its LGBTQ content as "restricted" — even though the videos lacked anything that should be considered inappropriate for children.

YouTube since apologized for the "confusion" and said it's looking into the issue after many vocal influencers in its LGBTQ community spoke up.

Similarly, the executives and stars behind "3 Generations" are hoping their own outspokenness will spark some change as well.

Elle Fanning in "3 Generations." Photo by George Nicholis/The Weinstein Company.

Harvey Weinstein, whose Weinstein Company is behind "3 Generations," publicly slammed the film's R rating earlier this month, claiming it needlessly bars many people who should see the film from being able to: “The fact that an R rating would prevent high school students from seeing this film would truly be a travesty,” he said, Variety reported.

The film's leading ladies have also made public statements decrying the MPAA's decision. Watts claimed the film "doesn't have a bad bone in its body," while Sarandon noted "3 Generations" is an "important movie for everyone to see" and that its R rating is "ridiculous."

At a pivotal moment for transgender rights in the U.S., more young people need to be seeing films like "3 Generations" — not told its content is for adults only. The rest of the country is evolving on LGBTQ rights, and it's crucial the film industry helps lead the way.

More

I'm staring at my screen watching the President of the United States speak before a stadium full of people in North Carolina. He launches into a lie-laced attack on Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, and the crowd boos. Soon they start chanting, "Send her back! Send her back! Send her back!"

The President does nothing. Says nothing. He just stands there and waits for the crowd to finish their outburst.

WATCH: Trump rally crowd chants 'send her back' after he criticizes Rep. Ilhan Omar www.youtube.com

My mind flashes to another President of the United States speaking to a stadium full of people in North Carolina in 2016. A heckler in the crowd—an old man in uniform holding up a TRUMP sign—starts shouting, disrupting the speech. The crowd boos. Soon they start chanting, "Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!"

Keep Reading Show less
Recommended
via EarthFix / Flickr

What will future generations never believe that we tolerated in 2019?

Dolphin and orca captivity, for sure. They'll probably shake their heads at how people died because they couldn't afford healthcare. And, they'll be completely mystified at the amount of food some people waste while others go starving.

According to Biological Diversity, "An estimated 40 percent of the food produced in the United States is wasted every year, costing households, businesses and farms about $218 billion annually."

There are so many things wrong with this.

First of all it's a waste of money for the households who throw out good food. Second, it's a waste of all of the resources that went into growing the food, including the animals who gave their lives for the meal. Third, there's something very wrong with throwing out food when one in eight Americans struggle with hunger.

Supermarkets are just as guilty of this unnecessary waste as consumers. About 10% of all food waste are supermarket products thrown out before they've reached their expiration date.

Three years ago, France took big steps to combat food waste by making a law that bans grocery stores from throwing away edible food.According to the new ordinance, stores can be fined for up to $4,500 for each infraction.

Previously, the French threw out 7.1 million tons of food. Sixty-seven percent of which was tossed by consumers, 15% by restaurants, and 11% by grocery stores.

This has created a network of over 5,000 charities that accept the food from supermarkets and donate them to charity. The law also struck down agreements between supermarkets and manufacturers that prohibited the stores from donating food to charities.

"There was one food manufacturer that was not authorized to donate the sandwiches it made for a particular supermarket brand. But now, we get 30,000 sandwiches a month from them — sandwiches that used to be thrown away," Jacques Bailet, head of the French network of food banks known as Banques Alimentaires, told NPR.

It's expected that similar laws may spread through Europe, but people are a lot less confident at it happening in the United States. The USDA believes that the biggest barrier to such a program would be cost to the charities and or supermarkets.

"The logistics of getting safe, wholesome, edible food from anywhere to people that can use it is really difficult," the organization said according to Gizmodo. "If you're having to set up a really expensive system to recover marginal amounts of food, that's not good for anybody."

Plus, the idea may seem a little too "socialist" for the average American's appetite.

"The French version is quite socialist, but I would say in a great way because you're providing a way where they [supermarkets] have to do the beneficial things not only for the environment, but from an ethical standpoint of getting healthy food to those who need it and minimizing some of the harmful greenhouse gas emissions that come when food ends up in a landfill," Jonathan Bloom, the author of American Wasteland, told NPR.

However, just because something may be socialist doesn't mean it's wrong. The greater wrong is the insane waste of money, damage to the environment, and devastation caused by hunger that can easily be avoided.

Planet

Policing women's bodies — and by consequence their clothes — is nothing new to women across the globe. But this mother's "legging problem" is particularly ridiculous.

What someone wears, regardless of gender, is a personal choice. Sadly, many folks like Maryann White, mother of four sons, think women's attire — particularly women's leggings are a threat to men.

While sitting in mass at the University of Notre Dame, White was aghast by the spandex attire the young women in front of her were sporting.

Keep Reading Show less
More

Men are sharing examples of how they step up and step in when they see problematic behaviors in their peers, and people are here for it.

Twitter user "feminist next door" posed an inquiry to her followers, asking "good guys" to share times they saw misogyny or predatory behavior and did something about it. "What did you say," she asked. "What are your suggestions for the other other men in this situation?" She added a perfectly fitting hashtag: #NotCoolMan.

Not only did the good guys show up for the thread, but their stories show how men can interrupt situations when they see women being mistreated and help put a stop to it.

Keep Reading Show less
Culture