Student’s Name
Instructor’s Name
Class Name
Date
Film Censorship: First Amendment Violations That Resulted In Self-Regulation of a Rapidly Expanding Industry Requiring Structure and Censorship
Until 1968, the Production Code Administration (PCA) acted as an oversight body over the making of American motion pictures. The body aimed at ensuring that the films complied with morality rules and did not promote lewd behavior, which contradicted the teachings of the church. The content of films was increasingly becoming violent and lewd; there was a need for regulation to curb the trend and ensure that films promoted morally accepted behavior. The surge for censorship was especially high when sound tracks were introduced in films because the sound emphasized the plot and mood of the film. For instance, erotic scenes where heightened by slow romantic music, while thrillers had high tempo music. The proponents of censorship were not opposed to the music, but argued that the sound and music in the film overplayed seductive overtures and increased the immoral value of the film. The progression of the film industry to produce more violent and lewd necessitated censorship; this has all sort of effects on the film industry.
Ironically, the films appealed to massive audiences, especially the youth who were rebelling against social norms, which had been passed on from their parents and society. Noticeably, women wore shorter and more revealing clothes than their mothers and grandmothers; this could be attributed to the rapid explosion of late night entertainment by live bands. The growth of the economy, which allowed people to have more disposable incomes, allowed most Americans the luxury of entertainment in the form of alcohol, fashionable clothes, and access to music among other luxuries. A new sense of sexual freedom in which sexuality was increasingly accepted and openly displayed was also becoming popular.
A New Breed of Film-Viewers
After the First World War, America experienced rapid economic boom, an influx of luxury items, and the need for social status, which allowed people to seek new ways to display their wealth and the newly acquired status (Hwang 392). Most people embraced the love of arts, music, fashion, and entertainment, which were a new frontier as a way of showcasing their newly acquired wealth and status, and let them influence their lives. For once, women felt empowered and free to express and embrace their sexuality in the new world that celebrated beautiful women who were seen as sexual icons. These changes were not entertainment, but a cultural revolution that was about to take over the world as the film industry was pressing for new frontiers.
The film industry was also taking advantage of the growth of the economy, sexual revolution, and an unprecedented public fascination in criminal behavior. With these changes, there was a need among filmmakers to distribute their films not only locally, but also internationally; there was an increasing demand both locally and internationally for films. For these films to be viewed and distributed outside the film theaters there was a need for a censorship body. The role of the censorship body was to scrutinize and accept or reject the films that it did not perceive to be suitable for public screening.
The Need for Censorship
The church put pressure on the government to regulate and censor the content of films. The church was led by Father Daniel A. Lord who was an editor of a religious magazine that scrutinized motion pictures (Grant and Katz 81). By 1934, the magazine has examined 133 films and cited indecent material such as premarital sex, violence, and adultery on its list. The depictions were contrary to the teachings of the church and were thought to have the potential to corrupt morals. The problem lay in the glamorization of sexual impropriety and criminal lifestyle. The church created the Catholic film code, which intended to influence filmmakers to produce films that reinforced good behavior and discouraged deviant behavior.
First Amendment versus Censorship
The imposition of the church on what was popularly viewed as a secular industry was considered as a perverse restraint on the freedom of expression. In Mutual Film Corporation vs. Industrial Commission of Ohio, a 1915 court case, the Supreme Court ruled that motion pictures were not classified under the press in the State of Ohio. The ruling began a long debate over whether censorship was an infringement of the First Amendment (Hwang 396). The film industry saw this as a threat and opted to self-regulate. In the century, the film industry found some reprieve, which was in the groundbreaking case of Burstyn vs. Wilson case of 1952. In the case, the Supreme Court overturned a ban on Roberto Rossellini’s film, The Miracle; the New York Board of Regents had termed the film as disrespectful to the Christian faith. The ruling was the first time that the Supreme Court favored the film industry (Grant and Katz 89).
The Supreme Court found that films are a major medium for the expression of ideas and should be entitled to the same First Amendment protection as traditional press. Successive rulings, which were in favor of the film industry and which solidified the court’s intentions to espouse the Constitution and the First Amendment followed the Supreme Court’s ruling. In 1959, the Supreme Court found that the adulterous liaisons in Louis Malle’s Les Amants were not obscene, and the film was entitled to First Amendment protection. By early 1960s, most Appellate courts at the state and federal level had consistently rejected the attempt to censor films as an attempt to promote religious and moral values.
Film Industry Self-Censorship
The court rulings in favor of the film industry did not mean that the push for censorship had been won. Despite the argument for first Amendment, there was pressure for censorship from other quarters other than the church. Educators and child psychologists were making a case against lewd and violent materials, which had a negative effect on the development of children. There was an increase in the cases of sexual promiscuity and violence among young offenders, which was attributed to the unregulated content they viewed on films (Couvares 167).
The opponents of censorship argued that it was being fuelled by political lobbyists trying to acquire political capital on the back of filmmakers. Others argued that it was filmmakers themselves who were trying to create a ‘bad publicity’ for their films just to turn around and screen them in other states where the rules were lax. No matter the way that one vied it, the filmmakers needed to take charge of the censorship, otherwise they would risk an oversight body that would stifle creativity, impose high fines for offenders, and cripple the film industry. All the stakeholders in the film industry put concerted effort to design a self-regulation mechanism in order for the industry to survive.
The first attempt to regulate the content of films occurred in the June of 1924; it was achieved through the generation and implementation of a joint declaration, which was known as the ‘Formula.’ The purpose of the declaration was to discourage any effort to create films of an indecent nature. The industry was trying to encourage good morals and discourage deviant behavior. By 1927, a code of ‘Don’ts and Be Careful,’ was compiled to assist in the making of films (MPPDA). The code did not make any inferences, but plainly stated the accepted elements of a motion picture and which subjects should be treated with caution. Finally, in 1930, Hays created a more comprehensive Production Code. The new code took elements from both the ‘Formula’ and the ‘Don’ts and Be Careful’ and added more restrictions in the production of a film. The production of a film begins at the conception of a story, which leads to the writing of a script and the development of the plot. The new code was keen on regulating the film along the storyline to the development of the plot. Ideally, a plot was not to side with or present evil in an attractive manner.
The film industry was interrupted briefly by the Second World War and the ensuing depression. Afterwards, the economy and the film industry recovered from the two setbacks. By 1956, the newly instituted Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) continued to loosen the requirements by filmmakers to comply with morality guidelines. The MPAA established a rating system in 1968 (Motion Picture Association of America, Inc.). Backed by the Supreme Court rulings and a liberalizing population, MPAA was now operating as a business entity rather than an oversight body; its decision making process was not aligned to moral obligations, but business obligations of the production companies (Lev 112). MPAA relaxed the prohibitions on lewdness and deviant behavior like drug use; it argued that censorship should not apply to all viewers across the board. The MPAA instituted ratings based on ages for any content in films. The purpose of the ratings was to ensure that the MPAA could still be covered under the First Amendment statutory, but still follow the production code.
In conclusion, censorship has affected the film industry in many ways; for instance, it has led to film ratings, which have placed an additional requirement on the industry. The film industry cannot also restrict itself to producing blockbusters; it has to produce films, which pass information and allow for creativity. It has to produce films, which open the children’s eyes to new places, ideas, and cultures (Motion Picture Association of America, Inc.). On the contrary, the more X or R rated a film is, the more money it makes; violence, corruption, adultery, teenage sex, and lasciviousness appeal to a larger audience (Couvares 223). Most films on education, issues affecting humanity, and self-development tools have been relegated to a category known as Documentaries. Documentaries are connoted as informative, are for an insignificant audience, which has the time and interest, but are boring and not associated with trend makers. The role of films as a channel to pass on information should be reviewed. There needs to be an analysis of the quality of information that is passed on by films. If films are to receive the same protection under the First Amendment as the press, there has to be a criterion for evaluation. If films are primarily for entertainment, different expectations for the industry should be determined. As the 21st century progresses on, there is a deep concern as artistic value of the filming industry even amidst the need to provide entertainment. Even in its current format, film is a form of art and an authoritative medium of communication in its time.
Works Cited
Couvares, Francis. Film Censorship and American Culture. 2nd ed. New York, NY: University of Massachusetts Press, 2006. Print.
Doherty, Thomas. Hollywood’s Censor: Joseph I. Breen & the Production Code Administration. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2007. Print.
Grant Robert and Katz Joseph. The Great Trials of the Twenties: The Watershed Decade in American Courtrooms. London: Da Capo Press, 1998. Print.
Hwang, Jessica. From Spectacle to Speech: The First Amendment and Film Censorship from 1915-1952. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 41.2 (2014): 381-418. Print.
Lev, Peter. The Fifties: Transforming the Screen 1950-1959. (The History of the American Cinema Series 7). New York, NY: University of California Press, 2006. Print.
Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. FILM RATINGS: UNDERSTANDING THE FILM RATINGS. 2014. Web. 18 Apr. 2014. <http://www.mpaa.org/film-ratings/>.
