Controlling Hollywood: Censorship and Regulation in the Studio Era (review)

Book Reviews | Regular Feature demonstrate that—art or not—film nevertheless dominated the past century culturally, politically, and socially. It surely has become the most ubiquitous of art forms. Michael Strada West Liberty State College and West Virginia University mjstrada@cs.com Matthew Bernstein. Controlling Hollywood: Censorship and Regulation in the Studio Era. Rutgers University Press, 1999. 292 pages; $19.00, paper. Informative Overview Writing about the history of motion picture censorship is something ofa sticky wicket. Part ofthe reason is despite the best efforts of countless organizations and movements, there hasn't ever really been a uniform code for controlling Hollywood's product . Even in the Production Code days, the "rules" were often applied differently from film to film. Because of the enormity of the subject, most authors focusing on the regulation ofHollywood movies choose a particular slice of history with which to deal, thus allowing themto elucidate about a specific time period. While specialized study is an effective approach, it doesn't always provide a comprehensive subject profile; conversely, Controlling Hollywood: Censorship and Regulation in the Studio Era—edited by Matthew Bernstein—covers most ofHollywood's history, omitting only the last twenty years. While this anthology lacks the intricate period details of some of its more specialized counterparts , it offers an informative overview of the history of Hollywood censorship. Controlling Hollywood features ten essays, each examining a major turning point in the battle over film regulation. While all ofthe articles are well written and researched, two in particular stand out: Justin Wyatt's "The Stigma ofX: Adult Cinema and the Institution of the MPAA Ratings System," and Jeff Smith's "A Good Business Proposition: Dalton Trumbo, Spartacus, and the End of the Blacklist." In, "A Good Business Proposition," Smith examines the oft cited case of Dalton Trumbo— one of the Hollywood Ten— the first blacklisted screenwriter to get an on-screen credit, with the 1960 release of Spartacus. While Trumbo is generally credited with having fought against the system to almost single-handedly bring about the end of the blacklist, Smith paints a far different picture, arguing instead that Trumbo earned his screen credit not by fighting against the powers that be, but by working with them to rehabilitate the reputation of blacklisted screenwriters. Also fascinating is Smith's discussion of Trumbo's work within the machinations ofHollywood's black market—for outlawed screenwriters —which ultimately resulted in a huge Hollywood embarrassment when—using the pseudonym, Robert Rich—Trumbo won the Best Original Story Academy Award for The Brave One (1956). Wyatt's,"The Stigma ofX," is equally riveting in its discussion of the consequences of the institution of the 1968 MPAA rating categories. The motivation behind the system was ostensibly so parents would have a gauge tojudge what was appropriate viewing for their children. But, as Wyatt convincingly argues, the institution of the letter ratings—especially the X—"allowed filmmakers to exploit particular audiences and gain box office revenue through ratings." Supporting his point are insightful examinations of the initial marketing and subsequent box office of a number of films from the late 60s and early 70s, including / Am Curious (Yellow) (1969), Deep Throat (1972), and Emmanuelle (1974). Controlling Hollywood 's main shortcoming is where it stops. The title indicates that it is the studio era (roughly from the 20s to the late 50s) that will be examined, but the book covers well before and after what is generally considered to have been the studio era. In choosing Wyatt's article as his finale, Bernstein has left out the last 20 years, during which there has been considerable debate on the content of Hollywood films, ranging from the reaction to Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ (1988) to the introduction of the NC-17 rating as a kind of non-pornographic X. Even this past summer there was much discussion about Scary Movie (2000) and its R rating. Why did a comedy with gratuitous full frontal male nudity get an R with no questions asked when a drama featuring the same shots normally doesn't? Another two or three articles covering events in the 80s and 90s would have nicely rounded out what is an otherwise...