Introduction
Cinematography nowadays has the freedom of speech and produces films that educate on the past, showing credible facts and scenarios, and bringing the audience’s attention to the acute issues of the modern world. However, this has not always been accessible to filmmakers since the regulations that lasted for more than three decades in the 20th century limited the rights of directors and studios. Still, after reviewing the effects of such regulation, it becomes evident that the government should not intervene to censor or regulate the film industry with any intentions, since it violates the rights of people and turns into a dictatorship over such fields.
Censorship and Moral Decay
History of Censorship in the 1930s-60s
First, it is vital to consider the history of the U.S. film industry and censorship. The majority decision made by the Supreme Court in Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio prevented motion pictures from claiming to be protected by freedom of speech and expression for 37 years, from 1915 to 1952 (Rosenberg). Ohio established legislation creating a censorship board for all films planned to be shown in the state after realizing that some films would be judged obscene (Allen).
The 1915 ruling was reversed in 1952, making it hard to control movies since the previous criteria were considered outmoded (Allen). As a result, with such rigid censorship, the flexibility of film companies, filmmakers, and writers was severely hampered. The studios could not show their picture in the theaters since they had no rights.
Forms of Censorship and Content Regulation
As for the forms of censorship, they included strict criteria that separated movies with good topics and elements from those that should have been banned. Hays and the committee that ruled what should be shown in the theaters heavily controlled the film industry, which included only a few topics (Allen). If somebody managed to display the work, the company would be penalized $25,000 for doing so (Allen). In this sense, the companies were not just reliant on such criteria but were threatened with penalties for disobedience.
The forms of censorship relied on religious postulates and propaganda concepts. First, the religious movement helped change Hollywood’s style and movies from the earlier decadence to a more morally upright business that considered the media’s effect on the general public (Hallowell). In this sense, any hint of sinful actions was banned. According to Pennsylvania’s regional moral arbiters, footage of a woman sewing baby clothing had even been cut out since children there think that the stork carries babies to them (Rosenberg).
Moreover, the propaganda aspect of the censorship intended for the TV to show only appealing scenes rather than disturbing pictures that would affect the nation’s perceptions of the government. For instance, during World War I, a director who made a movie on the Revolutionary War that showed British soldiers committing acts of violence faced ten years of prison, according to Supreme Court history (Rosenberg). As a result, the forms of censorship were based on religious tenets, propaganda, and limitation of rights.
Conclusion
In sum, the government should not regulate the movie industry since its influence leads to an authoritarian presence in this field. As seen from the history of the American film industry, the censorship law has been present for over three decades, suffocating filmmakers with laws. Directors, writers, and studios had to follow the strict criteria that separated good movies from negative ones. As a result, religious concepts and propaganda influenced such a form of censorship, showing only movies without a hint of sin and those that would not lead to undesirable relationships with the authorities.
Works Cited
Allen, Nathan. “Censoring the Movies — What was the ‘Hays Code.’” Medium, 2020. Web.
Hallowell, Billy. “Hollywood Once Had a Vibrant Moral and Ethical Code. What Happened?” The Blaze, 2017. Web.
Rosenberg, Alyssa. “Hollywood is Quick to Cry Censorship. The Industry’s Not Wrong to Be Afraid.” The Washington Post, 2015. Web.