Cut it Out
An incredibly brief thought on censorship

Back in college I took a class in films and censorship. Now some of the stuff we talked about was literally the removal of footage from various films, but some of what we talked about was protestation whether the film was actully banned or not. Naturally, of course, we only touched on the world perspective to censorship as applied to filmed entertainment, and primarily we focused on the U.S.

It's funny because the more I've thought about it, the more of I've realized that because I'm really into film (and a lot of marginal film at that) I've seen quite a bit of censorship in my time. The most hilarious part is that as the world "progresses" forward, many of the changes of things once considered horridly shocking or a threat to the nation's morals are at best laughable now. Any movie before 1950 or so that was once considered horribly offensive is likely laughable in the face of something on the level of say Verhoeven's Showgirls.

Then again, there's so many levels of what could potentially be attacked and the why's behind the desire for it's removal. It could be brutal. It could be shocking. It could be vulgar. It could be tasteless. And let's consider the fact that many levels exist between Pasolini's Salo (a disturbing Italian film based on the writings of the Marquis de Sade) and Deep Throat (one of the first highly successful and theatrically run hardcore porn). Then again to some of our more censoring friends, there's absolutely no difference.

Probably my earliest and perhaps funniest encounter with it was the TV broadcast version of The Breakfast Club. Now, thanks to an older sister, I had gotten to see both versions. For comedy value, nothing beat the edited version. When "Eat my shorts" became a badly mismatched mouthing of "Eat my...socks," I was usually laughing my @$$ off. Nowadays, much of the language in the movie is permissible by TV standards, but if you luck out, you'll catch the version where everything is still cut out. To me, what it illustrates so beautifully how idiotically pointless it was to cut the language. (Let's face it, who can't usually figure out what they're saying?) At the same time, it also showed how pointless in many cases it was to even use that language. (I could make an argument in this modern age that Lenny Bruce and Richard Pryor had a message in the 'offensive' language they used that has now been rendered obsolete by overuse.)

Of course, this was the 80's, where years later I realized a strange phenomenon. On one end, controversy raged over sexually charged films like American Gigolo, Body Heat and 9 1/2 Weeks. At the same time, no one seemed to pay nearly as much attention to the rise of the Schwarzenegger, Stallone, Norris, etc. action movies which tended to have gallons more gratuitous blood than the above had nudity. Now horror movies with their sense of grisly and often sadistic violence had issues with the ratings bored, but the nearly "cathartic" mowing down of Commies and villains slipped by with ease. In fact, it wasn't until Robocop that a mainstream Hollywood action movie was facing an 'X' rating. Following that, the social politic on screen violence began to change, and by the time The Matrix rolled around, movies were considered at least partially to blame for all the real world violence paticularly amont teens.

I'm not gonna say the connection is completely unfounded, but with the sex movies I can say that 9 1/2 Weeks didn't make me want to have sex as much as it merely provided me with tips for an already active libido. That's of course where I find the Puritannical ethic in America to be a touch backwards. Certainly the protest against violence in the cinema goes back and forth, but the fact that for a decade it slipped by and escalated unnoticed while movies with perhaps a little too much skin were hanging on the edge of an 'X' seems a little twisted. (Some folks just blame Reagan.) Again, I'm not advocating gratuitous sex and nudity in movies (though a little can be okay...but just a little, y'know), but I think people have just a little more natural biological drive to have sex than to shoot people up no matter what they show in the movies.

At the same time, while we're technically supposed to be removing violence from the movies, what's left in comes across in a bizarre fashion. More in chase of box office than worries about national morals, the studios have become hellbent on going no higher that PG-13 ratings no matter what the subject matter. The result is a violence that appears more bloodless and hence cartoonish that it can't possibly be getting across the anti-violent philosophy they claim to espouse. As far as I'm concerned, if you're gonna ban the Looney Tunes for making cartoon violence look painless, why not go after the real movies for doing the exact same thing?

After all, a kid's got a lot more access to a handgun generally than to an anvil atop a ladder. Not to mention that as a child, I would've been more likely to try to impersonate Keanu Reeves in The Matrix than I would Wiley E. Coyote. Right?

I say that if the violence stays make it looks like it hurts.

Kinda like, I'm pretty sure that those 50's sexual hygiene films probably did a whole lot more for abstinence than just telling kids not to have sex. Hell, they could probably save money and just start showing them again. With the aging, dust, and scratches, they're likely to be twice as scary. It's what you don't see that's scary after all, right? What's funny is that today's moral majority would never dream of showing those movies. Just like with the Health class textbooks they keep trying to ban because the books actually admit that people have sex. I want one of those f*cks (an appropriate use of the word, yes?) to look me in the face and tell me that their morals are better than those of the 50's. (...or at least stronger. I don't wanna imply that I think the 50's were altogether right either.)

(Not to preach, but to my mind, it would probably be best for everyone if people admitted to themselves that other people including their children are going to have sex. After getting over that really minor stumbling block, they can set about teaching their children the right moral, ethical, responsibile and emotional tools to handle sex. So far, pretending it doesn't exist doesn't seem to be ending unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. It seems to me that the former "Love" generation seems unequiped both as parents and adults to give their children those tools and hence they've decided to make up with it with self-righteousness.)

Somewhere along the line before I got onto my own soapbox I had more of a point. To me, it's a matter of irresponsibility. Sex and violence in certain films is handled by people with a firm grasp on their message and creativity. I'm not worried about them. Others are doing it merely to be gratuitous. In some cases, I'm not worried about them, but wouldn't want my future children to be watching them. ("No, no, that's Daddy's copy of Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!") Then there's the final case where it's not only gratuitous but also completely irresponsible. Those are the ones that no matter how minor the offense should be banned or at least slapped with the NC-17. A lot of this of course has to do with taking the business out of movie making, and in being in the business of making movies.

That's about all.

Cheers.