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 40th
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.
