subscribe to this page
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.
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.
Sarris, Andrew. The American Cinema. New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., 1968. 217-218.
Call#: PN1993.5.U6 S3
In his critical assessment of directors and their pictures in the sound era, Andrew Sarris focuses on directors' ability to totally control a motion picture and manifest their artistic and stylistic ability. He calls this auteur theory. A director is like an author writing a novel - he has complete creative license and direction to create the various characters, setting, tone, and mood of the film. Sarris states that "everything Mike Nichols has touched on stage and screen has turned to gold, if not glory." He says that Nichols' film Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf? preened itself on its honesty. At that time Nichols was trying to bring a subtlety to Hollywood, and he "trascended The Graduate." The actors in the movie had "little marquee value", and Charles Webb's novel on which the movie is based was not well-known. Nichols' neat and eclectic style is what made the film so successful. He is considered to be more a tactician than a strategist. It should also be noted that Nichols is mentioned in other directors' pieces in the book. He is compared to Frances Ford Coppola in his entry. It's clear that Sarris has great respect for Nichols and recognizes him as an auteur.
Throughout The Graduate, it's clear that Nichols has complete control over the film's production. There are many scenes that are extremely creative and very different than what most people were used to seeing in the 1960s. For example, the film begins with Benjamin Braddock's flight home to Los Angeles. He is shown sitting lazily on the plane listening to the monotonous voice of the pilot describing the weather. This scene, both unique and simple, is proof of Nichols' control over the characters and the setting of the film.