3 Types of Censorship in Film- Katie Kunik
Franklin defines market censorship as basing the needs of a film on what the consumers want. I disagree with this type of censorship for the most part because it shows lack of personality in a film. Although the main purpose of Hollywood films is to make money, which is accomplished by attracting viewers and censoring a film to appeal to these viewers, it shows that the director is willing to â€śsell outâ€? to make a buck.
Next, Franklin explains that industry censorship is often self inflicted based on pressures usually faced by the government. This reminds me of the film when the MPAA does not allow names of the ratings board to be released because they do not want them to feel pressure while doing their jobs, but in fact many of them are in direct contact with the production companies. I disagree with some of the MPAA regulations set on films today, but I think there needs to be some order in the rating system so that people know what they are going to see. I liked the suggestion of one of the class members in the class discussion who said that to make the film ratings more â€śarbitraryâ€? the rating could simply state explicitly what kinds of offensive things are in the movie. This would be preferable to the current system because it would not have to dictate what kind of advertising budget a film gets just by basing it on a one letter rating. The film, This Film is Not Yet Rated, did not necessarily portray the thought that all censorship is bad, but rather that the MPAA rating system needs to be reassessed. I agreed with some of the viewpoints of the film in that by having an extra word or a homosexual vs. a heterosexual sex scene would change a rating from one thing to another, which in turn can lead to much less funding and advertising abilities for the filmmaker.
Finally, Franklin defines government censorship as laws the government places on media tools in order to protect its citizens. Sometimes this can be a good thing, like the optional government mandated â€śV-chipâ€?, which Franklin describes as a tool to allow parents to monitor what their children are watching on TV. I agree with this because it is up to the parent to decide what their children watch, not the government. The kind of laissez faire approach like this example is the best kind of government censorship in my opinion because it not too restricting, but still gives the control to the parents to say what their kids can and canâ€™t watch.