UD COMM 245 - The Danger of Seeing Movies Though a Censor3 Eyes

Unformatted text preview:

Article 4The Danger of SeeingMovies Though aCensor3 EyesBy Alan M. DershowitzSINCE THE SHOOTINGS at schools inLittleton, Colo., and elsewhere, thegovernment has focused on the me-dia-particularly film, television, and com-puter game+as potentially troublesomeinfluences on young minds. President Clin-ton recently directed the U.S. Departmentof Justice to “study” whether the movieindustry was violating its own voluntaryratings code-the study’s implicit threat be-ing that the code might become more thanvoluntary The lightning-quick result: TheNational Association of Theater Ownerspromised to enforce the rating system morevigorously, by requiring proof of age for ad-mission to R or NC-17 films.Preliminary reports raise considerabledoubt as to whether such enforcement willbe possible, especially in multiplex theatersshowing a number of films with variousratings (never mind trying to restrict whatyoung people see on video). But even if itworked, would such enforcement have anydiscernible impact on teenage violence?In our culture, we glorify guns, ma-chismo, the military, and aggressive sportnot only in film, but also in advertising, inmusic, on the news, and around the familydinner table. Even some religious leadersseem to preach the sanctity of the SecondAmendment more rigorously than that ofthe Sixth Commandment. Take, for in-stance, the Rev. Willie Ramsey, a Kentuckypreacher who pushed an amendmentthrough the state’s General Assembly thatallows members of the clergy to carry con-cealed weapons in their sanctuaries. “Thisidea that the Lord would never have a gunaround him,” Ramsey told the LexingtonHerald-Leader “Well, they didn’t have gunsin those days, but his apostles had swords.Don’t you suppose they were for self-defense?” In a similar vein, the Rev. JerryFalwell wrote in a recent newsletter to pas-tors, “The left will not rest easy until theyhave disarmed every law-abiding citizen,leaving Americans with absolutely nomeans to protect themselves against thefierce acceleration of our culture of vio-lence.”Teenagers are probably influenced moreby such mainstream representations of, andresponses to, violence than they are by theextreme depictions on the big screen thatare the object of the President’s wrath.Advocates of the rating system claim thatit is effective and voluntary There are rea-sons to question both claims. For censor-ship to be effective, it must be pervasive,as it was in Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s SovietUnion, and Mao’s China. History showsthat moderate censorship, such as that ef-fected by. the current rating system formovies, simply doesn’t work.The rating system promulgated by themotion-picture industry has always been“voluntary” only in a sense. The self-im-posed censorship arose from fear that thegovernment would step in as the movies’moral gatekeeper if the industry didn’trein itself in. In 1922, censorial legisla-tures were starting to move toward im-posing a regime of governmental controlover what was quickly becoming a majorsource of mass entertainment. In response,the industry, under the leadership of Wil-liam Harrison Hays-chairman of the Re-publican National Committee and aformer U. S. Postmaster General-be-gan its initial foray into self-censorship.The so-called Hays Office (which wasformally called the Motion Picture Pro-ducers and Distributors of America),speaking on behalf of the movie mo-guls, told the legislatures, in effect, to“leave it to us.”Beginning in 1927, with a list of “Don’tsand Be Carefuls” that served as guidelinesfor movie producers, and moving on to acomprehensive “Production Code” createdin 1930, the Hays Office established a per-vasive system of censorship, micromanagedby right-wing religious zealots with moral-istic agendas.Before a film could receive the Hays Of-fice’s imprimatur, it had to prove that it didnot “lower the moral standards of thosewho see it,” and that it did not throw the“sympathy of the audience to the side ofcrime, wrong-doing, evil or sin.” The codecovered everything from how to handle is-sues of crime and “vulgarity” to detailsabout location (“The treatment of bed-rooms must be governed by good taste anddelicacy”), as well as subjective factors asvague as “national feelings” (“The use of theFlag shall be consistently respectful.”Of course, there could be no suggestionof sex, blasphemy, or marital infidelity.When the screenwriters of Gone With theWind drafted Clark Gable’s risque line,“Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn,”they also came up with two softer altema-tives designed to placate censors, includ-ing, “I wish I could care what you do orwhere you go-but frankly, my dear, I justdon’t care.” That they were permitted to gowith the first option marked a break-through that probably reflected the powerof Selznick International Pictures morethan it did changing mores.But more than prohibitions defined thecode. In its “Reasons” section-formally en-acted along with the code as the governingparameters for movie production-the HaysOffice elaborated on the code’s broader pur-poses. Film, because of its “mobility, popu-laritpaccessibility,emotionalappeal,vividness, [and] straightforward presenta-22Reprinted from The Chronicle ol Higher Education, July 30, 1999, p. B7. 0 1999 by Alan M. Dershowitz.tion of fact,””reaches places unpenetratedby other forms of art,” and thus has “spe-cial MORAL OBLIGATIONS." A dichotomy ex-ists between “helpful” and “harmful”entertainment, the document explained,and the Hays Office clearly advocated, eveninsisted on, the former. “Correct entettain-merit raises the whole standard of a nation ”while “wrong entertainment lowers tiewhole living conditions and moral ideas ofa race.” The Hays Office, in effect, enforcedcinematographic correctness.After World War II, censorship began toabate, and Hollywood began to push the en-velope ever so slightly Again, legislators re-sponded by calling for official censorship. Andagain, the motion-picture industry acted pre-emptively This time, the Motion Picture As-sociation of America and the NationalAssociation of Theater Owners came up witha voluntary rating system, designed primarilyto inform parents. In other words, the onuswas to some degree transferred horn fihnmak-ers to film viewers. As Jack Valenti, since 1966the president of the M.PAA., put it in 1990:“The purpose of the rating system, its


View Full Document

UD COMM 245 - The Danger of Seeing Movies Though a Censor3 Eyes

Download The Danger of Seeing Movies Though a Censor3 Eyes
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view The Danger of Seeing Movies Though a Censor3 Eyes and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view The Danger of Seeing Movies Though a Censor3 Eyes 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?