Taking aim at show bizMost of the post-Littleton lawmaking has focused on guns. Now
it's Hollywood's turn to squirmBy John Cloud
June 14, 1999
Web posted at: 12:00 p.m. EDT (1600 GMT)
Before all 11 victims in the 1997 film Scream 2 have been gored,
shot or hacked to death, there's an odd bit of dialogue. A
roomful of young Hollywood hotties--playing a roomful of
Midwestern college hotties--debate whether film violence causes
real violence. "It's directly responsible," says the student
played by Josh Jackson (Pacey on Dawson's Creek). "That's so
Moral Majority," sneers Cici, the coed played by Sarah Michelle
Gellar (a.k.a. Buffy the Vampire Slayer).
This rare instance of Hollywood introspection would be more
interesting if it weren't so cynical. A few minutes later, the
action has returned to a heart-thumping pace. Cici is stabbed in
the back and thrown from the balcony of her sorority house. The
rock sound track swells as the camera dwells for a moment on her
corpse.
Last week the action in Hollywood stopped again, but this time
it may not resume so breezily. It has been nearly two months
since the shootings at Columbine High, and much of the political
maneuvering in the weeks following focused on guns. But now
Washington has unleashed a set of proposals designed to prevent
kids from watching their favorite stars threatened with grisly
deaths. Many politicians are hoping that by reining in violent
imagery, they can prevent future Columbines--or at least
convince constituents that they are trying to. Americans seem
receptive: 64% of the respondents in a TIME/CNN poll said they
favor legislation to restrict teenagers' access to violent and
sexually explicit entertainment.
Restricted: A film is rated R if it has sexually oriented nudity,
strong violence or drug use, or more than one F word
Shakespeare in Love
--Wherefore art thou an R? The MPAA cites only "sexuality"
Analyze This
--An R for "language, a scene of sexuality and some violence"
The Matrix
--It has "sci-fi violence" and "brief language," or profanity
|
President Clinton used Washington's most recognizable set, the
White House, to announce that most cinema owners had agreed to
require young people to show photo IDs when they ask for tickets
to R-rated movies (an R rating means those under 17 must be
accompanied by a parent or adult guardian). The agreement with
the National Association of Theatre Owners is voluntary--as is the
ratings system itself--but others want stricter regulations.
Representative Henry Hyde, Republican of Illinois, has the most
ambitious plan. It would ban sales of obscenely violent and
explicitly sexual material to minors. Hyde also wants Congress
to urge stores to make song lyrics available to parents before
purchase. And he wants a study on the effects of music and video
games on youth violence--though the Congressman seems to believe
he knows what the findings would be. "There is a spiritual
vacuum in these young people," he said last week, "that is
filled with the culture of death and violence."
Senators got into the production too. Presidential candidate
John McCain of Arizona and his colleague Joseph Lieberman of
Connecticut have proposed a bill to force the show-biz industry
to label violent products with government-approved warnings. The
labels would fall under the law that requires warnings on
cigarettes. (Speaking to the Los Angeles Times, a crabby film
producer suggested this text: "Enjoy the Film, but Remember:
Uncontrolled Firearm Use May Be Dangerous to Your Health.")
The Senate has passed a bill that would stop directors from
using federal property in violent pics. (Scratch the next
Department of Transportation thriller.) And Washington is
threatening to recast suave movie honchos as dastardly tobacco
execs. The President has ordered an investigation into whether
the industry markets violence to youngsters. Similar
investigations showed that tobacco firms targeted kids; the
scandal damaged that industry's image.
Some of the harshest proposals come from the states. Concerned
about what kids are listening to, state senator Dale Shugars of
Michigan attended a Marilyn Manson concert (with two bodyguards).
Shugars was so horrified that he wrote a bill to require warning
labels on concert tickets. The bill passed the state senate last
month; the American Civil Liberties Union and the Recording
Industry Association of America have promised stiff opposition
before the House vote, expected in the fall.
But if the National Rifle Association played a steely John Wayne
in reaction to gun-control proposals, prominent figures in
Hollywood have acted more like Woody Allen characters. At a
hand-wringing June 4 panel discussion titled "Guns Don't Kill
People ... Writers Do," several screenwriters virtually re-enacted
the navel-gazing scene from Scream 2. "People who say we have no
responsibility are extremists," said screenwriter William
Mastrosimone (Extremities; With Honors). "We have to look at the
effect of what we do on the rest of the world."
Most studio executives are reluctant to criticize publicly the
new pop-culture crackdown. "These things are cyclical," says
Peter Bart, a former studio exec who now edits Variety.
"Washington comes forth with the rhetoric and gets as much media
attention as possible, and then Hollywood lies low." It leaves
the p.r. to a Washington pro, Jack Valenti, head of the Motion
Picture Association of America. A fierce defender of Hollywood,
Valenti did tactical maneuvering last week; he publicly urged
his industry to consider excising filth from films. And he
praised the announcement by theater owners. But he opposes
forcing the industry to adhere to government-imposed ratings.
Especially coming from a Republican, the Hyde proposals smack
uncharacteristically of Big Government, critics say. "This turns
the government into Mr. Mom," says Representative Mark Foley, a
moderate Republican from Florida. In an interview with TIME, Hyde
argued, "What parents are going to cope with Disney or Time
Warner? I'm for smaller government. But it takes someone big and
strong like the government to stand up to these purveyors." Yet
Hyde is vague on what would constitute unacceptable content. (He
told the Wall Street Journal that "any movie that has more than
50 killings is pushing the envelope.") And there may be a larger
conservative agenda at work in his bill, which would bar kids
from seeing not just the most vile images but also any depiction
of homosexuality.
The movie-rating system was instituted in the '60s to ward off
such meddling. But some insiders admit the system needs
attention. The NC-17 rating, created in 1990 to replace the
stigmatized X, has become all but useless. Because most
newspapers won't advertise NC-17 films, studios do almost
anything to ensure that their movies get an R rating. But even
if Washington could devise a perfect system, a larger task would
remain: identifying kids so close to the edge that a mere film
could push them over.
--Reported by Jay Branegan and John F.
Dickerson/Washington, Nichole Christian/Detroit and David S.
Jackson/Los Angeles
MORE TIME STORIES:
Cover Date: June 21, 1999
|