From: reiher@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Peter Reiher)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: BOOK: Hollywood vs. America by Michael Medved
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:28:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Nov6.222806.22915
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department

In article <13064@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.223136.10635@cs.ucla.edu>, reiher@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Peter Reiher) writes:
># Did Jesse Helms see the light as a result of this column, or is he still
># in favor of the anti-flagburning amendment?  Or is he, by your definitions,
>
>I don't know.  I don't even know for sure what Helms supported on this
>issue.

At the time it was most in vogue, Sen. Helms came out strongly in favor
of this amendment.  It's possible he's changed his mind since, but I
doubt it.

>Alas, the Constitution is just an annoying piece of paper to the
>liberals that run this country.

Well, liberals aren't the only one's, unless your definition of 
"conservative" is different than that of most people's.
 
>I don't
>think you've ever met a right-winger -- there are almost none left
>in California.

You should spend more time in Orange County, if you believe that.
Of course, again, it may simply be that you use the label differently
than most people.  By the way, is Bruce Herschenson a conservative,
in your view?

># #Yet, the film studios were quite willing to produce at least two
># #versions of many films, at the time: one version with black performers
># #edited out.  Clearly, there was no ideological opposition to this.
># 
># There is a big difference between 2 and 20, and a big difference between
># 20 and 200, and a big difference between 200 and 2000.  
>
>So it was only a pragmatic objection that the film studios had to
>censorship.

In the case of the studios (who, to remind you again, were not the
artists), the objection was largely pragmatic.  For the studios, almost
any decision was made on largely pragmatic grounds.  The artists themselves
are another matter, entirely.

># The current system, which, 
># theoretically, censors nothing causes unhappiness because, in practice,
># NC-17 films are unreleasable - not because people won't go to see them,
># but for other reasons.  Abel Ferraro, Louis Malle, Jean-Pierre Annaud,
>
>WHY are they unreleaseable?  There's no censorship.

They are unreleasable because most newspapers (exercising their Constitutional
rights) are unwilling to advertise them, most theaters (exercising their
Constitutional rights) are unwilling to play them, and certain pressure
groups (exercising their Constitutional rights) picket them, making it
economically infeasible to show NC-17 films in most cities.  In some
smaller cities and most towns, due to the limited number of available
theaters, these factors can make them literally unshowable - they can't
find a theater to book them in the city.

There's nothing illegal going on here, and it isn't censorship.  On the
other hand, it's not clear that the pressures that prevent such films'
release are caused by anything more than a small, vocal minority who
businesses want to avoid offending.  As a result of these pressures,
there are significant numbers of film fans who cannot see films they want 
to see in the forms they want to see them.  The problem is a societal 
attitude that is worth complaining about and trying to change, just as 
Medved complains about what he thinks is wrong with American film.

># If Mr. Medved and Mr. Cramer believe that the studios are
># foisting garbage on the American people that they don't want to see,
># why don't they accept the classic conservative principle of letting
># the market determine what's best?
>
>I certainly wouldn't suggest anything different.  But anytime that
>I, or anyone else suggests the use of boycott, the liberals start
>screaming, "Censorship!"
 
I'm liberal, and I don't.  Boycott whatever you please.

># My feeling is
># that I'm not willing to censor the worst for fear of destroying the best.
>
>Who is supporting censorship?  I have repeatedly pointed to the value
>of boycott.

Let me point out something - if you are successful in your boycotts,
persuading the studios to return, say, to the Breen Code, not only will
you prevent "I Dismember Mama" and "Wild Orchid" from being made and
distributed, you will also prevent "The Godfather" and "Raging Bull"
from being made and distributed.  Not only am I not willing to censor
the worst for fear of destroying the best, but I am not willing to
pressure artist from using techniques or exploring topics simply because
many of the resulting works are worthless trash.  Perhaps I won't go
see those films, but I will not try to convince the studios that I
didn't go because of the subject, approach, or level of graphicness of
their sex or violence.  Rather, I'll try to convince the studios that
I didn't see them because they stunk.

-- 
		Peter Reiher
		reiher@wells.cs.ucla.edu
Organization: Campus Activities Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA