Rob Skogen
"I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed…I never intended for any of this to happen, and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about."
--Miley Cyrus
This statement came out last week in response to the public frenzy that came about from the publication of a “provocative” image that is scheduled to publish in Vanity Fair’s June issue. This whole ordeal is not new to American culture. Countless teenaged celebrities (recall Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen for example) have experienced the same outrageous reactions to their attempts at growing up and asserting their independence. While we can pick this apart from many different angles, it lends itself in a rather timely manner to this week’s discussion topic of Censorship.
In one of the assigned readings from this week, Daniel Franklin discusses three main drivers of censorship in American popular culture: market, industry, and government. The Miley Cyrus firestorm is a prime example of market driven censorship. With the financial stakes behind the Hannah Montana persona, the posturing we have witnessed coming from both Cyrus and Disney comes as no surprise. We know that of all things in this culture, money talks. Attempts to develop a more mature career moving forward will be made very carefully to avoid risking pariah status with their influential consumer base.
Kirby Dick’s documentary, This Film is Not Yet Rated (2006), explores the inner workings of a more insidious form of censorship that Franklin identified – the self-censorship of the MPAA. Tracing the evolution from the Hays Code in 1930, through the current ratings system implemented by Jack Valentini in the late 1960s, the film mainly focuses on the inane, arbitrary, secretive, oppressive nature of the system. While he touches on the financial impact that a rating can have on the success, or failure, of a given title, the main thrust of Dick’s argument is that realistic portrayals of gay and lesbian experiences are being withheld from mass distribution. If this is not censorship, I do not know what is. Whether the market would accept such viewpoints is a completely different story, and a completely different kind of censorship.
While I agree that film is an art form protected by the First Amendment and should not be subject to outright suppression of expression as is inherent in the current rating system. However, I do not believe that it should be abandoned, nor should government intervention become necessary. It is my duty as a parent to make proper choices on what I allow my children to view. I find ratings to be a useful guidepost in helping make these decisions. I do not have the time watch every movie that is released and I do not take the ratings at face value, but simply use them as a filter in the process.