DIPLOMARBEIT Titel der Diplomarbeit Ove-R-ated Disciplinary Power and the MPAA – A Foucauldian Approach Verfasser Michael Neulinger angestrebter akademischer Grad Magister der Philosophie (Mag. phil.) Wien, Jänner 2013 Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt: A 343 Studienrichtung lt. Studienblatt: Diplomstudium Anglistik und Amerikanistik Betreuerin: ao. Univ. Prof. Dr. Monika Seidl Thank you Parents! Grandma! Friends! Lover! And thank you to my supervisor and everybody else who was involved! Table of Contents 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 2. Censorship and the American Film Industry ............................................... 4 2.1. The Rise of the Hays Office ............................................................................... 6 2.2. The Motion Picture Production Code .............................................................. 9 2.3. The New Rating System ................................................................................... 13 3. Michel Foucault: Power, Knowledge & Discipline .................................... 15 3.1. Discourse ........................................................................................................... 15 3.2. Power Relations, Knowledge & the Subject .................................................. 19 3.3. Discipline, Surveillance & Normalization ...................................................... 26 3.4. Resistance, Self-Regulation & Technologies of Self ...................................... 32 4. The MPAA & Disciplinary Power ............................................................... 36 4.1. The MPAA as a Disciplinary Institution ........................................................ 36 4.1.1. The MPAA’s Hierarchical Observation ..................................................... 40 4.2. Ratings as Normalizing Judgment .................................................................. 42 4.2.1. Historic Development ................................................................................ 42 4.2.2. Process of Normalization ........................................................................... 46 4.3. The MPAA’s Disciplinary System of Power .................................................. 51 5. Descriptive Shot-by-Shot Analysis .............................................................. 53 5.1. Straw Dogs 1971 & 2011 .................................................................................. 53 5.1.1. 1971 – Unrated vs. Rated-R ....................................................................... 54 5.1.2. 2011 – Rated-R .......................................................................................... 58 5.2. I Spit On Your Grave 1978 & 2010 ................................................................ 62 5.2.1. 1978 – Unrated vs. Rated-R ....................................................................... 62 5.2.2. 2010 – Unrated ........................................................................................... 67 5.3. Last House On The Left 1972 & 2009 ............................................................ 71 5.3.1. 1972 – Unrated ........................................................................................... 72 5.3.2. 2009 – Unrated vs. Rated-R ....................................................................... 73 5.4. Discussion .......................................................................................................... 75 6. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 77 7. Works Cited and Consulted ......................................................................... 80 7.1. Films .................................................................................................................. 82 7.2. Electronic Sources ............................................................................................ 83 8. German Abstract .......................................................................................... 85 9. Curriculum Vitae .......................................................................................... 88 10. Appendix ........................................................................................................ 89 1. Introduction Hence The MORAL IMPORTANCE of entertainment is something which has been universally recognized. It enters intimately into the lives of men and women and affects them closely; it occupies their minds and affections during leisure hours; and ultimately touches the while of their lives. A man may be judged by his standard of entertainment as easily as by the standard of his work. So correct entertainment raises the whole standard of a nation. Wrong entertainment lowers the whole living conditions and moral ideals of a race. (Inglis 212) The above quote is taken from the Motion Picture Production Code of 1930, a set of rules and guidelines operating from 1930 to 1968, which was installed to secure the moral values of American movies (Tropiano 52). During this time, also ironically known as the Golden Age of Hollywood, filmmakers had to obey the code in order to find work with film studios and consequently, release their films. Violations of the guidelines were punished with a monetary penalty of $25,000 and movies were not allowed to be released without the Production Code seal of approval. These strict measurements ensured the enforcement of the code (Keough 309). By the mid 1960s, after two decades of enforced censorship, the production code slowly lost its tight grip on the American film industry. During that time, various films were released that did not fully adhere to the imposed rules. First screened in 1966, Mike Nichols’ Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolf allegedly caused the eventual failure of the Production Code due to its explicit language. Two years later in 1968, the newly appointed president of the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America), Jack Valenti, introduced an age based rating system, which replaced the old Production Code and is still in use today (Keough 309- 310). Throughout its history, the American film industry was subject to various forms of censorship, which led to a disciplinary omnipresence of (self)-regulation shaping and defining all vital aspects of this important sector of cultural production. Since external interventions show such a long-standing history within the area of movie production, my diploma thesis is specifically dealing with the effects censorship has on the American cinema. 1 As an introduction to the field of film censorship in the United States, I will summarize the historic developments that lead to the implementation of the contemporary film rating system and the MPAA as its representative institution. Beginning with the pre-code area and the situation of the film industry in the 1920s, I will highlight the events which ultimately caused the enforcement of the Production Code in the 1930s. Subsequently, the focus will shift towards the post- code area, dealing with the MPAA and its “voluntary” rating system. I will explain the MPAA’s function within the industry in more detail and present the different ratings, their meaning and the impact they have on films. Since the MPAA scarcely releases information about itself, most of my knowledge is based on second hand material, i.e. academic studies, articles, and the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated by Kirby Dick, which offers a rare insight behind the institution’s walls. The aim of this paper is to show that the MPAA is using a disciplinary system of power as a strategy to censor films and foster self-discipline by employing certain regulatory techniques such as normalization and constant surveillance among others. Through a comparative discourse analysis of three selected films from the early years of the movie rating system in the 1970s and their contemporary remakes of the 2000s, I will analyze in greater detail regulatory measures imposed by the MPAA. Comparing these two decades will help me to answer the question in how far the MPAA’s behavior towards censorship has changed from the beginning of the rating system to its contemporary conduction. Since recent studies by Jenkins (2005), Leone (2006), and Tickle (2009) have already addressed violence and sex as separate topics of research concerning censorship. As a consequence, I will focus my analysis on scenes depicting sexual violence and rape in order to provide a greater variety of results. Michel Foucault’s concepts of power, knowledge and discipline, which fundamentally influenced the way we approach cultural studies, serve as the base for my theoretical analysis. Foucault states that power and discipline are not one- dimensionally imposed by authoritarian institutions that work from above but that disciplinary discourses shape our very subjectivity and work from within, constructing “docile bodies”, which police and regulate themselves. Disciplinary power is employing mechanisms such as normalizing judgment and hierarchical 2 observation to classify, normalize and discipline individuals. However, disciplinary knowledge also gives authority to institutions such as the MPAA and legitimizes their power to decide which content is appropriate and acceptable. Correspondingly, the emphasis of my research is on demonstrating the direct link between the Foucauldian concepts power, discipline and knowledge, which ultimately leads to an idea of self-regulation as a consequence