Film Censorship- Expanded

Film Censorship: Is it Better?

Sydney Johnson

Some think if there is mold on a piece of bread, the rest is contaminated. Others throw the piece out and keep the good ones. The restrictions on film in the 30’s and up until the late 50’s/early 60’s covered everything from drug use to sexual content. While the afformentioned are still debated today it also included stipulations like not showing interracial relationships, homosexual acts, or anything that could disrupt the moral integrity of the “good” American family. While the majority of people agree the second set of rules to be wrong, they continue to have lingering effects. Should the restrictions be eradicated completely, or is there some good in the current standards?

Film censorship in America can be was heavily shaped by the Golden Age of cinema in the 30’s through the 50’s. While there were censorship guidelines prior, the Hay’s code was when it really started to “thrive” as Dr. Sheri Biesen describes in her article Classic Hollywood and American Film Censorship. The Hay’s code was created in 1930 by the president of Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA), William Hays. Initiated in fear of corrupting the mind of American youth through sexual women, interracial relations, homosexuals, and overall overt “obsenity.” In the book Silencing Cinema: Film Censorship around the World the issue is touched upon how political the media industry was. After the Hay’s code ended there were still discussions of regulating the screens for the good of Americans.

“..The Commission was formed in 1967 in what turned out to be Johnson’s last

full year in office. So when the Commission’s findings were published in the fall of

1970, Nixon reacted swiftly with a torrid press release: “I have evaluated that

report and categorically reject its morally bankrupt conclusions.” Warning that

“American morality is not to be trifled with,” Nixon remarked bluntly: ‘Smut should

not be simply contained at its present level; it should be outlawed in every state

in the union..’”

Even today, as can be seen in the 2006 documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated shows just how closely sex scenes are analyzed. The smallest insert of a mouth wipe, pubic hair, or a moan that last even a second too long will get a movie a R- or worse, NC-17- rating that could mean the failing of some movies.

Obscenity is what prompts these high ratings- so what is it exactly? The 1957 case Roth v. United States actually resulted in it being defined for the MPAA to follow:

“The test for obscenity is whether to the average person, applying contemporary

community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole,

appeals to prurient interest: (a) a work cannot be proscribed unless it is “utterly

without redeeming social importance,” and hence material that deals with sex in

a manner that advocates ideas, or has literary or scientific or artistic value or any

other form of social importance, may not be held obscene and denied

constitutional protection, (b) “the constitutional status of allegedly obscene

material does not turn on a ‘weighing’ of its social importance against its prurient

appeal, for a work may not be proscribed unless it is ‘utterly’ without social

importance,” (c) “Before material can be proscribed as obscene under this test, it

must be found to go substantially beyond customary limits of candor in

description or representation,” and (d) “The ‘contemporary community standards’

by which obscenity is to be determined are not those of the particular local

community from which the case arises, but those of the Nation as a whole.”

This was not met without blowback, by those with influence no less, however it is what continues to influence the standards of what is going to “trifle” with America’s morality.

When choosing the “big” restrictions that linger in film today, sex has to be top dog in the conversation. Following the code's end the 70’S and 80’s were a pivotal time for film. Iconic blockbusters and series started: Back to the Future, Jaws, The Breakfast Club, and all the slasher films audiences wanted. Horror was booming with Halloween, Nightmare on Elm St., and Texas Chain Saw Massacre. The horror genre is notorious for gore and sex. Interestingly enough there was a noticeable connection between those two components. Teens have sex, then they are killed. Cause and effect. It sparked, and is still influencing, torrid conversations around this trope.

Main stream adolescent sex conversations in America started appearing most in the 1980s, although very “immature” (Shary, Timothy, and Robin Mcinnes, 2005). Appearing in the 90’s most sexual content was family friendly “curiosity” until Kids (Larry Clark, 1995). This film reached audiences and showed teen sex in a raw, unfiltered way that basically said: Sex is bad. It addresses the emotional and physical effects that sex can have when kids are active. “Inflaming” instead of being more subtle, Shary says in Teen Movies: American Youth on Screen. While the kids weren’t hacked into pieces in the film, they were given a proverbial death sentence. Subsequent films also start to feature sex in a more problematic light.

However, when thinking about how sex is portrayed in America even compared to the United Kingdom it is obvious to see the way the U.S. tries to shield it’s audiences from real representations of sexual conversation, acts, etc. While the strict code is not enforced in the same way today, the remnants trickle into how films get rated. For instance, the 2018 indie film Eighth Grade chronicles an awkward girl who navigates the junior high society she is in. It tried to show this girl and her experiences in a realistic way, which included mild language and sexual content involving teens. Again, as with Moonrise Kingdom, exploring curiosity and growing up. The U.S. gave Eighth Grade an R rating. What did the U.K. rate it? 14A- which means kids 14+ can watch, as opposed to kids with someone 18 or older. It just shows the difference in what the U.S. prioritizes in adolescent sexual education, and what they should be able to relate with, versus their foreign equivalents.

The argument for eradicating the ban on sex in America is simple: people are going to have sex. Whether it is two grown adults in a consensual relationship or adolescents who are curious about their bodies as well as their respective partners. It should not be taboo, because it is natural and the code being in place does not protect anyone. The physical harm this censoring has is to make kids think it is wrong to want to talk or ask questions about sex- which leads to the huge problem in the country of misinformation and lack of education around the topic. Which causes actual bad descions made around sex whether it be not getting tested, not using protection, or not knowing basic hygiene.

The emotional or mental conversations that America loses out on most can be explored in Y Tu Mama, Tambien. This Mexican film is the story of two teen boys who take an older woman on a beach trip, hoping to get lucky, while their girlfriends are away for the summer. The whole film the boys are shown to be very sexual, the opening being a sex scene with their girlfriends. Another scene they masturbate in the same pool on seperate diving boards. The film is filled with unspoken truths. For instance, one friend does not touch the toilet in the other’s house because he lives “below” him. After both have sex separately with the older woman, jealousy arises and the boys confess they slept with each other’s girlfriends. After high tensions and many drinks, one says he slept with his friend’s mother too. The woman has a threesome with boys in which they end up kissing each other heavily. The scene is oddly beautiful, although the audience can feel the weight of lines being crossed. The end scene shows the audience that they do not remain friends after the trip.

This film explores the boys' relationship to each other and themselves. Sex is vital to them and how far do all the unspoken things go before it breaks the friendship? One could argue that Cuaron shows the importance of this exploration through his use of the long take. During this scene of realization the camera does not flinch away. The audience stays with these characters, feeling as tense and uncomfortable as they do. The ending shows that their exploring and finding a potential question of their sexuality is something that was too heavy to be able to be friends and be unspoken. More so than even sleeping with each other’s girls, or mother.

Y Tu Mama, Tambien displays adolescent sexuality and identity in a way that is not seen often in American film- and for the worst. After the trip there is almost all indication that what happened was an occurrence that would not be spoken of again, and it was easier not to deal with it internally if they were not friends. This film not only does not demonize sex in teens, but it actually seems to show the very real effects that sex can inspire in young people. That it can show them qualities within themselves that maybe they have not admitted to.

Keeping these types of movies out of the grasp of the American public, because of the depictions of sex, hinder the potential for emotional maturity in it’s youth. It encourages people to ask questions about themselves and reflect. It is a step backwards, especially when thinking about the question of morals in America that the Hays Code was built upon. Is the point to not ask questions and get real, raw answers?

The second, very debated, lingering effects of the code that should not be regarded in contemporary film and television is that “miscegenation is forbidden.” That, unlike the first rule mentioned, actually has no “moral” backing behind it. While back in the early to mid 1900s interacial relations were a taboo subject- today America is the glorified mixing pot. All types of races, and genders, are together and making families. Not only is it morally sound, but it is just an accurate representation of American life. It’s limiting and biased to think that the population of America can not “connect” with a character with brown or tan skin. It is putting sole importance and banking on the financial support of the white population of America.

This inclusion is considered debatable, because it is no longer a set restriction on film today. However, the underrepresented communities can plainly see that they are not being put in the central roles or continue to be white-washed as they were in the Golden Age.

Othello. A classic Shakespeare play that explores jealousy, manipulation, and trust. The title character, who is black and a Venetian army general, elopes with a white woman named Desdemona. Othello comes to blows with her father after his “friend,” Iago, sets in motion the father finding out. Throughout the story Iago continues to manipulate situations so Othello suspects his second in command, Cassio, of having an affair with his new wife. In the end Othello kills his wife and then himself after realizing the truth.

Shortly after the Hays Code was dissolved Othello was made into a film. Othello (Burge, 1965) starred Maggie Smith, Frank Finlay, and Laurence Oliver. What is wrong here? None of these actors fit the role of the moor titular character. Laurence Oliver as a blackfaced Othello showed that even without the code, American filmmakers and producers were not ready to cast an interacial relationship- even one that ends in tragedy.

What kind of reception did the film get? New York Times writer, Bosley Crowther, reviewed the film saying, “..That's right, blackface—not the dark-brown stain that even the most daring white actors do not nowadays wish to go beyond. What's more, he caps his shiny blackface with a wig of kinky black hair and he has the insides of his lips smeared and thickened with a startling raspberry red. Several times, in his rages or reflections, he rolls his eyes up into his head so that the whites gleam like small milk agates out of the inky face.The consequence is that he hits one—the sensitive American, anyhow — with the by-now outrageous impression of a theatrical Negro stereotype… And in this respect, this "Othello" is one of the boldest you'll ever see.” The critic finds the issue with Olivier’s performance to come from the actor’s theatre background, and therefore not being as grounded as other actors may have portrayed the character. The miscasting and blackface itself was not offensive, as they mention the “sensitive” American a few times through the review.

Even today the injustice of representation persists. In a world where many film and television projects a year come from adaptations of books, anime/manga, and comics there should be no problem for people of color to get casted in central roles. However, whether the argument of a big name or the “whoever gives the best audition” the casting and film producers seem to always gravitate towards caucasian actors. New faces or old.

The Ghost in the Shell 2017 adaptation starred Scarlett Johannsen. She played an android in a Japanese city, named Major Kusangi, and was met with a lot of blowback. Not only her, but Paramount Pictures as well- who has been called out on “white-washing” before. This film is adapted from an immensely popular anime film, and when people saw the casting they were disappointed that an Asian person was not given priority. There were Japanese people in the movie, but not in the main role. The domestic distribution chief for Paramount, Kyle Davies, gave a statement to CBC regarding the low box office sales saying:

"We had hopes for better results domestically. I think the conversation

regarding casting impacted the reviews.. You've got a movie that is very

important to the fanboys since it's based on a Japanese anime movie. So

you're always trying to thread that needle between honouring the source

material and make a movie for a mass audience. That's challenging, but

clearly the reviews didn't help." (Nathoo , Zulekha)

Davies inadvertently tells the journalist and the public that a potential blockbuster can not honour the source material by casting the appropriate race and market it for a “mass audience.” This could be discarded as a faux paux, or that’s only him who thinks so, but he is a distributor for one of the biggest studios pushing out entertainment today. It is also not the first instance in Paramount miscasting- 2010’s The Last Airbender garnered a bad reputation in part because of that reason. To which they had already made a statement saying:

“Early casting includes an Indian actor, born in Mumbai and raised in the UK and

the US; a Persian actor born in Tehran and raised in the UK, Switzerland and the

US; a Maori actor born and raised in New Zealand; a Korean-American actor,

born and raised in Chicago; an American actress of Italian, French and Mexican

heritage; among several others of varied nationalities from around the world.”

(Paramount Producers)

They made a point to address that they casted Asian actors- but gave them the doomed and expected small or villainous roles. Why would a studio continue to live by this seemingly unspoken rule, if their numbers continue to show them they are wrong? It is difficult for the industry to change, in part, because of the previous miscegenation rule and the values that made it a rule to begin with.

So does the whole loaf get thrown out? Yes. Why? Though only a few pieces have visible mold on the outside, it spreads quickly, and most of it is microscopic. The values that demonized gay people and people of color are the same values that banned sex acts, depictions of pregnancy/childbirth, using God’s name in vain, etc.. Until censorship is gone, the lingering effects can’t run their course. The whole loaf has to be discarded.

Works Cited

Cuaron, Alfonso, director. Y Tu mamá, también. 20th Century Fox, 2001.

Biesen, Dr. Sheri. “Classic Hollywood and American Film Censorship.” The American

Historian, www.oah.org

Clark, Larry, director. Kids. Shining Excalibur Films, 1995.

Jordan, Amy B., and Daniel Romer. Media and the Well-Being of Children and

Adolescents. Oxford University Press, 2014.

Shary, Timothy, and Robin Mcinnes. Teen Movies: American Youth on Screen.

Wallflower, 2005.

Biltereyst Daniël, and Roel Vande. Winkel. Silencing Cinema: Film Censorship around

the World. Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

Dick, Kirby, director. This Film Is Not Yet Rated. IFC Films, 2006.

Burnham, Bo, director. EIGHTH GRADE. A24, 2018.

Crowther, Bosley. “The Screen: Minstrel Show 'Othello':Radical Makeup Marks Olivier's

Interpretation.” New York Times, 2 Feb. 1966, p. n/a.

Paramount Producers. “Letter from Paramount on The Last Airbender.” Media Action

Network for Asian Americans. 25 Mar. 2009. Media Action Network for Asian

Americans. 28 Sept. 2010.

Nathoo , Zulekha. “Ghost in the Shell: Why the Film Disappointed at Box Office | CBC

News.” CBCnews, CBC/Radio Canada, 3 Apr. 2017