More Than A Movie

Ethics In Entertainment

Miguel Valenti

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9780429983160
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Philosophie
• Subtopic: Histoire et théorie de la philosophie

In More Than a Movie, producer and entertainment attorney F. Miguel Valenti presents a compelling argument for the creative community to consider the consequences of its products, from movies to TV to the Internet. Valenti refrains from attacking the industries in which he himself works, but argues for reflection on the part of those who create media. More Than a Movie takes a pioneering first step toward outlining the issues in an insider fashion, and provides the tools to make ethical decisions about creating for the big and small screens. Edited by veteran media writer Les Brown and media consultant Laurie Trotta, More Than a Movie is written to stimulate debate in professional and academic arenas, and for the enjoyment of everyone who loves entertainment. The book contains a foreword by noted author and director Peter Bogdanovich, and commentary from producers Christine Vachon and David Brown. Mediascope, a Studio City, California-based media policy organization, commissioned the book upon discovering that ethical discussions seldom occur in film and television schools, although they are staples for studying law, medicine, business and journalism. Issues range from ethnic and gender stereotyping to excessive and gratuitous violence."It's not about censorship -- it's about having a responsibility for what we do, " says author Valenti (no relation to MPAA's Jack Valenti). "The book outlines how we are helping to shape societal values and individual behavior with the artistic choices we make." A team of writers from across the nation offer essays: Neil Hickey, editor, Columbia Journalism Review; Annette Insdorf, Columbia University; Ted Pease, professor and columnist; Jack Pitman, Variety; Martin Koughan, Emmy Award-winning documentarian. The essays in More Than a Movie are interspersed with stories of actual ethical dilemmas told by noted screenwriters, directors and other practitioners in interviews by Manhattan writer Laura Blum.

Part IV

All You Need to Make a Movie Is a Girl and a Gun…^*

Notes

^* Quote by Jean Luc Goddard

The Gun: Portrayals of Violence

Do Unto Others Before They Can Do Unto You

We’ve all cheered the hero onscreen as he delivers his own brand of “street justice” to the evil villain (who deserves whatever he gets anyway). Beating up the “bad guy” has been a cherished symbol of our cinema history. It’s the American way.

No one is going to tell us we can’t use violence in our stories, because we all know that—aside from being a ridiculously unrealistic concept—there’s something downright satisfying for audiences in seeing the hero beat the bad guy senseless (whether with fists, gun, bazooka, or F-15).

And yet, there is a truly global concern about the issue of violence and how the American film and television industry, a.k.a. “Hollywood,” uses, abuses, and drowns audiences with torrents of violence in its entertainment product. Where is the line drawn between the creation of good old American entertainment and the glorification of violence? This section will explore these issues, summarize some of the relevant research findings on the ways in which violence affects viewers, and discuss the ethical issues implicit in violence as entertainment. We will also suggest some ways in which violent content can be used responsibly.

Violence is a pervasive factor in contemporary America. Our world feels increasingly dangerous, and many of us believe we cannot go about our daily lives without keeping at least a metaphorical eye over our shoulder.

The strange thing about this perception is that the reality is somewhat different. Are these violent times? Certainly. No one would deny that fact. However, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and police reports across the nation, the number of violent crimes is actually decreasing steadily and has been since the beginning of the 1990s.¹

So why this discrepancy between perception and reality? As a much deeper question, why is our society so violent?

Brooklyn South premiered on CBS and the press was all up in arms about how this was the most violent police drama that had ever been on TV, and that the first seven minutes of the first episode were more violent than anything that had ever been on. I watched and found it to be very inoffensive and very well done. I thought, “What are they talking about?” Turn over to HBO or Showtime or any movie channel and see what’s going on there. The things that are made for television are much less provocative and violent than those that are made for theatrical movies.

—Bridget Potter

A partial answer to both questions is thought by some to be the rapid rise in film and television violence roughly throughout the last three decades, following the dismantling of the Hays Production Code.²

In an earlier era of Hollywood filmmaking, the hero often resorted to violence only when he had been driven to the breaking point or in self-defense. Violence was not completely avoided, per se, it just wasn’t the driving essence of the entertainment.

Not so today. Now, a violent response is quite often the first solution attempted. It has become relatively rare to see negotiation, compromise, or even simple discussion used to solve problems.

Violence has become very nearly a character in its own right, an end rather than a means to the drama of the piece. What this has created is the expectation of violence in response to most any conflict.

At the same time, the realism of the violence has intensified. In a bygone era of Hollywood movies and television, violence stopped short of being gory, obvious, or intense, with few exceptions. Even cowboy, detective, or crime stories of that era used violence that appeared staged or happened offscreen.³ People died almost magically. That is to say, there was very little realism. When viewed today, many scenes of fistfights, shootings, stabbings, and so on from that period look almost naively comical. The gunshot that sounds like a cap gun, the bullet that strikes leaving no visible damage (save for a tiny hole in a worsted suit), the stab wound with no blood, and the noble, quiet death of the victim—these are all familiar elements to students of movies from the so-called “Golden Age.”

Even the legendary “shower scene” from Psycho,⁴ albeit extremely intense, was so stylized (as a result of being composed of multiple shots),⁵ that the audience was manipulated into feeling the terror of the moment without ever seeing the knife enter Janet Leigh’s body.

Several years after Psycho, films such as Bonnie & Clyde⁶ and The Godfather,⁷ although considered tame by today’s standards, established a whole new level of violence in film and displayed in strikingly glamorous terms the image of the rebellious antihero. Critic Charles Champlin, writing about The Godfather in the Los Angeles Times, characterized the film as “incessantly and explicitly violent…. The violence, I had better repeat, is violent and graphic, and it is part of the movie’s considered and considerable lure.”⁸ Many viewers would now consider the mob brutality of the Corleones mild, at least by comparison with the maulings and butcherings that were to come in films such as GoodFellas or The Fight Club.⁹

In the twenty-first century, filmmakers are in an entirely new ball game, one in which subtlety plays little or no part. Our younger celebrity directors—Quentin Tarantino and John Woo to name two—are noted for “pushing the envelope” in the way they depict violence. Their work is praised as “cutting edge,” prompting up-and-comers to pump up the violence in emulation.

Several times on The Godfather, Francis (Ford Coppola) came up with ideas that were rejected because they were just too dangerous. At one point we were going to do a stunt where someone was going to pull into a gas station, pump gas into the front seat, and throw in a match. You don’t want to do things like this on the screen. If you’re assuming that people are only looking and saying, ”Well, it’s only a movie” (laughter). There’s a lack of education at a basic level of society today to which you can’t show those things. Brutality without style and logic isn’t a good thing to do.

—Gordon Willis

One of the inspirations for this book was Woo’s statement that he saw himself as a painter and blood red was the most beautiful color he had.¹⁰ Now, aesthetically, no one could argue that red is a very nice color. However, the statement itself gives no indication of concern for its possible underlying meaning or consequences.

Violent acts are direct and graphic in the extreme. If a victim is stabbed or shot, the audience will see, often in slow motion for added emphasis, the weapon or projectile penetrate the victim, blood spurting everywhere.

Further, violence now is often the point of contemporary entertainment product, even when it is not necessary to the story being told. As a mental exercise, imagine what a film such as Casablanca¹¹ would look like if made today. What would be the body count? How would this affect the story?

What’s more, special effects technology has developed to the point where ultrarealism is a relatively simple and inexpensive matter. Not surprisingly, an often-unrealized competition has developed to “top” the last violent spectacle seen in a film. We seem to be constantly searching for new and ever more hairraising ways to portray violence. We have, to some degree, become mired in the love of violence for violence’s sake. More realism. More gore. More impact.

The Role of Music

We should never underestimate the tremendously potent tools of music and scoring in manipulating the audience. The right music can elicit virtually any desired emotion, often even more viscerally than the images on the screen. Remember Jaws? Daaa Dum … Daaa Dum…. As David Brown, one of the producers of Jaws,¹² suggests, “twenty years later people will still tell you they’re afraid of the water.”¹³ Yes, and an important piece of the credit for this goes to the simple yet brilliant base-of-the-spine-rumbling score.

Music can also compensate for weakness in storytelling, as it can guide the audience from scene to scene, emotion to emotion, in ways that the underlying film may not be strong enough to accomplish.

To test this, simply watch an action sequence in a film or television program with the sound off. Try to choose a film that you don’t know well, as your mind will fill in the missing music otherwise. Now, it is true that this also means watching without benefit of dialogue and vital sound effects, but this is not meant to be an exacting scientific experiment. It’s merely a crude but effective approximation. Now, try watching the same sequence with the music. See how your emotions are peaked, pulled, and prodded to maximize the excitement of the scene—if, of course, the film is well scored.

Carter Burwell, composer for such films as Fargo¹⁴ and The General’s Daughter ¹⁵ describes the powerful role of the score in manipulating audience emotion:

It plays a subliminal role, but a very powerful emotional one…. The subjective experience of the audience is that they are not often aware of the music or where it is coming from, because human eyes are more powerful sensory organs than ears; sound is more emotionally moving than vision. But I think that’s why most people go to the moves—for an emotional experience.¹⁶

In the specific case of scoring scenes of violence, composers can use their art to heighten the impact of the images. Whether it’s pounding, paralyzingly heroic crescendos during violent action scenes or tension-building strains under violent dramatic scenes, music can peak the viewer’s emotional state; it can enhance his or her empathy for the victim or the perpetrator; it can cause the viewer to fear violence or feel the heady flush of vigilantism. And each effect deepens the influence of the violence.

What the Research Says About Violence in the Media

Does all of this violent imagery have an effect on the viewer? This is one of the most hotly debated questions of our time. For decades, researchers have studied the effects of violence on viewers, especially children. Most social scientists today believe that exposure to media violence is affecting us as a society. Although certainly not the only, or even the most important factor, media violence is contributing to an overall culture of violence in America.

One school of thought historically maintained that violent images, in and of themselves, do not cause violence. This theory held that violence in the media acts as a catharsis¹⁷ for the viewer, draining his or her anger by channeling it vicariously into the situations of the characters engaged in violence onscreen—a harmless venting of emotion, like cheering for a favorite team or band at a concert.

Today, most researchers agree that although violent images do not directly cause violence in most people, viewing these images does have a cumulative negative effect. Hundreds of studies have been conducted on television programming, including made-for-TV movies and theatrical films that air on broadcast or cable outlets, supporting these conclusions. It appears likely that the conclusions would be amplified with regard to theatrical films shown in theaters, where violence is almost entirely unrestrained and filmmakers are free to use the vast arsenal of special effects technology to its fullest gory potential.

The general consensus among scientists and public health researchers is that repeated viewing of violent images has three distinct negative effects on the viewer.¹⁸

First, viewing violence over time contributes to what media researcher George Gerbner has dubbed the “Mean World Syndrome,” which refers to the feelings instilled in viewers that they live in a dangerous environment, a “mean” world. People who are constantly bombarded with images of murder and mayhem can come to believe that the violence they see onscreen is a reflection of society as it a...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Foreword
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• I Does Media Influence Society?
• II Does Influence Imply Responsibility?
• III Ethics, A Practical Primer
• IV All You Need to Make a Movie Is a Girl and a Gun …
• V Documentary and Reality-Based Programming
• VI Children’s Programming
• Appendices
• Index