Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf (2 Disk Special Edition): Commentary by Mike Nichols. Dir. Mike Nichols. Perf. Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2006.  The commentary track on the special edition DVD provides perhaps the most insightful perspective of the film as far as the on-set culture and interactions that occurred daily during the production of the film.  Nichols gives a very in depth explanation of each scene, which includes filming techniques, lighting issues, relationships between actors and cameramen, as well as script censorship issues.  For instance, Nichols explains how the studio forced them to change the explicative used by Martha as George opens the front door to greet the arriving guests. It was Nichols first feature film and was much different than the documentary style he was used to working with.  It was very interesting to hear about the different challenges that the crew faced depending on the scene.  Nichols also explains some of the back and forth battle that occurred between himself and the playwright Edward Albee as they attempted to adopt the Broadway play to the big screen.  It is a valuable resource for examining the mindset of the filmmakers as they challenged the PCA in order to present the film as the artist intended.

This Film is Not Yet Rated. Dir. Kirby Dick. Perf. Kirby Dick, Jack Valenti, Kimberly Pierce, Alison Anders, and John Waters. IFC, Netflix, and BBC, 2006.  This Film Is Not Yet Rated is an independent documentary film about the Motion Picture Association of America's rating system.  It is an in-depth discussion about the current rating system, adopted under Jack Valenti's tenure as president of the MPAA, and attempts to challenge the system as unfair to the artists and filmmakers of independent films.  The main argument is that the review board of the MPAA is an unfair representation of the general public and that often times filmmakers receive unfair ratings that cost them millions of dollars in studio funding and box office sales.  It shows how an NC-17 rating can be a dreaded rating to receive to filmmakers because it often means that the release of their film is doomed to fail.  It also attempts to derive trends in the rating system that implies unfair judgments including: homophobia, female pleasure, and certain sexual movements.  Criticizing the reasoning behind these trends, Kirby points out the fact that violence in films is not poorly received by the board and often skates by without scolding.  This documentary is an excellent examination of the current rating system and begs the question of whether the MPAA is just a tool for serving the big budget studios rather than protecting the public from inappropriate content.

Lewis, John. Hollywood V. Hardcore: How the Struggle Over Censorship Saved the Modern Film Industry. New York and London: New York UP, 2000. 135-191. 

            Chapter 4, titled Hollywood v. Soft Core, examines arguably the most influential year of film censorship to date.  In this year, MPAA president Jack Valenti issued a press release to stating that a new production code/ move rating system would be put into place.  The same system is still used today to rate films.  The chapter does a good job of outlining the events of how this code came into place. The author explains how the "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" was denied by the PCA but began production anyway, anticipating that change was to come.  It talks about the controversy over the language such as "screw" and "hump the hostess" were debated and the issues Valenti faced with content regulation.  In the end of the meeting, Warner Brothers appealed the PCA's preliminary ruling to deny Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf and the film was released.  Because of the films amazing success, it marked a point in history where the industry was beginning to understand that the Production Code was a dated system.  The film was released with a warning stating "for adults only" and ranked third in the box office list in 1966 behind two other mature-themed pictures. This chapter is very useful and entertaining in its explanation of the pressures and challenges that Valenti faced when negotiating the new rating system. It offers a very in depth perspective and takes the reader on a film by film journey of the controversy.

This journal article focuses on the challenges of adopting the Broadway play into a feature film.  It gives details about screen treatment of the drama's action, setting, and language.  A lot of insight is offered about Nichols' vision for the play v. Lehman’s.  This mostly stems from the pressures of the industry standards that Lehman was under v. Nichols' desire to be true to Albee's original work.  Nichol's was not an experienced filmmaker but he trusted in Albee's vision and never tried to be an artist and offer an alternate interpretation of the script.  Leff goes into detail about scenes that Lehman wanted to add but later removed from the script. Leonard’s take on the adaptation is very insightful and refreshing.  Lehman apparently did his best to make comprehension of the film easier for audiences because he feared that many would miss the subtle underlying themes present in the play.  One of the most interesting issues faced on the set was whether to include the bedroom scene and how they would present it to a moviegoer audience..

This article gives a fairly good description of the life of Jack Valenti, who arguably had more power over the motion picture industry than anyone who ever lived.  Paragraphs 9 through 16 are particularly useful for formulating a perspective on the era in which Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf was released. It explains how there was a compromise in which three out of four vulgarisms were cut. It also gives credit to the film Blowup for using Woolf's momentum to cause its own controversy with brief nudity and sexual themes.  Fearing that censorship power might return to the individual states, Valenti acted,” I knew I had to move swiftly, and I did,” he later recalled. “I was determined to free the screen from anything like the Hays Code. But I also emphasized that freedom demanded responsibility.”  Some interesting notes are the fact that the movie Gremlins inspired Valenti to add a PG-13 rating to the initial rating system.  Also, the X rating was changed to NC-17.  The author then touches on one of the downfalls of Valenti's rating system, "distributors have mostly spurned [NC-17 ratings] for commercial reasons, leaving many filmmakers to make wrenching cuts to adult-themed films in pursuit of an R rating."  This explains some of the controversy over the rating system that still goes on today.  The rest of the article continues to elaborate on his incredible life but is less valuable for examining film censorship.

Gardner, Gerald. The Censorship Papers: Movie Censorship Letters From the Hays Office, 1934 to 7968. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1987. 198-200.This part of Chapter 17, Dramas From Broadway, offers a very informative look at the process of the PCA when reviewing the script of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf.  It tells of the meeting between Jack L. Warner and chief censor Geoffrey Shurlock.  After reading a copy of the play by Edward Albee the censor gave a list of all of the explicatives and phrases that would be considered unacceptable by the PCA, which the chapter lists completely.  This is a great example of the strictness of the PCA and its discretion towards strong language and sexual themes.  When the film was actually made, many of these phrases are omitted or altered.  The chapter goes on to explain how the Warner Brother's film held faithful to the Albee play.  It was denied by the PCA and was appealed to the MPAA board.  The chapter then lists the reasons why the MPAA decided to release the film after all.  The reasons were: The film was not designed to be prurient; Warner Brothers has taken the position that no person under eighteen will be admitted unless accompanied by a parent, and that the exemption does not mean that the floodgates are open for language or other material. This chapter is very useful for getting an inside look at the appeal process of the time and the drastic exceptions made on behalf of who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf.

Doherty, Thomas. Pre-Code Hollywood. New York: Columbia UP, 1999. 319-346.The twelfth chapter of Pre-Code Hollywood examines the Hollywood Cinema during an era when Joseph I. Breen and the Motion Picture Producers and Distributers of America began to enforce what is known as the Hays Production Code.  The chapter gives accounts of events leading up to the adoption of the code and how it was recieved by filmmakers and the public.  It gives a good representation of the extent that the Roman Catholic Church and the "National Legion of Decency spearheaded a renewed and more aggressive crusade to clean up [the film industry."  Going into detail, the authors explains many of the church's tactics to try to curb its followers away from the film industry, going as far as to station people outside of theaters to make sure that Catholics weren't going to see movies that the church deemed objectionable.The NRA Code is the next turn of the chapter.  Bringing up the court case ruling in Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, where the government considered the film industry as purely a business and not a tool for public opinion.  This marked the beginning of more federal power over censorship, rather than relying on local state regulation.  One trade press manager summed the situation up by stating, "the whole world has gotten the idea that Hollywood is Hell's home office and Hays is the District Manager.” In order to lessen the influence of the Catholic Church the MPPDA granted the Production Code Administration autonomy and power.  This meant that the PCA would have to approve of a film before the banks would fund it.  Joseph I. Breen was put in charge and effectively enforced the Code, even reportedly stating, "I am the Code".  Many movies that carried the tones of pre-Code Hollywood were refused by the Breen Office.  The chapter goes further into explaining the effect it had on Hollywood film budgets and box office sales and gives an overall impression that films were more boring post-Code. The end of the chapter briefly explains how the 60's marked a period where the Code was considered dated. This chapter is a good indicator of the type of censorship environment that the country was used to before the making of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf.  It puts the era into a good context for considering the challenges that faced Mike Nichols and Ernest Lehman when the film was being made and released.

This article shows the sequence of events, as well as the pressure groups involved, leading up to the Hays Production Code.  The article begins by explaining the strong influence the Catholic Church and the Legion of Decency began developing during the 1930's, taking formal shape in 1933.  It explains the "Legion pledge," which was a prayer-like oath that every Catholic Church, school, or other group was made to recite.  It went as follows: "I condemn absolutely those debauching motion pictures which, with other degrading agencies, are corrupting public morals and promoting a sex mania in our land" affirmed the pledger. "Considering these evils, I hereby promise to remain away from all motion pictures except those which do not offend decency and Christian morality."  This illustrates just one of the incredibly drastic tactics that the church used to bring down Pre-Code Hollywood.  He then goes into detail of a study performed by the Motion Picture Research Council that claimed strong evidence of negative influence that film has on children.  Doherty then goes into detail about the tug-of-war battles that occurred between the NRA divisional administrator and the MPAA.  He then goes on to put Joseph Breen's power over the PCA into its true context.  The reality was that under his authority as supreme sentinel and inspector general of American cinema, no Hollywood film received a visa for exhibition without meeting Code specifications as interpreted by Joseph I. Breen. It was he who vetted story lines, blue-penciled dialogue, and exercised the moral equivalent of final cut over hundreds of motion pictures per year. "More than any single individual, he shaped the moral stature of the American motion picture."

This article covers the history of film censorship in the United States extensively.  It begins by explaining the different factors that lead up the self-regulation of the motion picture industry.  Then it goes over every detail of the MPAA rating system, fully explaining the G,M,R, and X ratings.  The article takes a turn when Bates attacks the rating system for its unconstitutional implications. He argues that films should not be limited in content because that would violate the filmmakers' First Amendment rights.  He then goes into detail the vast differences between government censorship and the MPAA system which "lacks procedural safeguards that would be required of a state classification scheme".  He then proceeds to attack the MPAA for their claims of not being a censorship agency.  Towards the end, Bates makes strong arguments for the implementation of state action concepts to MPAA film classification.  He explains the governmental-function, government-enforced, and state-inaction theories as possible alternatives to the current problem.  He also examines the theoretical scope of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Bates overall perspectives are very insightful for delving into the controversy of the MPAA system and the solutions he offers are very interesting and intuitive. His words serve to challenge the MPAA and any other organization that has seemingly unlimited power over people with little to no government intervention.

Valenti, Jack. "Ratings History: How it All Began". Motion Picture Association of America Online. <http://www.mpaa.org/Ratings_HowItAllBegan.asp>.

 

This article, written by former president of the MPAA Jack Valenti, details how the MPAA film rating system was conceived. He describes the turbulent national scene in 1966 – women’s rights, civil rights, youth protests, and “crumbling of social traditions.” Since he realized that a “new kind of American movie” was being made by filmmakers with a much more open course of dialogue between the filmmaker and the viewer, filmmakers felt they were subject to fewer restraints and restrictions, simply exercising the will of the people. The Hays Code had been continually challenged through loopholes over the years and the emerging counter-culture seemed determined to throw it out altogether. He describes one instance where MGM tried to market the first major studio picture with nudity, which was denied by the PCA of California. The Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that states could constitutionally prevent children from seeing films but not adults. Filmmakers were becoming more brazen and thus, bad language and controversial images were becoming more common. Ultimately, the rating system had to be created in 1968 to take the place of the now-defunct Hays Code.

This is relevant to Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song because of the way it was marketed, rated, and ultimately distributed. The film received an X rating “by an all-whyte jury” (according to the film’s opening credits), which went along with the pornographic pretence director Melvin Van Peebles created during production in order to avoid trouble on the set of his controversial film. The rating system was still in its infancy in 1971 when the film was released and thus, many changes in the system were still being implemented. In 1970, the minimum age of admission to R-rated movies was raised from 15 to 16 while X-rated films remained at 17. The audience limitations set by this new system made it even harder for Van Peebles to get exhibitors to play his racy, independent film at first. Of course, the rampant success of the film changed all that, but the historical cinematic context in which Sweetback was released made its initial opening and distribution much tougher. Now, filmmaker's consider it a curse if their film receives the NC-17 rating (replacement for X), since very few papers advertise NC-17-rated films. Sweetback was the shining example of this and this article helps show the impact of the initial X-rating.  The film’s rating has since been changed to R.

Drucker, Jerry. "Hays Code: Out-Psyched by Hitch." Los Angeles Times 28 Oct. 1979: w4. Proquest Historical Newspapers. University of Pennsylvania. 7 Apr. 2008.

    When North by Northwest was released, the Hays Production Code still had incredible influence. Any film that did not have the official seal was essentially locked out of the major distribution and exhibition avenues. Only two films had ever bypassed the code and despite their box office successes, few studios were willing to risk losing the seal of approval. The code was incredibly strict involving moral standards, and thus sexual and violent undertones needed to be minimized to ensure the Board's approval. This article was written by an insider who had the opportunity to sit inside the Board's screening room as they watched Psycho. It became immediately clear that strong changes were needed; however Hitchcock was known for being unwilling to compromise his autonomy in filmmaking. Thus a strong negotiation ensued in which certain shots were traded with others until the film eventually passed muster.

    This showdown between the censors and Hitchcock was inevitably an escalation from his previous film North by Northwest. Full of sexual innuendo and provocative scenes, the Board had objections to many of the frequent references to intercourse throughout the film. Hitchcock carefully avoided overt discussion, often substituting the word "love" for "sex", and using imagery to imply action (for example, a shot of passionate kisses cuts to a shot of their train entering a tunnel). The final cut of the film was risqué for the time period, but managed to successfully hide the sexual references from younger and uncultured minds, which was no doubt a critical hurdle for Hitchcock to overcome in order to obtain the seal for the film.  The symbolism and innuendos created require a much more engaged viewer, which ultimately helps to maximize the effects of suspenseful situations.

 Variety.com - MPAA tries to remove NC-17 stigma: Glickman takes a hard look at ratings

Sat., Mar. 10, 2007

The courts' decision in “MPAA vs. 2600” prevented journals from writing articles about Digital Right Management that divulge methodology. After “DVD Jon's” deCSS program (which breaks the encryption on DVDs) began circulation, 2600 had an article in print and online which detailed the algorithm and decryption codes used in breaking the CSS encryption. The MPAA filed suit under the trafficking provision of the DMCA, claiming that 2600 was distributing a program which would contribute to breaking DVD encryption. 2600 claimed that this inhibits free speech. As a technical journal which specializes in computer encryption and decryption algorithms , it needed to be able to provide the details to its readers. The magazine complied with the injunction to remove the algorithm from their site but began to participate in what they referred to as “electronic civil disobedience” by encouraging others to post the algorithm and then provided links to these sites.

The court determined that both posting and linking were not protected by the first amendment. They determined that while there is a part of code which is speech, there is also a non-speech component which can be banned under the anti-circumvention clause. Exemptions are provided for reverse engineering and cryptography. However, these exemptions only extend to the cryptographers and the reverse engineers directly. Publishing their results is not considered an exemption. The consequence of this decision is that to prevent lawsuits, technical journals will likely avoid discussion of Digital Rights Management. For example, discovery of important security flaws would not be published because it might hint as to how to break the encryption. Understanding the flaws of the current generation however is essential to enhancing security for in the future. Development of future security methods have continued to be crippled by the DMCA, due to the limited scope of the exemptions.

            This article traces the MPAA’s classification of R, X, and NC-17 films. This relates to Stanley Kubrick’s decisions to cut scenes from A Clockwork Orange in order to get an R rating. Sandler argues that Hollywood created the X rating for maximum profitability and freedom of expression only to later avoid it because of its association with pornography and therefore condemnation. The MPAA didn’t copyright the X rating, enabling distributors to self-impose X on unrespectable films. Initially, Hollywood used the sexual connotation of the rating to sell films. The successes didn’t last long. Through editing films to get an R rating, the major studios helped to confirm the end of X rated production…until Showgirls in 1995, which then proved that adult only ratings were to be avoided. The article lists statistics showing the drop off of X rated films and also tells us which studios refused to make them. He also explains the evolution of trailer ratings. The National Association of Theater Owners (NATO) refused X films while pornographers picked them up. We learn of the court cases that defined obscenity and of Hollywood’s fear of losing control of censorship. In 1990, NC-17 was copyrighted and served as a marker between X and R. Due to criticism on freedom of expression, the MPAA hoped to get films out that weren’t thought of as strictly porn. Of course, critics of the new rating said they were just renaming smut. Still, the major studios did not release NC-17 films, causing others to think of them as unmarketable. Also, NATO took a stand against NC-17 by including it with X. We learn that video retailers avoided them, also, which was important to revenue. Sandler then goes on to detail the marketing practices behind Showgirls and how MGM/UA debunked the myth that NC-17 was unmarketable. They were able to advertise in newspapers, television, video rentals, and theatres with special trailers.  Still, the film bombed at the box office, thus confirming that NC-17 was to be avoided. He summarizes studies done that confirm people’s negative perception of the NC-17 rating. He addresses other factors that may have led to Showgirl’s box-office failure. He also informs the reader about the not-so independent distributors conflicts in distributing NC-17 films because of their parent companies, namely Miramax and Fine Line.