The kids can see "Miral" after all.

Julian Schnabel's  historical piece about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has had its rating downgraded from an R to a PG-13 after an appeal from distributor the Weinstein Co.

A person familiar with the appeal who was not authorized to speak about it said the debate turned on an early moment in the film when a middle-aged man assaults a young girl at her home; the assault is strongly implied but occurs out of the frame of the movie.  It's a dramatically important scene, setting in motion a critical chain of events for one of the main characters.

In announcing the decision Thursday afternoon, the Motion Picture Assn. of America said that the movie would now be given the PG-13 for “thematic material, and some violent content including a sexual assault.”

Based on the semi-autobiographical novel of the Palestinian journalist Rula Jebreal, who grew up in the orphanage,"Miral" is not expected to cater to a teenage audience, though the ratings decision does remove the stigma that can come with an R.

Schnabel, however, said that he thought young people would see and respond to the movie. "Teenagers are the intended audience for Miral’s story," he said in a statement. "I am very happy the MPAA proved to be open minded and ultimately agreed.”

Schnabel's movie, his first since he was nominated for an Oscar for "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly," concerns the journey of a Palestinian woman who runs an orphanage in Jerusalem's Old City as well as the lives of some of her wards, including the title character (played at one stage of her life by Freida Pinto). The movie, which premiered at the Venice and Toronto films festivals to mixed reviews,  opens commercially on March 25.

The overturn marks the second time Harvey Weinstein has won in front of the MPAA appeals board in recent months. In December, he succeeded in getting the board to give the romantic drama "Blue Valentine" an R instead of an NC-17.

It's the group's first overturn of the new year; earlier, David Schwimmer's "Trust" saw its R upheld on appeal. The appeals board comprises industry members and other Hollywood professionals, a different group than the parent-centric body that hands out the initial ratings.

--Steven Zeitchik

twitter.com/ZeitchikLAT

Photo: A scene from "Miral." Credit: The Weinstein Co.

'Miral' director Julian Schnabel: I'm confounded by the ideological criticisms 

With 'Miral,' Harvey Weinstein jumps into the Palestinian-Israeli fray

A new Harvey Weinstein?

If a film scene lasting a little more than a minute depicts oral sex performed on a woman without showing nudity, does the movie in which the scene appears merit an R rating or an NC-17?

Both, apparently.

In "Black Swan," Mila Kunis' character performs oral sex on Natalie Portman's character after a night of partying. In "Blue Valentine," Ryan Gosling's character does the same to Michelle Williams' character after a date. There's not much difference between the scenes, save maybe for the fact that "Black Swan" is put together with action and reaction shots and "Blue Valentine" is filmed in one take.

Yet as we explore in a piece in Saturday's Times, the MPAA has given an R rating to "Swan" but an NC-17 to "Blue Valentine" for what is reportedly that scene.

Some have a theory about the disparity, but none are really convincing, and no one is really convinced.

"I've heard the 'Blue Valentine' scene is more emotionally authentic," said Darren Aronofsky, who directed "Black Swan" (but still has harsh words for the MPPA on its double standard between sex and violence).

"Maybe it's a case of selfish love?" Gosling quipped to us, jokingly (?) wondering if a male-dominated group might go easier on a movie with girl-on-girl activity than it would if a man performed the oral sex, thereby reminding them that it's something they could be called upon to do.

"I don't have an answer for why that movie would be OK and ours wouldn't," "Blue Valentine" director Derek Cianfrance told us in what may be the most lucid description of all. (He wonders if it indeed is a matter of the authenticity, but in that case wonders if his film is being punished because its actors are too persuasive?

Either way, it looks for all the world that "Valentine" will get hit with the NC-17 when the MPAA appeal comes down next week -- the Weinstein Co. and Cianfrance say they aren't changing the scene, and there's almost no precedent for a rating changed on appeal without a change in the movie.

Which means, given many theaters' resistance to showing anything with an NC-17, a lot fewer people will see "Blue Valentine." And which means the cries against the MPAA will go up.  Again.

--Steven Zeitchik

twitter.com/ZeitchikLAT

Photo: Scene from "Blue Valentine." Credit: The Weinstein Co.

RECENT AND RELATED:

Blue Valentine ratings war (of words) continues

Photos: Sex, movies and the MPAA

Harvey Weinstein on the Blue Valentine controversy

The MPAA"s mystifying call on Blue Valentine

Poor James Brooks. The guy makes only his second movie in 13 years and winds up with his first R rating since "Broadcast News" back in 1987. And for a romantic comedy, no less.

The ratings board at the MPAA on Thursday announced that it was upholding the R rating on appeal for "some language" in the upcoming "How Do You Know." But the the fight isn't over yet.

Sony could yet make a small change and wind up with a PG-13 -- a rating the studio wants for the Reese Witherspoon-Paul Rudd romance, which comes out December 17, to lure younger viewers. A source close to the studio, who asked not to be identified because the discussions are ongoing, said that, even after the appeal, landing the less-severe rating was a matter of changing just a few words, and that Sony was making plans to do that and release "How Do You Know" as a PG-13 movie.

It's unclear how much a PG-13 will help the film- -- is it a movie teens will go to with their friends, or just with their parents (if at all)? But given how crowded the holiday season is, and how hard a time non-branded movies have at the box office these days, a PG-13 can't hurt. (It certainly didn't for Brooks' blockbuster "As Good as It Gets," which grossed nearly $150 million back in 1997.)

It's been a tough few months for the MPAA. The group was pilloried for handing an NC-17 to the relationship drama "Blue Valentine" because of what distributor the Weinstein Co. said was a hotel sex scene, and gave an R to the period drama "The King's Speech" because of a scene in which Colin Firth tries to overcome his repression by rattling off some swear words.

But maybe more than anything, the R for "How Do You Know," a studio comedy from an older director, is reminiscent of the same rating for Nancy Meyers' "It's Complicated" last year due to a pot-smoking moment. That R stuck, but the stakes were lower for that film: a love triangle between Meryl Streep, Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin may be aiming for a slightly different audience than one with Reese Witherspoon, Paul Rudd and Owen Wilson.

--Steven Zeitchik

twitter.com/ZeitchikLAT

Photo: Reese Witherspoon and Paul Rudd in 'How Do You Know.' Credit: Sony Pictures

RECENT AND RELATED:

The MPAA's mystifying call on Blue Valentine

Pretty much since the Ryan Gosling-Michelle Williams romantic drama "Blue Valentine" screened to enthusiastic reaction at Sundance in January, executives at distributor the Weinstein Co. have all but boasted that the movie was being cut down from the original.

Indeed, when we saw the movie at Cannes, a few scenes had been trimmed from the two-hour-plus Sundance version. At Toronto last month (where we didn't see it again), we were told by Weinstein executives that more minutes had been lopped off.

That makes it all the more bizarre that the movie was given an NC-17 by the Motion Picture Assn. of America ratings group CARA this week. (The group doesn't offer much detail on why it gives the rating it does; we're awaiting further word from the Weinstein Co.)

Derek Cianfrance's movie shows plenty of harrowing moments of a couple arguing and brutalizing each each other psychologically. It's not easy to watch, but it's hardly graphic or hardcore in any conventional sense of the term; it's emotional brutality and explictness, nothing more. There was no scene we could find in the film's extended version that would merit something stronger than an R. 

And certainly if the movie was cut down from its earlier versions it wouldn't include more offending material. (There's also an irony in that the company was shortening the movie to make it more commercial, but then got slapped with an NC-17 anyway.)

The "Blue Valentine" ruling (which, incidentally, can still be appealed) surfaces on the same day Universal was moved to change a trailer for the upcoming Vince Vaughn-Kevin James buddy dramedy "The Dilemma." The short version of the controversy -- about which my colleague Patrick Goldstein has an insightful post here -- is that the film's trailer (which you can see below) begins with Vaughn going on a riff that "electric cars are gay," before he explains that he doesn't mean "homosexual gay" but "my-parents-are-chaperoning-the-dance gay."

Apparently we weren't the only ones taking note of that fan ode to"The Expendables" trailer.

The "Call to Arms" homage -- which impressed us and plenty of other YouTube viewers with its brilliant use of an Andrew W.K. song and its playful call to arms for men to take back the box office -- has been taken down at the request of the Motion Picture Assn. of America.

Our first thought was that Lionsgate, perturbed that a fan trailer was showing up its own marketing material (there were nearly 200,000 views for the fan piece in less than two days), may have made the request. But the studio didn't contact YouTube.

The MPAA, however, did, and though the group doesn't typically get hot and bothered about fan trailers, it did in this case. "We don't normally get involved, but there was a shot in the trailer that suggested it had been submitted for approval by our advertising review board, and it hadn't," a spokesman told 24 Frames. (The shot in question is that screen you probably see but barely notice at the front of all trailers stating that the trailer has been approved by the MPAA for a given audience.)

That screen also featured a green all-audience message here for a trailer that quickly flashes an obscenity at the end; the spokesman said that combination was a small factor in the MPAA's decision but "not the main reason."

All of that probably means that a trailer re-cut without the MPAA screen would pass muster. We're imagining a call to arms for a new "Call to Arms." [UPDATE - 10:37 am Thursday: Looks like producers The Monocular Group have indeed recut without the offending screen, and the trailer is alive and doing well.]

-- Steven Zeitchik

http://twitter.com/ZeitchikLAT

Fans make Lionsgate trailer expendable

Terry Crews took an unusual path to The 'Expendables'

'It's Complicated' will be released with an R Rating