Hollywood Censorship: Getting to the Root of the Issue

Upon perusing the articles for this week's reading, concerning the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) rating system, I found myself focusing in on one issue: Did the American public get what the asked for?

In order to answer this question, I consulted the American Film Censorship (from the Film Reference Encyclopedia) article. The article summarizes how “the content of films being viewed by unaccompanied children” in nickelodeons gave rise to concerns about what was being displayed on screen. The “dark venues” had no system for monitoring what was/was not appropriate for a diverse audience, thus social reformers took action and demanded that some sort of system for film censorship be implemented.

“As more states adopted a practice of film censorship, the US film industry formed its own national regulatory body.” At first, the system was too loose. It did not censor enough. Whether this was the opinion of the public or the Roman Catholic Church is unclear. Regardless, the Roman Catholic Church took matters into their own hands anyway and created a list of guidelines and prohibitions. This, essentially, served as precedent to what is now the MPAA. The issue now is, instead of film censorship being too lenient, it is deemed as too harsh or hindering.

As times change, so does propriety. What was once regarded as inappropriate may not hold water today. Does this mean that the criteria for film censorship needs to be reevaluated? Has it been reevaluated? If yes, then by whom?

The article MPAA Ratings, Black Holes, and My Film: An Interview with Kirby Dick implies that, under the opinion of Kirby Dick (This Film is Not Yet Rated, 2006), the MPAA is not open to sharing their method of procedure to the public. Dick describes the whole affair as a “black hole” where information stays within the confines of the people running the show (i.e. former MPAA president, Jack Valenti). Dick claims that “the ratings are simply announced with little or no explanation...NC-17, when it was initiated around 1991, meant 'No children under 17.' Now, it means 'No children 17 or under.' The MPAA shifted it without ever making an announcement...No ones knows that they just changed it.”

The idea of including or excluding a viewer who is 17 years of age within the NC-17 rating seems like a superfluous accusation to address. However, Dick's discovery seems to insinuate that the MPAA is reevaluating the censorship system, but only on a very, very minute scale, if even at all.

My real concern is this: If people want some form of censorship, why can't they just do it themselves? We all have different criteria for what is/is not appropriate. There is no way a national rating system can adhere to everyone's personal preference. Therefore, why not research the film themselves instead of relying on a system that seems to be tainted anyway?

This is the real problem. People demand that changes be made (i.e. censorship) yet they don't want to do the work themselves. Instead, they want to rely on some institution to make the decisions for them. Clearly, this cannot be said for every individual, but are the masses truly content with being fed what they are told? Is the sky blue because you perceive it as such, or because you have been told as much?

Sometimes, I am under the impression that people are afraid to think for themselves. Where does this fear come from? Are we afraid if we do something viewed as unconstitutional or expressive, it will violate some hidden law that we will suffer consequences from? Be brave and test the waters. Question things. Explore for yourself. Never think that anyone has more authority or intelligence over your own.

Words of interest:

Anti-Semitic- hostility to or prejudice against Jews

Ageis- the protection, backing, or support of a particular person or organization

Menage-a-trois- an arrangement in which three people share a sexual relationship, typically a domestic situation involving a married couple and the lover of one of them.

Palpable- able to be touched or felt

Vacuous- having or showing a lack of thought or intelligence; mindless