One of the rights that we as American citizens hold dearest is the freedom of speech. Such a right was so important to our founding fathers that it became part of the first amendment: “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting…or abridging the freedom of speech” (US Const., Amend. I). Even so we allow almost all forms of media to be regulated, filtered, and censored. Every form of the media has an internal regulatory commission which was created to avoid direct governmental censorship. The largest and most well known organizations are the RIAA, FCC, MPAA, and the ESRB. The majority of these regulatory commissions are constantly evolving to better address the changing times with changing standards and regulations when necessary, but not due simply to wonton criticism. To the contrary though, while many are in a constant state of flux, the Movie Producers Association of America (the MPAA) remains adamant that it will not alter its standards or regulations. Over the past few years many people have called for a new system of movie ratings, including pundit and critic Roger Ebert and filmmaker Kirby Dick (This Film Not Yet Rated, 2006) (Ebert, 1). I am also advocating for a completely re-envisioned system that can better adapt to the changing times while not being as subject to the level of abuse as the current system and not forcing censorship upon filmmakers and directors, because we have a right to hear what these people want to say and these directors and filmmakers have a right to market their work so that we can hear what they are saying.
In my view of censorship there are two main forms, direct and indirect censorship, each comprised of two more specific subcategories. Direct censorship involves review from an external source (i.e. the government) or from an internal source, such as the MPAA, that results in the material being altered or removed. Indirect censorship involves the influence of social or religious organizations, or, more abstractly, censorship by the artist himself. The censorship within the MPAA involves one form of both direct and indirect censorship: internal regulation and self censorship. These are the two forms that are the most prevalent in the film industry today and are attributable to the misguided rating system.
This is of course a wider view of censorship than the traditional legal interpretation. Censorship is more commonly associated with only the direct influence of state or federal government, which I believe to only be part of the greater scope of the term. The forms of direct censorship which were mentioned, internal and external, concern either the removal of material or the banning of a film based on what is more favorable to the organization doing the censorship. Whereas indirect censorship is much harder to pin a source to, as it does not always involve a readily identifiable source. That does not mean that it is any less a form of censorship, because the end result is the same: the filmmaker’s message being altered by a foreign pressure, seen or unseen.
The MPAA was first established in the late sixties to prevent the direct censorship of films by the government. Originally the MPAA created only three ratings, much like the League of Decency, but necessity required the addition of the X rating, thus the MPAA established four ratings: G, M, R, and X (MPAA,1). Contrary to common belief the X rating did not always carry the connotations that it does now; it was not always synonymous with pornography. As a matter of fact, in the four years after the rating system was imposed three films were nominated for academy awards that held X ratings: Midnight Cowboy (1969), A Clockwork Orange (1971), and Last Tango In Paris (1973). Midnight Cowboy even won best picture for 1969 (Oscars, 1) The rating soon became defunct as it was overused for gratuitous amounts of nudity and obtuse sexual themes such as Behind the Green Door (1972) and The Devil in Miss Jones (1973), but many well known films received the rating for unrelated reasons (MPAA, 2). In the era between the late sixties and the early nineties the films that received the X rating were generally due to obscene language or graphic violence. Many movies that later became blockbusters were originally rated X, to name a few Scarface (1983), Robocop (1987), and Total Recall (1990) (IMDB, 1). However, these films all appealed the rating by changed or cutting material from the film to get the illusory R rating. In effect these films were “censored”. These filmmakers were forced to censor their own work based on the dictates of the MPAA in order to avoid becoming box office failures due to the rating that they held.
Then in 1990 the MPAA created a new rating that was meant to usher in another era of artistic freedom in Filmmaking. The replacement of the defunct X rating with a clean slate and new name meant that filmmaking might get back to its original purpose: to call into question all aspects of life. Initially the NC-17 rating was born to immediate success with Henry and June (1990) staring Phillip Seymour Hoffman, however, the growth and success of the NC-17 rating was to be short-lived. The NC-17 rating became the hallmark of a film destined to be destitute film after the 1995 release of Showgirls, which is still considered to be one of the biggest box office failures of recent history. From that point on any movie that was going to have any commercial prospects needed to find its way to an R rating either by avoiding certain subjects or by eliminating material. Once again forcing filmmakers either to censor their work from the beginning or to edit their material when faced with the prospect of having an NC-17 rating applied to their film.
In our understanding of our rights and privileges we are taught to believe that censorship is wrong, because censorship means the restrictions of speech and ideas. It has been portrayed as a mechanism of a tyrannical government, more specifically through the McCarthy era censorship was portrayed as a tool of communism. Censorship denies us of our first amendment rights, and we as American citizens would fight tooth and nail against anyone or anything that would deny us of such fundamental privileges. Our acceptance makes me wonder how such a gross amount of censorship is happening without Americans being up in arms and rattling the gates of the MPAA. The answer that I have come up with is that there is some kind of intervening sense of morality that overrides our judgment and is clouding our vision.
I believe that our strict adherence to them has blinded us to the misuse of the MPAA’s power in the name of family values. We as a nation have allowed such “censorship” to go on without questioning it simply because it happened under the guise of family values. We have created a situation where filmmakers and directors steer away from certain topics to avoid the condemnation that follows in making a film that is NC-17, or, heaven forbid, is Not Rated at all. Have we given a cloak and dagger organization the ability to police an entire industry to the point that they control the commercial fate of someone’s art? I believe that we are being dulled; we no longer go to the movies and see pictures that mean something. Filmmakers like Michael Moore who produce films that are a commentary on society are few and far between, and they never cross into matters which are considered taboo. I find it sad that I haven’t heard the threat of a film being boycotted since Brokeback Mountain (2005), because this means that there aren’t any films being made that are marketed that challenge the status quo enough to incite such objection.
The NC-17 rating has become a reoccurrence of the fallout following the X rating. After the X rating became a curse to any film inflicted with it, the “summer blockbusters” came and swept through the nation removing any objection that might have been made. Movies like Jaws (1975) and Star Wars (1977) turned our attention away from the blatant censorship happening in the film industry. Movies like these beg the question: “Is human nature such that, under certain conditions, stupidity can come to dominate, infecting the brighter quadrants, dragging everybody down with it?” (Saunders, 7) These films established the right that senseless films have over the American people and over independent films. It is works like these that have lead to the avoidance of creative films that address important issues while maintaining the possibility of being commercially successful. There are many issues that have become taboo in the film industry such as the nature of violence, sex, and sexuality. These issues are important, and should be explored, simply because they are not being addressed does not change this fact.
Many have asked how the rating system in place for movies is important to them, or why it is should be important to them, and there are simple answers for such questions. This entire matter rests on our fundamental rights and how readily we give them up. Our sensibility should dictate that we demand a change, an alteration to the current system, to allow filmmakers to go in any direction in their filmmaking and receive ratings that are justified. We should not let our misguided morality prevent such a thing from happening. As a nation that is far from secular we have allowed our own prejudices influence the way we judge one another. We have fallen into a system where if something does not fit into our current worldview to instantly label the foreign entity as wrong based only on its differences and not on its individual merits. Such a happening is, and has been, occurring in the film industry. The MPAA has been trying to use a moral system to guide its decision making, by classifying and qualifying each type of offences. One type of violence is worse than another type, and one type of sex is better than another type of sex. To deny these artists the right to their art, just because it does not fit into the scheme of what the majority has deemed decent, is censorship. I believe that censorship is a far greater threat to today’s society than anything that could be contained within any or all of these films.
Such change has been augured against, most notably by Jack Valenti, the former president of the MPAA and the creator of our current system (Harmetz, 1). He, and many others, has argued that such regulations are in place for the protection of family values, and the right for the American people to avoid content that they might find offensive. Other film critics who support the current system would cite the previous two failures, the X and the NC-17 rating. These ratings became failures because of a few overzealous filmmakers taking advantage of the system created by the MPAA. Such people would argue that by introducing a new system that such problems would play out again as filmmakers push the limits of what is acceptable, to see what they can get away with. Some filmmaker have claimed that such films could all be made without the scenes that give them the NC-17 film, arguing that simply removing, trimming down or editing should not affect the greater aesthetic whole.
Each of these arguments has been refuted by better men than myself, most notably Roger Ebert, who adamantly claims that such notions are false. We live in modern world ruled by the internet and free flowing information. What then is the modern definition of “family values” when such information is already available? Are such regulations on movies actually protecting this once sacred notion of family values? In this modern era, violence is becoming almost as prevalent in PG-13 films as in R (White, C04), and films that are now rated R would have once been the subject of criticism if not physical boycotting on the ground of moral objectionability. There is no longer a foolproof way to protect our family values. We can only set up the precautionary regulations and hope for the best. Simply reconfiguring the system into a more coherent and understandable configuration would not be the source of further moral degradation; it would simply call into question what system of morals, if any, are we trying to protect. Such a system would be taken advantage of, such a thing is only logical. But you do not have to allow the actions of a few to taint the chances of the many; by adhering to a more strict set of guidelines you can minimize such problems. As in all cases there will be rule-breakers, e.g., those who want to try and bend the regulations for their own purposes. In which case, by rigidly adhering to a common knowledge set of rules, you will be able to categorize films without bias, and prevent such objectionable material from being misclassified.
In the end the problem that I am addressing is the fact that we believe that forcing upon an artist to render his work to the slaughter house is morally permissible, that it is justifiable in our concept of morality. This forced editing inside the film industry is censorship in its most pervasive form; it lies under the guise of choice, even when there are no real options given. It then becomes a false choice. Slowly we have been removing the voice of the rebel filmmaker, the creator who goes against the common current to shed light into the dark corners of human nature. We have lost a generation of filmmakers who are willing and able to challenge the status quo, and incite the questions which no one else can give rise to. By forcing a filmmaker to avoid the taboo, or relegate himself to addressing topics in a certain way is tantamount to telling a painter how to hold a brush, or what material is acceptable for him to paint.
Censorship is a vast problem that is leading to the misunderstanding of a great many issues in today’s society. Simply ignoring the need for change will not alter the fact that change is happening all around us, whether we consent or not. The MPAA has created a system that is readily manipulated by some, and others it oppresses and forces a type of self governance. It has become a kind of censorship which has lead to filmmakers feeling like their hands are bound, and their voices cut short. Censorship is not the means which we should use to protect family values. The reasons against the creation of such a new system are few, and hardly un-assailable. They are ad hoc arguments put forth to defend a defunct system, a system which is hardly innocent in its own right. These are the paltry reasons that I have found behind our blind adherence to such a mysterious organization as the MPAA and why we put so much stock in what they declare. We have become a nation that has consigned one of our most precious of rights away all for a box of popcorn and a two and a half hours of entertainment. We have thrown away our rights without looking for the reasoning behind such governance or the true extent to which such a choice has and will affected our society.
Works Cited
Ebert, Roger. “Sundance #7: Film Ratings Exposed!” January 26, 2006. February 15, 2007. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060126/FILMFESTIVALS05/60126002. 2007.
White, Daphne. “PG-13 Films in the Late-Bond Era” The Washington Post. 18 January 2000:
C04. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/feed/a59151-2000jan18.htm
Saunders, George. The Braindead Microphone. New York: Riverhead Publishers, 2007.
The Constitution of the United States. Bill of rights, Amendment I.
“Ratings History.” Motion Picture Association of America. 2005. Motion Picture Association. 24 February 2008. http://www.mpaa.org/Ratings_history1.asp
“Awards Database 1969-73.” Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. 23 February 2008.
http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=120450575
6537
“What Do the Ratings Mean?” Motion Picture Association of America. 2005. Motion Picture
Association. 24 February 2008. http://www.mpaa.org/FlmRat_Ratings.asp
International Movie Database. 1990-2008. IMDB.com, Inc. 20 February 25.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0093870/
http://imdb.com/title/tt0086250/
http://imdb.com/title/tt0100802/
Harmetz, Aljean. “New Debate On Ratings For Movies.” The New York Times. 5 March 1987.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE4D6133FF936A35750C0A96194
8260
No comments:
Post a Comment