The First Amendment; Violence In Films

The First Amendment and a free people, weekly examination of civil liberties in the media in the 1970s, produced by WGBH radio Boston in cooperation with the Institute for democratic communication at Boston University. The host of the program is the institute's director, Dr. Bernard Rubin. Granting that we all abhor censorship and that we are not here to advise that movies be censored, indeed we feel that the First Amendment must be very strictly observed to keep our freedoms going. We still have a problem with some of these new films that are coming down the pike that offer excessive violence in the minds of many reasonable people. To help discuss films like The Warriors and other films which are causing a great deal of comment in the press today, in the nation indeed, I have two people whose careers, who want a great deal on this kind of assessment. First Roger Mandel, the distinguished film critic and writer whose recent books include biographies of Charlie

Chaplin and (unclear proper name) and whose forthcoming books include one critical study of Ingmar Bergman and a book entitled Theatre and Film. He's also recently contributed to questioning media ethics. My other guest is (unclear proper name) who's in information, influence, and communication, and another book designs for persuasive communication has dwelled on this subject. Both are professors at Boston University. Gentlemen, let me open up by asking you quite bluntly: The Warriors, which is a paramount corporation film, is a quite violent exposition of gang wars set in the locale of New York. Several people allegedly were killed because people say that there's a tie in between watching the film and then what people, some people, allegedly did when they left the theater. And also because it raises such problems for us.

It is one of the most successful films today, in some areas out grossing Superman, and it is bringing Paramount Pictures and its parent company, Gulf and Western, a lot of money. So I think we can do about this kind of film, keeping in mind my admonition about not ruining the First Amendment. ?Roger Amanda? Well, I'm smiling. Because you're saying what can we do about it. The only thing we can do is to be a better society that isn't in fact entertained by films which promote visually on the screen, you know that's different from promoting it actively in the auditorium, promote visually on the screen, violent acts. But we have to be a society which in fact like myself doesn't particularly want to go and see such films. I think Roger has the basic idea: you boycott the film, you don't see it. The trouble is that the "you" may refer to people in our age bracket while the younger crowd

may be lured in by some of the early advertising, which did show hundreds of young people screaming through the streets. And now I understand the advertising has been toned down and very often simply a lot of print. So here we find that Paramount Pictures and the distributors have already reacted to some public resistance. So this is a good sign and lets us know that its mainly through public protest rather than through censorship that there is some kind of restraint on the producers. Now let me play the opposite of devil's advocate. In this particular instance I don't think devil's advocate is a good fit, but in regard to a double agent, double agent in regard to The Warriors, let's examine living in New York City. It's hard enough to get through the subways of New York City now, going through the graffiti- covered paint-covered subway cars with so much

violence on the subways that the chief of police of the New York City subway, Mr. (unclear proper name), has put 900 men on a special crusade. In many cities it's going on. Isn't it more difficult to get through life if we just follow your admonition, Roger, that we ought to be a better society. But how does this affect people going day by day with enough violence to contend with as it is. Well, you will waive the First Amendment at me if I say the least thing which suggests restraint. Won't you? Yes. Well then all right I can't... I'm hamstrung from the start. I see this as a very subtle and difficult balance for all people operational in it, that means filmmakers, film exhibitors and distributors, the press who are dealing with the advocacy of going to see the film or not going to see the film. The law of the land if any kind of actual physical violence results from the exhibition of the film. It's a very extraordinary

balance between all these things. So you might say that the exhibitors, who after all want to maintain a quiet house, presumably, will say I'm not going to show this picture because if I don't show this picture; it may lead to a transgression against all censorship but the law of the land because I shall have violence in my auditorium. But on the other hand, he may say the public has a right to see this film as indeed under the First Amendment and they have, no? But they must be quiet. Now how is the theater manager to be certain that his audience will be quiet, either in the auditorium or in the lobby of the theater. After that, of course, his jurisdiction ceases and the policemen must come in on it. It seems to me a very delicate balance of conscience, if you like. Whether you say right, I will never show a picture again that is likely the slightest degree to incite an activity in my building which will need police intervention under the law of the land as distinct from censorship.

See this is where the (unclear) may lie. Roger, are you saying a kind of situational ethics applies here. I can imagine that a theater owner might look outside and see a glorious day like today's second day of spring and see a lot of young people out there running around in T-shirts and wanting some kind of action and under these particular conditions a film like this might indeed incite youth, might give them some ideas. It's not putting the ideas there initially, but it's simply reminding them of some ideas that are planted there and might induce some kind of behavior that otherwise wouldn't exist. Now, I don't really expect theater managers to act on this debate, appraisal is all of a situation.

Well, my answer to that would be the responsibility then moves, the point of the responsible moves back then to the filmmakers. They will say to you: All right,, we must cover all aspects of the social scene including the violences that are practiced by unruly, irresponsible elements among the youthful population of our time alright. We put this on the screen. Now, how do we put this on the screen? What kind of tone do we put it on the screen. It could be that those people coming in to have a good time looking at violence by proxy on the screen come out. (unclear) because the tone quality of the observation of the action on the screen, the outcome of it in terms of the story continuity on the screen, may well be chastening. Ingmar Bergman, one of the people that one of your new books is about. He can do almost any macabre thing with such delicacy that it comes out with the sense of finesse being the predominant emphasis.

But people are going to watch the result of this warrior film, making all of this money, raising by $4 a share of the Gulf and Western on the stock market and they're going to say, Look, Charlie, you make me a film like this. I remember Cecil B. DeMille used to come out with some films that were fairly good films but he had the magic of using films always called the magic lantern, the motion picture industry using that magic lantern appropriately. But then he was followed by imitators, who used only the broadest theme. And they said forget it. Forget about the, the biblical side of it. Just show the head and as much bosom as possible under as light a gauze, as possible. I only remember Loretta Young, but nevertheless. How can we stop this film? Is there any way to declare such films X films?. I understand this was rated R in the motion picture. Is it really an X-rated film? [inaudible comment]

[Mandel] All these things are advisory, like everything we're discussing is a matter of opinion. [Lerbinger] No, not really because if it's an x-rated film legally, you cannot bring young people into it. [Mandel] No, but is he's going to stand on the ?dawn look at it every day.? birth certificate? no. You see it's all rule of thumb, it's touch and go and no theatre proprietors' in a position to exercise this properly. The whole thing turns, in the a long run, on an agreement of self-restraints, the agreement, if you like, of a proprietor of a cinema in a difficult district to say "I'm not going to put that film on even though we can make a lot of money." We can make a lot of money out of Star Wars. We can make a lot of money out of Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Pictures are not going to do anybody any major immediate harm. But if you can hope for yourself for self-restraint, not in fact, show that particular film in that particular district or self-restraint can come in with and from the first of all the filmmakers' point of view, the exhibitors and distributors' point of view, can come in from the public's point of view, and that I'm sure they can, but the parents can exercise some degree of control over their kids.

?But can they. The Fed proprietor? I would doubt if he can stop them coming in if they look big enough. You see, the whole thing is a network of imponderables. This is what I think makes a sort of peculiarly difficult and serious situation. I don't want to legislate. [Rubin] What you seem to be saying is that social controls are breaking down and the parents don't have control over their children. Theatre managers don't have control, local communities don't have control. So what seems to be happening, you're transferring the burden of the moral question back to the filmmaker. [Mandel] Yes. [Lerbinger] Here in this case, -- [Mandel] and to the censor. [Lerbinger] And to the censor. But here not only the filmmaker also the corporate enterprise, Gulf and Western industries, what's sad about it, corporations in general, is that they have to start thinking about the moral dimension of all of their actions, the social consequences of what they do. Now, we're,

we're developing a public expectation for this... Yet you'd find here that Gulf and Western is described pretty much as an organization that will do almost anything within legal bounds that will produce a profit, and therefore the system of transferring morality back to the producer does not seem to be working. [Mandel] Well you did cite the legal bounds, which was correct. It seems to me you have a situation in which nothing is quite pure. You can't have, let a First Amendment step back politely and allow a more autocratic rule to come in which forbids the screening of certain acts directly in a movie house. That doesn't exist. All you have is an advisory service which guides filmmakers, guides exhibitors and distributors, in respect of certain subject matter on the screen. But it cannot totally control it only by an

autocratic role. Can you literally stop something being screened? [Rubin] But we don't want autocratic rule. You suggest that perhaps the parents might look into that. Otto has suggested that the corporations may not be as ethical looking at their profit and loss sheet as they might be. That's for the parents. The question is, it's 10 p.m., where are your children. The answer might be they're watching The Warriors in the theater. If the parents and the corporations have trouble, let me throw this to you, Roger. I want to take your own thesis now. Self-restraint is your message. Moderation is your-- [Mandel] self-restraint is the only (inaudible) [Rubin] Can we count on the movie makers to exercise that restraint when the temptation is to make it-- [Mandel] only by public pressure, only by public pressure. [Lerbinger] And that is measured by the box office. [Mandel] Helped a great deal by the press, on the one hand exercising critical -- You're making a public

criticism of the ethics of a particular film. Yes, it can be exercised by the exhibitors who have after all their own association who can say we do not want to show, to put our movie houses into the dangerous position of showing exceptionally violent films that seemed to incite audiences or might hint that they are inciting audiences to take action in the streets which is parallel to the action on the screen, or which might lead the particularly difficult individual who has already perhaps got a tendency to murder, to go out and murder somebody in a manner like the murder that's been shown on the screen. These are the dangers and imponderables that need self-restraint on all sides, to avoid the really difficult and the really dangerous situation. [Rubin] Would this self-restraint apply not only to the making of the film but the manner in which the film is promoted?

[Mandel] Yes, advertising. [Lerbinger] You know now that, that was something with The Warriors because the original advertising which was quite inducive to dragging the people in, was withdrawn when public pressure built up and then they restored a little bit but now they're just advertising it by use of language, giving the name boldly without the, the photographs and [Mandel] Well here is a measure of self-restraint actually being put into practice. It's probably not nearly enough to satisfy the three of us around this table but it is a step in the correct direction. [Lerbinger] It's a step in the correct direction, but in our society we feel if we put a warning package on cigarettes that somehow that absolves us from further moral liability and we know that with respect to cigarettes that doesn't really work and I wonder here whether once you have the old fashioned promotional devices, then a few weeks later after the word is already going around, what the

worry is, is really about, whether this is really an exercise of a notch, self restraint. [Mandel] Well, then, the only answer, yet again, I'm afraid, is more organized self restraint on all sides. And this in the end means the public will have to exercise a self-restraint. Now they won't do it necessarily, through the young people in the auditorium expect them easily to adopt self-restraint in areas where we know out in the streets they don't know how to. [Rubin] Why do I think of an old Smith and Dale act, they used to be a vaudeville team and one play the dentist in his vaudeville act and he was in the inner office and the patient could only hear the screams coming from the dental chair. And as the doctor comes out after that patient he says, "Come right in," and the patient says "Doctor, I'm dubious." And he says, "Hello Mr. Dubious." [Lerbinger] Well Bernie, I'm dubious too, of self restraint when that is the only mechanism operating. I believe that self- restraint works best when there are some social pressures. With

regard to violence on TV, I forget the name of the minister, but there was some southern minister who organized a campaign against violence on TV there is less violence now. And this campaign incidentally was directed not only against the broadcaster but against the corporations that did the advertising in connection with those particular-- [Rubin] Gentlemen, this has come up many times before. Roger, what are some of the leading films that come to mind with the same argument popping up about whether its too much for society? [Manvell] Well, well the classic case I must now cite. It was The Wild One. The original Marlon Brando. You know, the cycle, motorcycle gangs. We banned it absolutely and there was a great deal of them when it originally came out. Absolutely because it was thought this is exactly going to incite similar activity in Britain and we are not in a social position to cope with it. We would rather have an autocracy steps in here, the First Amendment steps back. [Rubin] You don't have a First Amendment. [Manvell] Yes I know but I'm talking in terms

of the ethics of the situation. A kind of First Amendment step back is Illustrated where there's an autocratic rule comes in. No film does this. well. As you know in the last 25 years censorship in both our countries a step back and back and back and back. In so doing it puts more and more and more burden on the self-restraint of the public and the makers and providers of entertainment. I see no way out of the situation other than to put autocracy back in again or else make the censorship tighter, audience restraints tighter, and if worst comes to worst, the law of the land tighter. We know for example in South Africa a film that will be critical of apartheid would not be shown to be an autocratic ?immediately? on the showing of any such film. So all our societies have to choose between whether they create and develop civilization through their own. How can I say the evolution of right

thinking pressure groups within the public, or whether they have to have it done for them. [Rubin] In all this economic terminology, this would be one of the costs, would it not, of doing business in a free society? [Lerbinger] It's one of the social costs and we in society always have to ask whether the making of a profit by one organization results in enormous social costs that the rest of society must bear, For example. If you look at the, at the school system and the costs of vandalism, a figure shows that about 600 million dollars a year is spent in repairing the damage done by vandalism. A similar statistic refers to ?70000? serious physical assaults on teachers. Now, I don't want to attribute this to, to TV, but I think people in

society are looking at certain actions that they no longer want to tolerate. Then they look for the causes of these actions and we've already mentioned some of them, less parental control. But it's very likely or tempting at least for people to say to what extent is violence on TV or violence in movies responsible. And at least demand that the responsibility be recognized. [Manvell] It's so easy just are to blame the most immediate front offender. They scapegoat the cinema, and maybe the cinema deserves to be scapegoated now and then. They scapegoat television. That may be -- its easy immediate target and of course on the courts of law it's the easiest thing to say "oh I saw that on television and I am the victim of television. So I went out and did this. So forgive me because as well as the fault of the program it put the idea in my mind." Yes.

It's the easiest thing in the world. [Rubin] But nobody ever says, to refer to television, "I saw John Houseman in the paper chase where he is the professor in the supremely high level type of beginning law class, and it improved my mind, and I now have a better comprehension of--" students, no one says that somehow, when you do something that is laudatory it hardly raises any comment, it's only when we get into the dredges, dregs of this kind of a film like The Warriors or Pretty Baby or anything like that that you get the public response. [Manvell] Well I'm glad you mentioned Pretty Baby, which is a Louie Malle film which is set in New Orleans and has a scene in it I thought I would never see ever in a public theater. And yet I didn't object to it. The scene was of the auctioning of the virginity of a girl of 14 to the local gentry in a whorehouse. All right. We've gradually had whorehouses appear on the screen. Then we have

girls of correct age, as it were, performing on the screen, right. Now we suddenly have a film which is beautifully done but beautifully done in which this particular scene takes place. She's not represented as unwilling. She's, in fact, rather glorying in it. But it is done with such a quality of tone, and this is what matters, that one becomes aware of the whole values of that situation and what it represents morally in a society that such a thing could happen. The respectable citizens you know bargaining for the young lady. [Rubin] Do you find that the delicacy, the subtlety, made you as morally indignant as you would be if the same theme were treated more crudely? [Mandel] I was very much, in a sense, chastened by it, even me in my old age, very chastened by it, seeing it, because I thought, as I say, I would never have seen such a thing. I was chastened. I think the audience was, I would feel, and they were a mixed age

group. You could only as it were go out and think about it as a society, this of course set back in period New Orleans, sort of turn of the century. But you though what kind of society we're living in where this would take place and where everybody would be pleased including the girl herself. And that was conducted with a kind of awful polite decorum. Now this makes you go out and think, that picture to my mind could do absolutely no harm except possibly to a totally unthinking audience and it was being shown in a theater to the audiences, they're thinking one on the whole. So this is what worries me, that if we put an absolute autocratic censorship ban on the handling of difficult and important subjects like prostitution, then the First Amendment rightfully steps in and says "No our society needs this chastening scene to be seen. Now this is sex and sex in this particular instance is different from violence. My instance one other film, which we'll go with, and that's In the Realm

of the Senses. This is a Japanese film and deals with an actual case of a woman and a man whose obsessive love for each other is so mutually destructive that it ends with the most, one, some people would say, obscene violences. Again it is conducted in a tone which is chastening and not exploitative. You know this is where it seems to me that my point about how all this gathers together, you have the climate of opinion in a particular society at a particular time in a particular city. You have the nature of the theater where this kind of film is going openly to be shown. You have the tone of the film, which is a responsible one. All these things gather together until censorship is unnecessary. The law of the land need not step in because harm has not basically been done. We are in the end more enlightened. by the horror of this, than we're in any way corrupted.

But the we is an audience that is enlightened enough to take take it with the correct values. This is the problem. If we can bring all this together -- [Rubin] Roger, you speak of this tone. What kind of film sells better, a film with the kind of moral sensitive tone you speak of, or the film that is more akin to ordinary TV showing the action, the brutality of it without this kind of moral tone? [Manvell] Well as you know films are marketed on different levels, different market marketing ranges. The Warrior's type film is marketed on the total mass audience and The Realm of the Senses, Pretty Baby, that kind of picture is marketed on an upper bracket of audience, and although it will stay for weeks, In the Realm of the Senses was shown for many weeks, for example, against a more limited appeal picture, perhaps playing three or four days on that particular market level.

[Rubin] How would how would Superman, who has been edged out in terms of the financial backgrounds of these earning powers of these, how would he feel now as Clark Kent a reporter for The Daily Planet, what would he say, would this be one of his projects to cause him to dash into the telephone booth and change costume? You have no idea? [Lerbinger] But Bernie, what really worries me by violent films is the kind of insensitivity there may be developed among people, kind of, it's been called psychological illiteracy. [Rubin] Lowering of expectations? [Lerbinger] Well lowering of expectations but a feeling that you can sock somebody and it doesn't hurt anybody. We live in this kind of pseudo environment. Kids are brought up looking at TV and they no longer realize that stabbing somebody really kills somebody, this is the fear that some of the social scientists have.

[Rubin] However violent this film The Warriors is, and we've argued I think rather well from the First Amendment viewpoint, it is less violent than the average lives of many old people in this country. It is less violent than the lives of many Native Americans on our reservations. It is less violent than life in a hispanic ghetto or a black ghetto. It is less violent than a youngster who is in an institution or foster home sometimes. It is less violent than somebody who is consigned to a place because he has an incurable illness and they don't realize that his mind is all right. So on this question of The Warriors, it certainly has caused us to think about it as a subject, as as a problem for our society and for that I'm appreciative of having Roger Manvell and Otto Lerbinger. For this edition, I'm Bernard Rubin. The First Amendment and a Free People, a weekly examination of civil liberties in the media in the 1970s. The program is produced in cooperation with the Institute for Democratic

Communication at Boston University and GBH radio Boston which is solely responsible for its content. This is the station program exchange.