|
|
The social climate at the turn of the century played a large role determining who would control the content of the movies. Not long after the motion picture industry came into existence, middle-class reformers such as Jane Addams began clamoring for regulation. This is unsurprising when one considers the Progressive era mentality of social control. Privileged men and women nationwide engaged in a crusade to save the working classes from the depravity inherent in their impoverished lives. It was only natural then that these reformers would turn their attention to the blossoming movie industry, which was largely pioneered by immigrants and known for its sometimes risque subject matter. Cities and states starting with New York in 1913 passed local censorship laws, upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1915 Mutual Film case. The pressures applied by progressive reformers compelled movie industry leaders to accept some form of regulation. However, they wished to avoid government interference in their private industry, demonstrating yet another hallmark of Progressive era ideology. Therefore, the only viable solution for the Motion Picture Patent Company (the cadre which then monopolized production, distribution, and exhibition) was to create the National Board of Review of Motion Pictures. This amounted to self-imposed and voluntary regulation, a system which has kept official censorship at bay for almost a century.
The modern regulatory body, the Motion Picture Association of America, is run in very much the same way as the system created by Progressive ideologies in the early 1900's. The early censorship boards consisted of half a dozen or more volunteers who were considered to be the educational, charitable, and religious leaders of their communities. Today the MPAA employs twelve men and women from various professions to assign ratings to over six hundred films per year. These individuals sit on the ratings board for an average of only four years, and the only characteristic they share is that they are all parents. (The single stated goal of the MPAA is to be a tool for parents.) The current system has been in place since 1968, when it was created by Jack Valenti to replace the rigid Hays Production Code (1922-1968). The system mirrors very closely the principles and techniques created by the National Board of Review of Motion Pictures, showing that little has changed in nearly one hundred years of filmmaking. However, the system of voluntary censorship that has long protected the movie industry from outside regulation has recently come under serious scrutiny.
No one is satisfied with the MPAA these days. No one, that is, except the viewers that the agency claims to serve. Politicians find the ratings too lenient, while filmmakers and critics feel that they inhibit artistic freedom. Tensions are definitely rising. Politicians - riding the wave of post-Littleton activism - clamor about the evils of young people's access to violent media. This summer, President Clinton reached an agreement with the National Organization of Theater Owners to crack down on underage admission to R-rated films. The involvement of the nation's executive in this debate is significant because it presages the federal government's desire to involve itself in the regulation of the movie industry. Industry insiders, on the other hand, have been enraged over the changes imposed on such films as "Eyes Wide Shut," "American Pie," and "South Park." Some filmmakers are now rebelling against the MPAA. For example, Canadian filmmaker James Toback recently published clips of his new film, "Black and White," on the World Wide Web, where censorship is non-existent. After having been forced to make significant changes to avoid an NC-17 rating (also known as "commercial poison"), Toback decided to let viewers decide whether or not the film "warranted the knife." This action is a direct challenge to the authority of the MPAA and has already attracted great public attention to the filmmakers' grievances.
 |
All the while, the MPAA reports that 75% of parents with children under 17 are satisfied with the current ratings system. In fact, since 1985, the system's approval rating has never dropped below 72%. (An independent survey conducted by the LA Times corroborates these numbers.) So, while the viewers that the system was designed to protect appear content, politicians and filmmakers seem determined to force upheaval. In this tumultuous climate, can the voluntary system which has lasted almost 100 years survive?
Ultimately, I believe that it will. The political culture of this nation is very much opposed to censorship of any kind, and the government will be very hard pressed to impose official regulation on an industry that has survived 100 years without it. As the fallout from Littleton fades, the importance of this popular cause of the day will also diminish. Furthermore, it does not appear likely that Jack Valenti will capitulate anytime soon to accommodate the demands of filmmakers. As long as the general public remains satisfied with the system, little is likely to change.
The legacy of the Progressive era and the tradition of self-imposed regulation have prevailed for so long that it has become an integral part of the American movie culture. To revert now to a more restrictive system seems like a step in the wrong direction - a step that most Americans are will inevitably oppose.
SOURCES:
http://www.mpaa.org
The Los Angeles Times, 18 July 1999
US News and World Report, 20 September 1999
The Toronto Star 1 September 1999
James Toback's website http://www.sputnik7.com/blackandwhite/
The Los Angeles Times, 9 September 1999