Media Violence Gets No Action From Congress

After months of bluster about Hollywood’s coarsening of the culture, Congress adjourned Friday without producing a single bill concerning entertainment violence--a testament to the power of the industry’s lobby, government gridlock and the complexity of a problem that may be beyond the reach of legislation.

But even while every congressional attempt to regulate music, movie and video game content met with fierce resistance, some believe a defiant industry got at least part of the message. In its rather clumsy way, Washington helped prod a debate over gratuitous violence that, at the very least, has set Hollywood to thinking, several producers, writers and other industry representatives insist.

“Inadvertently, Congress ended up doing the American public an enormous favor by calling attention to the issue of entertainment media culpability,” said Thom Mount, president of the Producers Guild of America. “Everything in Hollywood takes three years to make, and in three years I think you will see a noticeable push toward eliminating gratuitous violence. No one I talk to here thinks we don’t bear some responsibility.”

Six months ago, it appeared Congress was on the verge of raising more than the industry’s consciousness following the shootings at Colorado’s Columbine High School. Then, legislation to bridle Hollywood was churning out of congressional committees faster than lawmakers could read it: a ban on the use of public land for violent films, incentives for resurrecting old codes of conduct, cigarette-style warning labels on violent entertainment, a ban on selling violent or sexual books and materials to minors.

Yet, despite unprecedented momentum from the nation’s worst school shooting and growing public concern over the quality of children’s entertainment, the frenzied campaign in Congress to take Hollywood to task fizzled like a blockbuster that never rises to its advanced billing.

Washington’s only concrete action occurred in June when President Clinton ordered a Federal Trade Commission study of the marketing of entertainment violence to children. GOP leaders, some of whom accused the president of stealing their show, ultimately could not muster the votes to broaden the probe.

“We lucked out,” said one Washington-based film studio executive. “I don’t think we’ve won forever. But we’ve prevented the inevitable for now.”

Indeed, many industry officials believe some sort of legislation regarding Hollywood violence will pass before the November 2000 elections. Presidential candidates from both parties continue to raise it as an issue. And the FTC is expected to report its findings at the end of next year, which could prompt congressional hearings.

Some Changes Since Columbine

But how far any future legislation will ultimately go is questionable, given the political gyrations in the seven months since Columbine. Lawmakers spent much of the time warring over which to blame--guns or Hollywood--for the shootings that claimed 15 lives. In the end, they didn’t do much about either.

Gun control legislation was recently declared dead for the year, and a handful of minor entertainment-related provisions passed by the Senate are stuck in a conference committee.

Still, there has been some change since Columbine.

This week, the Motion Picture Assn. of America announced a new policy calling for all movie print advertising to include an explanation of why a film received a particular rating. The move--a response to criticism that its current rating system does not give parents sufficient information--will mean that billboards, newspaper ads and posters will not just have a letter rating (G, PG, PG-13, R or NC-17) but will list the elements that earned it (language, nudity, drug use, etc.).

The nation’s largest theater owners, meanwhile, say they are more tightly enforcing the rating system, requiring since June that young viewers show photo identification for admission to R-rated films.

The Entertainment Software Ratings Board in New York this month launched a national campaign to make parents aware of the computer and video game rating system, including a public service announcement featuring golfer Tiger Woods. (In a classic case of mixed signals, however, a new video game called Blow Away Your Boss, in which players can insert a photo of someone and then hunt them with a handgun through a simulated office, was released almost simultaneously.)

Some television projects have been shelved as needlessly gruesome. The guilds for producers, writers and directors are encouraging their members to be mindful of the violent content of their projects, and an industrywide summit on Hollywood violence is planned for early next year, entertainment sources say.

Informal Awareness in Hollywood Circles

In general, Hollywood leaders speak of an informal, prevailing awareness that creators must consider whether violence is necessary to tell the story, rather than merely appeal to the lurid interests of even the most willing audiences, particularly young audiences.

“On a Monday night at Morton’s or Friday night at Le Dome, this issue is a very live one. People are talking about it and trying to sort it out,” Mount says.

The renewed awareness has come despite an inconsistent viewing public: “The Fight Club,” a film notable for its violence, flopped at the box office, while “The Bone Collector,” almost equally grisly, has soared. “The Iron Giant,” which won rave reviews from critics as ideal children’s entertainment, fizzled in theaters.

Still, many industry leaders have concluded that repetitive, senseless violence is dangerously numbing, even while they challenge the notion that actions depicted in films influence real life.

“It is not that violent pictures create more violence, but the constant litany of gratuitous violence is destructive to the fabric of the culture because it lowers our threshold for sensitivity to the issue,” Mount said.

While actors have hardly mounted the bully pulpit, some have quietly expressed their concern that entertainment violence has gone far enough.

Bruce Willis, explaining his switch from action films to love stories, said in a recent USA Today interview that the 1996 movie “Last Man Standing” marked “the beginning of the end” of his tough guy roles. “Very violent,” he said. “I had just gotten tired of it . . . and I think audiences have had enough of that.”

Even if change cannot be measured in federal legislation, Washington may have succeeded in reframing the debate from a battle over content to a battle over the marketing of violent products.

The FTC inquiry is all about advertising--not whether Hollywood should be making the violent stuff but whether it should be selling it to children. And lawmakers, frustrated by 1st Amendment protections against regulating creative content, are looking at other ways to make life difficult for Hollywood’s business side.

Congress will likely be more vigorous in scrutinizing the public interest obligations of broadcasters next year as they transition to the Digital Age. Part of that discussion could focus on programming standards dealing with violence and sex, according to a Senate aide.

“What should broadcasters’ public interest obligations be?” the aide asked. “They can expect a more vigorous examination of that question, with violence being a factor.”

*

Times staff writer Amy Wallace in Los Angeles contributed to this story.