Mahony Urges ‘Human Values’ in Films, TV

In an unprecedented pastoral letter to the entertainment industry, Cardinal Roger M. Mahony declared Wednesday that motion picture and television leaders have a moral obligation to communicate “human values,” but he rejected calls for a strict new code governing the content of productions.

“Because I reject censorship, I do not propose a (production) code to govern what filmmakers may create, nor do I wish to dictate what intelligent viewers may see,” said Mahony, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles. But he stressed that Hollywood can and must do better.

The cardinal’s letter on a subject of great sensitivity in the nation’s preeminent entertainment center comes at a time of growing national debate over “family values,” fueled in large part by the presidential election campaign. It was also intended by Mahony to mark the fifth anniversary of the visit of Pope John Paul II to Los Angeles in 1987, when the pontiff addressed entertainment executives.

For many in the entertainment industry, Mahony’s missive came as a relief and was praised for its restraint.

Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Assn. of America, applauded the cardinal’s remarks for avoiding “censorship or rigidity” and for urging the industry to “enlighten as well as entertain.” Valenti is the architect of the current voluntary movie rating system and represents the distributors of the bulk of all major movies and television programs seen in the United States.

Instead of a production code, Mahony offered guidelines by which writers, directors, actors, producers and others can judge the moral impact of their work.

The cardinal listed nine areas of special concern portrayed in theatrical motion pictures and television productions--relationships, sexuality, women, family, religion, work, possessions, authority and violence. The pastoral devotes a section to each subject, preceded by reflections on what he said it means to be “truly human.”

On the portrayal of sexuality, Mahony urged that sexual scenes be “handled with . . . taste, delicacy and reverence.” If the screen characters are “saying something with their bodies they do not mean with their minds, hearts and souls . . . is the picture honest about the inauthenticity, the inadequacy, the terrible emptiness, the shallowness and the self-deception of such a one-dimensional approach to human sexuality?” he asked.

As for violence, the cardinal urged consideration of whether it is “demanded by the story” and “presented as a desirable way to solve problems and resolve conflict.” He asked filmmakers to consider presenting nonviolence as “a credible alternative.”

On women, Mahony asked that their portrayal be given careful thought. “Are they persons possessing the same intrinsic dignity as their male counterparts and, at the deepest level, facing the same soul-wrenching challenges to grow?” he wrote. “Or is the impression given that they are somehow something less, valued as objects rather than the persons they are?”

The commentaries are intended to offer screenwriters and others criteria by which to judge whether their films are “appropriate and responsible.”

“No place will you see, ‘You shall do this,’ ‘You shall not do that.’ It raises questions about these very, very important issues,” Mahony told a press conference at the Sheraton Universal Hotel.

Del Reisman, president of the Writers Guild of America West, said the letter was being “very well received” by screenwriters.

Danny Goldberg, senior vice president of Atlantic Records and chairman of the Southern California ACLU Foundation, said he was “impressed” and “moved” by the cardinal’s statement. “It speaks to the kind of relationship that artists should have with religion,” he said.

Jack Shea, a vice president of the Directors Guild of America, who met with Mahony, said there had been concern months ago “because it looked like the cardinal was endorsing a code and censorship. The way I’m reading it now,” Shea said, “the cardinal said very clearly he is not for censorship and not for any code.”

The cardinal’s letter contrasted sharply with a statement issued last January by the archdiocese in Mahony’s name.

At that time, a press release from the archdiocesan public affairs office announced that Mahony would call for a tough new film rating code.

A furor erupted in the entertainment industry and Mahony quickly disavowed the proposal, saying that he had not seen the press release and was unaware of the details of the code, which was drafted by the Atlanta-based Christian Film and Television Commission. The code would have barred the portrayal of illegal drug activity and “excessive and lustful kissing, lustful embracing, suggestive postures and gestures.”

Mahony also fired the chairman of his Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, Santa Barbara businessman Dennis Jarrard, saying that he had embarrassed Mahony and the archdiocese.

Since then, Mahony has met periodically with entertainment leaders, including Lew Wasserman, chairman of MCA Inc., parent company of Universal Pictures, who in 1990 donated $1 million to the archdiocese’s Education Foundation. Mahony also met with Valenti and the presidents of the Writers Guild of America West and the Directors Guild of America.

Mahony said their thoughts were “very, very crucial” in formulating his pastoral letter.

While defending artistic freedom as fundamental to the creative process, Mahony also called on screenwriters, directors and others to exercise responsibility.

Mahony cited two theatrical motion pictures as examples of films he could recommend--the 1988 release “Rain Man,” starring Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise, and the 1992 “Prince of Tides,” starring Nick Nolte and Barbra Streisand. “I don’t say every film has to be like that. But I thought those were extremely helpful films.”

But Mahony said Martin Scorsese’s “Cape Fear,” starring Nolte, Robert DeNiro and Jessica Lange, was far too brutal. He told reporters he had seen the 1991 release “kind of by mistake. I thought that was an excessively violent film, a violent on-screen portrayal of violence that served no purpose.”

“Artistic freedom is essential to the creative process,” Mahony wrote. “But a moment’s reflection will convince (writers) that the freedom they cherish cannot be separated from the moral order, the demands of truth, a concern for the common good or the well-being of other people.”

He said the filmmaker’s task is made still more difficult because many in the audience are young people who are not yet emotionally mature. The current movie rating system’s NC-17 label (no one under age 17 admitted), he complained, is of “limited help.”

“The golden rule applies here. Responsible filmmakers will not do to their audiences what they would not want done to themselves--or to their own teen-age sons and daughters.”

Mahony said audiences also have a responsibility to consider which films and productions they will watch.

Reisman of the Writers Guild remarked, “What pleases me very much . . . is the restraint. He’s made a very important criticism of filmed entertainment--the fact that TV and movies are not sufficiently based on what he calls human values and his interpretation of human values,” Reisman said. “The cardinal was careful to say that not everything has to be studies of perfection in human life.”

Asked what would be the least people in the industry could do to show they have taken his letter to heart, Mahony replied that he would be “delighted” if they simply began discussing the issues he raised. He added that the writers and directors guilds planned to open such discussions and hoped that he would be invited.

Valenti said the practical day-to-day impact on movies and TV of Mahony letter will depend on “the individual creative consciences of each producer, director and writer.”

“That’s where it should be,” said Valenti. “There is no other answer. Who would draw the line on such questions of how far to go? Who would be the guardians? And who guards the guardians?” That’s why, Valenti said, “this statement by his eminence is so wise and thoughtful.”

Mahony’s Comments

Following are excerpts from Cardinal Roger M. Mahony’s pastoral letter to the entertainment industry.

FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY: “Filmmakers are rightly jealous of (creative) freedom. But a moment’s reflection will convince them that the freedom they cherish cannot be separated from the moral order, the demands of truth, a concern for the common good, or the well-being of other people. Such a separation would result not in freedom, but in license.”

SEXUALITY: “If they (the characters) are saying something with their bodies they do not mean with their minds, hearts and souls . . . is the picture honest about the inauthenticity, the inadequacy, the terrible emptiness, the shallowness and the self-deception of such a one-dimensional approach to human sexuality? Are the sexual scenes handled with the taste, delicacy and reverence the subject demands?

WOMEN: “How are the women in the story portrayed? Are they persons possessing the same intrinsic dignity as their male counterparts and, at the deepest level, facing the same soul-wrenching challenges to grow? . . . Or is the impression given that they are somehow something less, valued as objects rather than the persons they are?”

RELIGION: “The overwhelming majority of the American people believe in God and pray regularly. They look to God to give meaning to their lives. . . . Is the religious dimension of the characters in their story in evidence? If not, why not?”

VIOLENCE: “Unfortunately, there is violence in life and so there will be violence in movies. To evaluate it, we have to ask: 1. Is the violence demanded by the story? Is it presented as a desirable way to solve problems and resolve conflict? Is it presented honestly? . . . 2. Is nonviolence, the way of dialogue, presented as a credible alternative?”