SPORADICUS

Can censorship ever be justified?  Discuss using a couple of examples.

Censorship is a consistent presence in every thinkable medium. Be it film, literature, music or television, somewhere along the line, censorship will have had a direct (or indeed indirect) effect on it between its production and it reaching its audience. The debate as to the enforcement of said censorship is a contentious issue. Findley argues that “It is one thing to speak out against material (this is everyone’s right) but it is quite another thing to remove, or attempt to remove material from the public domain” (Findley, T. 2001, Page 34.) This statement is certainly a strong representation of the argument against censorship. A blatant issue with the concept of censoring media and the effects of it essentially take away choice. By censoring a media product eg. A film, the decision regarding what is acceptable to view is made by a classification board before it reaches its audience, which takes away that audiences own choice to view for themselves the censored aspects of the film (or indeed the entire film if it is altogether outright banned).

The infamous 1946 live action/animated musical Disney film “Song of the South” has been subject to all manner of forms of censorship during its lifetime, from being severely edited for the purpose of VHS distribution in some countries to being banned for public purchase entirely in the United States. The final home video release of the film was a PAL region VHS release in 1991, and the final official theatrical run of the film occurred in 1986 to coincide with the 40^th anniversary of the film. The reasoning behind said censorship is due to the films representation of its African American characters. White describes the film as “an effort neither to offend audiences in the north or south, the production helps to perpetuate a dangerously glorified picture of slavery & unfortunately gives an impression of an idyllic master-slave relationship which is a distortion of the facts.” (White, W. 2004. Page 136).

 The films revisionist history regarding slavery, alongside the vibrant wholesomeness of Disney animation has made many critics feel that the film is inherently racist. The idealistic, bright tone of the film (it is after all, a musical produced by Walt Disney) pragmatically suggests that pre-Civil war America was an entirely excellent time for the African American community, completely ignoring the widespread slavery of the community that tarnished this entire period of time. Disney has since tried to suggest that the film in fact takes place post-Civil war (when slavery was abolished) but there is no substantial evidence within the film to support this statement.

 Regarding the films lack of availability, film critic Roger Ebert states that “I am against censorship and believe that no films or books should be burned or banned, but film school study is one thing and a general release is another. Any new Disney film immediately becomes part of the consciousness of almost every child in America, and I would not want to be a black child going back into school in the weeks after “Song of the South” was first seen by my classmates” (Ebert, R. 2004. cited in Sperb, J. 2012. Page 224).  Ebert makes a compelling argument in relation to the justification of the censorship of the film in terms of general consumption. Ebert does make the point that “film school study is one thing” and he has gone on record repeatedly defending the films use academically in film schools due to the films cinematic significance. While Ebert’s suggestion of only allowing the film schools is indeed valid, is does become a problematic concept when other films of a similarly controversial nature are brought into the equation.

“The Birth of a Nation” (1915) directed by D.W  Griffith has been both hailed as a masterpiece for its reputation as the most successful film of the silent film era, it’s progressive use of many innovative filmmaking techniques that are still integral in current cinema  and its ambitious runtime (just over three hours in total). Conversely, “The Birth of a Nation” has also been condemned as being deeply racist in its representations of African Americans & its positive, heroic representation of the Klu Klux Klan.  The African American characters in the film are portrayed by Caucasian actors in black-face & are represented as being relentlessly aggressive & intent on overthrowing the white government officials. Griffith depicts the Klu Klux Klan as the heroes of the film, a move that prompted an increase in Klu Klux Klan memberships in America, with the film often being used as a piece of KKK recruitment material. “Before the release of “The Birth of a Nation,” the KKK’s membership had fallen to its lowest level, almost extinct. Within five years of the film’s release, membership skyrocketed and states such as New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania, whose white citizens had resisted Klan blandishments up to then, found within their borders Klaverns with massive memberships. In many areas the Klan actually controlled the most influential newspapers and political organizations”. (Brock, P. 1993. Page 28).  Despite the negative connotations attached to the film, the film has not truly fully been subjected to censorship in the same way that “Song of the South” has.

“The Birth of a Nation” has been seen as culturally significant, a label that somewhat allows it to transcend its reputation as a deeply offensive film. “While recognizing its many problematic points, the Library of Congress and the American Film Institute have named “The Birth of a Nation as one of the most important films in U.S history. Due to its importance, both its racism and innovation, the Library of Congress’s National Film Registry has included it among films for permanent preservation” (Sickels, R. 2013. Page 237).  Due to the films significance it is still shown sporadically in theatres. In stark contrast to “Song of the South”, “The Birth of a Nation” has not been effected by censorship in the same way that the Disney film has in terms of achieving a widespread home video release. Where “Song of the South” was last released on VHS for a PAL region audience in 1991 (and never received such a release at all in the USA), “The Birth of a Nation” has been released repeatedly throughout the years of home video technology. With releases on the now defunct laserdisc & VHS, DVD and most recently a limited edition Blu-Ray released in 2013 featuring bonus content related to the film, “The Birth of a Nation” and it’s accessibility to the general public has hardly been diminished by its politically incorrect sentiments.

It does seem somewhat hypocritical then that “Song of the South”, a film released 31 years post-“The Birth of a Nation” but still arguably a “film of its time” in terms of its racist representations (“Song of the South” was released 9 years prior to the beginning of the civil rights movement in America) is entirely banned whilst “The Birth of a Nation”, a film much more blatantly prejudiced in its representation of African American people & so revisionist in it’s representation of a hate organisation such as the Klu Klux Klan, is readily available to anyone who wants to see it. When discussing the work of D.W Griffith, Roger Ebert suggests that “He (Griffith) once edited a version of the film that cut out all of the Klan material, but that was not the answer. If we are to see this film, we must see it all, and deal with it all” (Ebert, R. 2006. Page 869). With the statement that Ebert has put forward in mind, one would argue that surely “Song of the South” deserves a similar treatment?

Despite its turbulent relationship with film censorship boards, elements from “Song of the South” are still very much integrated into popular culture. The films Oscar winning song “Zip-A-Dee-Do-Dah” has enjoyed substantial success, being reused countless times over the years as a promotional tool by Disney and other companies & covered by many artists, all the while attempting to strategically white wash over any link between the song and the film that it originated from. But “Song of the South” and it’s subversive presence in modern day culture does not stop there,  the animated characters of the film (Br’er Rabbit, Br’er Fox, and Br'er Bear) all make appearances in a number of contemporary Disney products, most recently a “Kinect Disneyland Adventures” , a game released for the Xbox 360 in 2011. Novelli notes that “unwilling to give up the commercial potential of the cartoon characters, the company, before the marketing of the video games, had created a theme-park ride, Splash Mountain, at Disney locations in Anaheim, California, Orlando, Florida & Tokyo, based on the Brier Patch.” (Novelli, M. 2013. Page 66).

To further the sentiment set by the previously mentioned statement by Roger Ebert (“If we are to see this film, we must see it all, and deal with it all”) it seems counterproductive to dissect elements from the film and attempt to rebrand them as inoffensive, homogenised products. By putting any element of the film out for general consumption (be it the music of the film or it’s imagery in a product such as Splash Mountain), Disney are unintentionally creating the first step in a paper trail that will inadvertently lead consumers of these products back to their original source “Song of the South”. In correspondence with Ebert’s statement, one would come to the conclusion that if “Song of the South” is to be seen at all by the public, it must be seen in its entirety. It would be more beneficial culturally to acknowledge the film for what it is (politically incorrect and outdated, as is “The Birth of a Nation”) rather than hiding the distasteful aspects of it and completely denying that the film was produced.

 If people find the film distasteful and offensive & choose not to consume the film in any way, it should be entirely within their right to do so. People should be able to voice their disapproval of the film in the same way that people should be allowed to consume the film and appreciate it for what it is, a film. Larry Flynt articulated this idea when he stated that “freedom of speech is not freedom for the thought you love, but rather the thought you hate the most. Freedom is not lost in one fell swoop; it’s always one book at a time, one magazine at a time or one CD at a time. Censorship goes against the very grain of our basic freedoms, primarily the freedom of expression, which should be available to all individuals.” (Flynt, L. 2004. cited in McKay, G. 2009. Page 137).

“Song of the South” is for better or for worse, a facet of film history and a relevant artefact in the history of cinema. In this instance, one would conclude that the censorship of this film is unjustified. What should be encouraged is for the film to be looked at and understood. By creating a situation in which the film is largely (not completely, due to the 1991 VHS copies that still exist) inaccessible to the public, Disney is underestimating its audience, assuming that they will not be able to view the film on any deeper level than face value. Popular culture has evolved considerably since “Song of the South” last had any real kind of mainstream release, so it would be naive to assume that the audience viewing the film would interpret it now as they did previously.

On an entirely different plane of the censorship spectrum, “Natural Born Killers” (1994) directed by Oliver Stone, has frequently had its availability hindered by the moral panics that surrounded the film’s release & the subsequent censoring of the film that followed. “Natural Born Killers” centres on a couple, Mickey (Woody Harrelson) and Mallory (Juliette Lewis) on a three week long killing spree across America, while their every move is chronicled by the media. Originally set to be rated “NC-17” in the USA, a rating which represented “adult content” and violence which often lead to films of such a rating to be completely dismissed, with theatres refusing to play them. “Stone told the press that he would have to eliminate or trim 150 shots to receive an “R,” the rating of choice for distributors, since, as Miramax Films’ Harvey Weinstein told Time, “NC-17” was “economic suicide.” (Simmons, J. 2001. Page 281). The film follows the road movie precedent set by other films of that persuasion that came before it (eg. Thelma & Louise, Bonnie and Clyde) with a distinct social commentary overtone which incorporates mass media, celebrity and a global obsession with rolling news coverage.

Stone has said of the film that it is a “joyride or a thrill ride because as horrible as it sounds, these two killers have fun... The movie represents the cultural and social landscape of America in the ‘90’s” (Stone, O. 1994. cited in Tropiano, S. 2009. Page 183.)  When posed with the question as to whether or not the film could have a negative impact in terms of influencing violent crimes, Stone replied “anyone who would commit an act of violence (after seeing this film) is already predisposed to it.” (Stone, O. 1994. cited in Tropiano, S. 2009. Page 183.) Incidentally, the concept of “copycat crimes” influenced by the film became the central source of controversy surrounding the film. “On March 1999, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that the family of a shooting victim in a crime, allegedly inspired by the film “Natural Born Killers”, could sue distributors Warner Bros., Time Warner Inc. and director Oliver Stone for “negligence.” The family charged that the group should have known “Natural Born Killers” would inspire copycat crimes.” (Coleman, L. 2004. Page 224.) This case and others like it were subsequently thrown out of court due to insubstantial evidence.

Allegations of copycat crimes tarnished the films reputation among media outlets, and significantly altered the course of the films distribution in terms of it being shown on mainstream television (the film was repeatedly delayed from television exhibition in the UK for a whole 3 years after the film’s release, finally being shown on Channel 5 in November 1997 with an introductory documentary presented by Oliver Stone, explaining the films meaning) and also in relation to its availability on home video.  “Natural Born Killers” was eventually given a VHS and DVD release of the theatrical cut of the film in July 2001, while the full “director’s cut” was released in 2009, featuring the 150 shots (or 4 minutes in total) that stone had to remove in 1994 to achieve an “R” rating. The re-release of the film with its original cut fully intact is perhaps an indication of a changing societal view on film censorship. Only 15 years after the original cut of the film had been deemed too violent for public exhibition, a DVD release including these “excessively violent” scenes with little to no media coverage on the topic (in comparison to the mass media coverage centred around the original release of the film in 1994). One would conclude from this that this is an indication of a social re-evaluation of the film and others of its type, furthering the notion that censorship within itself is unjustified. 

To return to Stone’s statement that “anyone who would commit an act of violence (after seeing this film) is already predisposed to it.” (Stone, O. 1994. cited in Tropiano, S. 2009. Page 183) the notion that the film is in anyway directly responsible for these “copycat” crimes is unjustified. This is evidenced by the observation that Ferguson makes when he states that “One study of 150 elementary students surveyed students on their consumption of violent movies and video games and their effect on empathy and pro-violence attitudes. Results were inconsistent. No relationship was found between movie violence exposure and empathy” (Ferguson, C. 2013. Page 127).  With Fergusons information in mind and also the fact that the cases against the film were subsequently dropped, one would conclude in the case of “Natural Born Killers” that censorship of the film was unjustified.  Censorship on the basis of claims that were not proved to even be substantial is censorship that is injudicious in its enforcement.  Austin suggests that “The film could appear to some as a sub-cultural artefact which had been misunderstood and interfered with by ‘mainstream’ institutions such as ‘ignorant journalism’ and the BBFC” (Austin, T. 2002. Page 186)

As with the censorship of “Song of the South”, one would conclude that the censorship of “Natural Born Killers” belittles the audience and underestimates their ability to distinguish between fiction and real life. Censorship on the basis of the films violence (and the fear of the audience viewing the film and re-staging the violence) is almost insulting to cinema audiences, suggesting that they are completely mindless with no free will of their own, powerless against the film and its influence. Hills, when discussing violence in cinema states that “the censorship of film violence is artistically and morally wrong, oppressive, fascistic and just plain illogical.” (Hills, M. 2005. Page 94).

In conclusion to the points made within this essay, one would deduce that censorship is unjustified. Censorship takes choice out of the matter of media consumption. By applying censorship to a film, this does now allow for individuals to make up their own minds regarding what they want to see and what they do not wish to see. Films featuring controversial subject matter should be embraced, not shunned by media outlets and condemned to being hidden from public view. Discussion should be encouraged, rather than hiding the content behind a legal barricade.  Guins articulates this idea effectively when he states that “letting the consumer choose for themselves. That’s the difference between choice and censorship. Censorship is when someone else decided for you. Choice is power. Choice is the new knowledge.”  (Guins, R. 2009. Page 107.) Censorship suppresses freedom of expression and lessens our ability as culture to increase and expand our understanding. Censorship as an act to prevent offense is overly idealistic, and inadvertently damages more rights than those that it seeks to protect. In short, it is unjustified.

Bibliography

Findley, T (2001). Censorship In Canadian Literature. Quebec: McGill-Queen's University Press.

White, W (2010). Animating Difference: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in Contemporary Films for Children. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Sperb, J (2012). Disney's Most Notorious Film: Race, Convergence, and the Hidden Histories of Song of the South. Texas: University of Texas Press. 

Brock, P (1993). The Crisis. New York: The Crisis Publishing Company. 

Sickels, R (2013). 100 Entertainers Who Changed America: An Encyclopedia of Pop Culture Luminaries. Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Ebert, R (2006). Roger Ebert's Movie Yearbook 2006. Missouri: Andrews McMeel Publishing.

Novelli, M (2013). The Long Reconstruction: The Post-Civil War South in History, Film, and Memory. London: Routledge. 

McKay, G (2009). Subcultures and New Religious Movements in Russia and East-Central Europe. Bern: Peter Lang. 

Tropiano, S (2009). Obscene, Indecent, Immoral and Offensive: 100+ Years of Censored, Banned and Controversial Films. Milwaukee: Limelight Editions.

Coleman, L (2004). The Copycat Effect: How the Media and Popular Culture Trigger the Mayhem in Tomorrow's Headlines. New York: Simon & Schuster Inc.

Simmons, J (2001). The Dame in the Kimono: Hollywood, Censorship, and the Production Code. Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky. 

Ferguson, C (2013). Adolescents, Crime, and the Media: A Critical Analysis. New York: Springer.

Austin, T (2002). Hollywood Hype and Audiences: Selling and Watching Popular Film in the 1990s. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Guins, R (2009). Edited Clean Version: Technology and the Culture of Control. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.