Preserving Artistic Freedom While Protecting Children

I felt compelled to respond to John McNamara’s Counterpunch (“We Have a Vote on Violence,” Aug. 30). His reflexive, infuriated opposition to Kenneth Turan’s suggestion that movie makers merely consider what effect their work might have on their audience stands as a prime example of the difficulty of solving any major social problem.

Each self-interested group is content to pontificate on what others are doing wrong without ever conceding that their own constituency might have even the slightest culpability as well. Outraged politicians blame reckless filmmakers. Indignant filmmakers blame lax parental supervision. The NRA blames the MPAA, and vice versa. Everyone’s eager to point the finger at someone else. If only fingers were all we had to worry about being pointed.

Just as gun zealots hide behind the 2nd Amendment, too many of us in the entertainment industry cling to the properly revered 1st Amendment while refusing to admit that our products might have any negative influence. This self-serving attitude boils down to: “I have the right to do whatever I want, and I take no responsibility for how it affects anyone else.”

How is this different from the viewpoint of the well-armed imbeciles who walk into schools or office buildings, firing indiscriminately, focused purely on appeasing their own selfish desires with no concern for the impact their behavior has on others?

McNamara’s view seems to be that any amount of critical self-evaluation on the part of filmmakers is tantamount to censorship and will result in the production of nothing but the blandest, most inoffensive pap. By this rationale, any limitations at all must be unacceptable infringement on the absolute rights of the artist. Profanity and nudity and graphic violence should be acceptable at all times in all media because to restrict an artist’s right to use those tools would be censorship--right?

Of course not. Rational people should be able to find ways of preserving artists’ freedom of expression to make adult material while still protecting parents’ rights to shield their children from works that may not yet be appropriate for them.

Unfortunately, it seems nearly impossible to get rational people from all sides of the argument to sit down calmly and discuss how best to handle this complicated issue.

In Peter Bart’s recent book, “The Gross,” he discusses how the producer of “Saving Private Ryan” was initially reluctant to approach Tom Hanks because Hanks had made it known he didn’t wish to appear in movies where he would carry a gun--presumably because he didn’t want to convey to his fans that using a gun was an acceptable, or even fun, way to resolve life’s problems. Obviously Hanks saw something different in “Ryan,” one of the most graphically violent films in history, because it dealt thoughtfully with the realities of the carnage inflicted during warfare.

If only more writers, directors, actors and executives in positions of power had Hanks’ sense of personal accountability for the lessons they are conveying, then the entertainment industry might not be such an easy target for those who wish to deflect attention away from their own accountability.

We all play a role in improving our cultural climate. Looking at the current situation as if there are only idealistic good guys on our side and only narrow-minded bad guys on the other is a simplistic, dangerous concept--one we all learned at the movies. No, wait, I forgot: Movies can’t possibly communicate bad lessons. We’re all enlightened and perfect. After all, we’re from Hollywood!