Aspects of Censorship - Essay Example

Censorship Censorship should by all accounts be simple to define, and yet arguments remain over what exactly constitutes censorship. For instance,are First Amendment rights being violated by not allowing certain words or images to be broadcast on network television Is this censorship or is this just common sense measures to protect children's undeveloped minds from being exposed to things they are not capable of processing yet And if this is just common sense, then why is banning Huckleberry Finn from school libraries censorship Is the idea of movie ratings a form of censorship Does censorship automatically constitute the existence of a censor existing as a physical being The fact is that censorship is far more complicated than one person refusing to let another read or watch or listen to something. The sad, sorry history of the protests against the making and the release of The Last Temptation of Christ should stand as a shining example of how attempts at censorship almost always result in the opposite of the intended effect in the short run, though in the long run the intentions of those who desired to suppress the expression of free speech ultimately were realized. Those speaking out the loudest for suppression of this movie were, not surprisingly, those who had not seen it and for whom the film represented a threat not just to their religious beliefs, but also to pocketbooks. Jerry Falwell's interpretation of free speech was made clear when he said, before having viewed the movie, that "Neither the label 'fiction' nor the First Amendment gives Universal the right to libel, slander and ridicule the most central figure in world history" (Leo 34). In fact, of course, the label fiction pretty much is carte blanche to say whatever you want about whomever you want and those who were protesting against the film apparently never distilled that information. At no point was the film ever presented as an alternative truth to the gospels, i.e., it was never connected to any heretical gospel, but instead was clearly described as having been based on a novel. The rise of fictional representations of truth may have given Plato pause enough to consider warranting them unfit for a citizens of a republic because the general populace might get confused as to the difference between reality and imitation, but by the late 20th century one would have thought audiences would be sophisticated enough to tell the difference. Apparently, a great many people did not share this view and took it upon themselves to do what Plato suggested: censor representations of reality from the republic known as the United States of America. Falwell seems to be echoing Plato when Plato suggests that "hymns to the gods and praises of famous men are the only poetry which ought to be admitted into our State" (15), with the caveat, of course, that Falwell would demand that the word gods be replaced with the singular, monotheistic and capitalized God. Platonic thought on the value of the arts to inform and educate still permeate the media even today and has been a driving force behind determining the value of art for thousands of years. One could make a case that the Platonic view of the dangers of mimesis has played a great role in determining the censorship of fiction. After all, it is much easier to censor something with no redeeming value than something that does have an educational content. On the other hand, those who censor are also quicker to jump into the fray when a work of art contains educational content at odds with the values of the would-be censors. That this is so can be proved using the Last Temptation affair. In the first place, Mr. Falwell and others were moved to attempt to censor the film not because it was a bad movie; they had no way of knowing that or not. What frightened Falwell was the threat it posed to his religion and all aspects connected to his religion. If the supposedly slanderous and libelous view of Jesus were taken as gospel, perhaps it would be damaging to Christianity's ongoing attempt to bring everyone else in the world into the fold. Add to the protest the fact that Blockbuster Video has refused to carry the film ever since it was first released on video. Because it is bad filmmaking Apparently not, since when the film was first released on video, Blockbuster stores did carry the slasher film I Spit on Your Grave. While there may be some who would rate the latter a better example of moviemaking than the former, the overall view would probably tend to see Last Temptation as the better film. And, it goes without saying, far worse films currently sit on Blockbuster's shelves at this moment. Lest one think that Blockbuster is flogging a dead horse in its continuing refusal to ban a movie made in the 80s, consider that in September of 2000 in Catskill, N.Y., "six churches circulated a petition to keep the public library from showing the Martin Scorsese movie The Last Temptation of Christ as part of its banned-books week observance" (http: www.firstamendmentcenter.org). One wonders if those protestors fully grasped the irony of this particular situation, especially in light of the iron that the original protests only served to draw more people to the movie. The short term consequence of the protests against The Last Temptation of Christ were not what the protestors had intended; in fact, the effect was quite ironically the opposite. A film based on a little-known novel directed by a critical darling who had never enjoyed a blockbuster commercial success about the life of Jesus hardly seemed headed toward the top of the gross list. An argument could certainly be made that had their been no protest, the film would have opened and quietly closed within a few weeks. Instead, of course, the film became a Hollywood legend and, what's more, became a commercial success, posting a profit beyond anyone's wildest expectations. To that extent, the gross miscalculation by those attempting to enforce their worldview through censorship turned out to be one of the biggest mistakes ever made by the Religious Right in America. Unfortunately, the long term effects of the boycott was successful and more damaging. As hinted at earlier, not all censorship takes the form of a single individual making a decision. Sometimes censorship happens in a manner that has been falsely labeled "self-censorship." What is termed self-censorship is in actuality imposed by outside forces; the difference being that those forces are an unidentifiable mass rather than a single person. Following the boycott and protests against The Last Temptation of Christ, no Hollywood movie studio has seriously considered making a film that challenges the gospel story of Jesus. Although no real censorship of the movie itself took place, except in regard to Blockbuster's refusal to carry it, the effect has been a very real and a very dangerous censorship on ideas. The censorship of the creative process is even more damaging than the censorship of an already existing product. While it is a horrible thing to no longer have access to a book or song or movie, it is even more horrible to know that writers and directors and producers refuse out of hand to entertain even the possibility of producing a work of art. It took over fifteen years from the time of the controversy surrounding Last Temptation until the next major Hollywood theatrical film dealing with Jesus was made. And even though that film made no controversial challenges to the gospels-in fact, it was sold as being based upon the gospels-no studio would finance it. The Passion of the Christ is perhaps overly earnest in its "praise of a famous man" and, despite being arguably less family-friendly than Last Temptation due to its unending violence, is found on Blockbuster shelves. The fact that this film made much, much more money than the earlier film also suggests that the so-called self-censorship that has made a truly imaginative film about Christ inviolate will be carried forth at least another fifteen years. The true tragedy that sprang forth from the situation surrounding Last Temptation hasn't proven to be the death of that movie as was called for by those who opposed it, but rather the death of ideas. Because films cost so much and because so much is rising on the gamble that a film will make a profit, it's far easier to not roll the dice on certain topics than it is to play the game. The series of events surrounding the release of the film The Last Temptation of Christ stands as a testament, indeed, to the multifaceted effects of how censorship works in a society in which every decision ultimately comes down to the question of money. It is perhaps less cynical now than it was fifteen years ago to suggest that perhaps the reason all those religious leaders were so frightened by the film had less to do with their religious beliefs than with increasing church membership and tithes. The one way in which Christianity and capitalism are similar-perhaps the only way-is that they both need new blood to keep them going. Any challenge to that provokes fear and fear, as Master Yoda makes clear, leads to anger. Days before its release, Bill Bright of the Campus Crusade for Christ made a surprising offer to the head of the company which had produced Last Temptation. He offered to "raise money to reimburse Universal for all copies of the film, which would promptly be destroyed" (Leo 35). Bright was not taken up on his offer, but in the end he made a much better deal. At no apparent cost to him, Bright's extremist legions succeeded in instilling such fear that Hollywood agreed to censor itself from making any movies which run counter to the Religious Right's own singular view of the story of Christ for seventeen years and counting. Works Cited Leo, John. "A Holy Furor." Time Magazine. 15 Aug. 1988: 34-36. McMasters, Paul. "Trying to shut out the light by banning books." 25 September 2000. 1 December 2005. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspxid=2693 Plato. "The Republic, Book X." Criticism: Major Statements. Ed. Charles Kaplan & William Anderson. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1991. Read More