The MPAA: A powerhouse catering to the whims of the Big Five | INA Global

The MPAA: A powerhouse catering to the whims of the Big Five

Article  by  Alexandre BOHAS  •  Published 30.01.2012  •  Updated 31.01.2012
Considered the “most influential lobby for the entertainment industry” in the US, the MPAA ensures the prosperity of the Big Five Hollywood studios. The imposing position of this association has not, however, sheltered it from criticism.

Summary

Hollywood studios are known to compete ferociously when it comes to matters of economics; yet from a socio-political point of view, they tend to be more cooperative, notably when it comes to dealing with the MPAA. This first assertion has already been called into question[+] NoteDouglas Gomery, "The Hollywood Studio System : a History", London, British Film Institute, 2005 ; Janet Wasko, "How Hollywood Works", London, Sage, 2003.X [1], the second, therefore, equally deserves to be reexamined.

Under the acronym MPPDA (Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America), the representative organization of the Big Five studios (MGM, RKO, Fox, Warner, and Paramount) was founded on March 10, 1922. From the cabinet of Warren G. Harding, the U.S. President at the time, William Hays was placed at the head of the association, its mission being to “promote the common interests of those engaged in the motion picture industry in the United States”[+] NoteQuoted by Douglas Gomery. Cf., Gomery, The Hollywood Studio System, op. cit., p. 65.X [2]. This objective was articulated around two axes: on one hand, the international promotion of films– analyzed in a previous article– and on the other hand, the protection of creation against state intervention and conservative criticism. This resulted in the self-regulation of the cinema industry and active lobbying by the American government.

This article will take a look at how the MPAA today contributes to the prosperity of its members a century after its founding. Indeed, the Hollywood configuration has changed: studios have gone multinational, turning into multimedia entertainment companies. They have merged with larger and often non-American conglomerates, and their productions have increasingly evolved since the classic era of the studio system. In addition, full-length films no longer constitute the only type of media, and theaters are no longer considered the center for audiovisual diffusion. Current American society appears to be more and more fragmented, and its demands—in terms of audiovisual content— more segmented than at the beginning of the 20th century.


The autonomy of cinema in Hollywood remains politically and legally preserved thanks to the powerful lobbying of the MPAA, which is constantly confronted with numerous and divergent criticisms. The association’s role as the representative of Los Angeles is being continually called into question due as the industry becomes more and more fragmented.

The autonomy of Hollywood at all costs

The MPAA is well-known for its Production Code, the subject of many publications[+] NoteOlivier Caïra, Hollywood face à la censure. Discipline industrielle et innovation cinématographique 1915-2004, Paris, CNRS Editions, 2005; Thomas Schatz (Ed.), Hollywood: Social Dimensions: Technology, Regulation and the Audience, Piscataway (NJ), Rutgers, 2004. The Production Code is also known as the Hays Code, named after the first president of the MPAA who initiated its implementation.X [3] and as well for its current rating system. In fact, in efforts to get around film censorship and government intervention, the major studios successively instituted several self-regulatory mechanisms. This enabled them to prove to the public their high regard for family values, all the while making substantial savings by avoiding financing films that would have been censored by federal and local authorities.

After the United States Supreme Court ruling over the film Birth of a Nation (1915) by David W. Griffith, films were regarded as “a pure and simple business.” Subsequently, they did not benefit from the first amendment to the Constitution protecting freedom of speech[+] NoteJean-Loup Bourget, Hollywood. La norme et la marge, Paris, Armand Colin, 2005, p. 123 sq.X [4]. Movie production and the growth of Hollywood were therefore threatened by public authority intervention. As Hollywood films sparked vivid debates, from Women’s committees in the 1910s to the National League of Decency in the 30s and onwards, they underwent criticism and partial or even total censorship.

In order to limit criticism and censorship, the National Board of Censorship was created to advise the motion picture industry. But its recommendations were never really followed. On the initiative of the MPDDA, supported by industry moguls, a list of “don’ts and be careful” were edited and were enforced after scandals such as the Roscoe Arbuckle affair[+] NoteFor more information on this case, cf., Stephen Vaughn, “Morality and Entertainment: The Origins of the Motion Picture Production Code,” The Journal of American History, June 1990, 77 (1), pp. 39-65.X [5], and after demonstrations of general discontent with Hollywood. This self-regulation of content developed in such a way that in 1924 William Hays prided himself on having rejected 67 film proposals[+] NoteDouglas Gomery, The Hollywood Studio System, op. cit., p. 67.X [6]. While this type of regulation had remained, up until this point, unofficial, it was institutionalized in 1934 after the great boycott of the Legion of Decency. At that time, the Production Code was established and published. Written by two leading figures of “Catholic America”[+] NoteThe editor of the Motion Picture Herald, Martin Quigley, and the Jesuit Father Daniel A. Lord.X [7], this book details a list of rules, but which can be summarized by three principles: sin never pays, there is no lasting and true love outside of marriage, and that people must respect their government. The Production Code Administration was then called upon to deliver the approval certificate. If a film did not obtain this, it could not have access to the theatrical networks of the Big Five studios. The Studio Relations Committee and the Production Code Administration intervened at all stages of production: the writing, direction and editing of a film. They wanted to limit political intervention and the disturbance of the social status quo. Illustratively, Hollywood productions were careful to present African-Americans and White Americans on unequal footing so as not to shock Southeastern American audiences, and to avoid painting an overly-caricatural picture of influential socio-professional categories or industrial and trade corporations[+] NoteJacqueline Nacache, Hollywood, l’Ellipse et l’infilmé, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2001, pp. 221-223.X [8]. Some analysts underlined that the code reflected not so much a social pressure as it was a strategic response of the studios bending to puritan society and to producers submissive to the public[+] Notecf., Lea Jacobs, “Industry Self-Regulation and the Problem of Textual Determination,” in : Matthew Bernstein (Ed.), Controlling Hollywood. Censorship and Regulation in the Studio Era, London, The Athlone Press, 2000, pp. 87-101.X [9]. In addition, a similar regulation was applied to exported films such as The Big Carnival (1951) by Billy Wilder[+] NoteGomery, The Hollywood Studio System, op. cit., p. 181; Ruth Vasey, “Beyond Sex and Violence: ‘Industry Policy’ and the Regulation of Hollywood Movies, 1922-1939”, Bernstein (Ed.), Controlling Hollywood, op. cit., pp. 102-129.X [10] whose contents could be modified or held back from distribution in certain countries.

However, this code progressively lost its value in the 50s and onwards with the change in jurisprudence by the Supreme Court, which, in the 1952 case over the film Miracle, by Rosselini, ruled that films are protected by the first amendment. Consequently, producers did not want to risk having their films censored by the government. Some artists, however, appeared to be increasingly reluctant to such self-regulation.  Otto Preminger, for example, repeatedly violated the Code with films such as The Moon Is Blue (1953) and The Man With the Golden Arm (1955). At the end of the 50s, the authority of the PCA was further weakened, bypassing approval for Billy Wilder’s hit film Some Like It Hot (1959). Its decline was also due to a liberalization of American society and above all transformations in the audiovisual sector, such as the emergence of television and the end of the classical era of the studio system in which the Big Five controlled actors, theaters and producers. Theatrical networks, from this moment on, no longer belonged to Hollywood studios. Furthermore, and more decisively, the segmentation of the audiovisual market, in response to new media and the emergence of new audiences, made the Code obsolete since it offered only one style of film, and, as a result, addressed only one type of audience. This resulted in cutting the movie industry off from other potential audiences[+] NoteCf., Justin Wyatt, “The Stigma of X: Adult Cinema and the Institution of the MPAA Ratings System,” in: Bernstein, Controlling Hollywood, op. cit., pp. 238-264.X [11].

The Production Code therefore became impossible to implement and was abandoned in favor of a ratings system. This new system allowed major studios to satisfy new audience expectations and at the same time made it possible for parents to know the type of film their children were watching. Also, it reassured conservative movements of American society. Applied in 1968 by the newly-named director of the representative organization, Jack Valenti, this system is based on the following five ratings: the G rating indicates that the film can be viewed by all audiences; PG, that it can be watched by children under the surveillance of their parents; and PG-13, that some scenes are unsuitable for children under 13 years of age; the R rating requires parental presence for spectators under 17; and NC-17 forbids access to teenagers under 17. This progressive classification adopts a logic similar to that of the Production Code, in terms of the degree of violence, explicit language, and the presence of drugs or sex[+] NoteStephen Prince (Ed.), Screening Violence, Piscataway (NJ), Rutgers, 2000.X [12]. The impartiality of these ratings and the criteria on which they are certified are still challenged in Hollywood[+] NoteThe reputable Harvard School for Public Health released an analysis confirming the lowering of standards in the ratings system. For more information on this study, cf., Roger Chapman (Ed.), Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Viewpoints and Voices, vol. 1, Armonk, M. E. Sharpe, 2010, pp. 370-371.X [13]. These certifications guide audiences in their selection, which means that box office revenues are at stake for the majors[+] NoteJoan Graves, “MPAA Ratings Chief Defends Movie Ratings,” 2 Feb. 2011, Hollywood Reporter, available on the site: hollywoodreporter.com.X [14]. The Production Code inspired a similar logic. Its goal to guide audiences resulted in a certain homogenization of Hollywood creations: these were then adapted to increasingly segmented and multicultural audiences and to less conformist puritan societies in an affluent audiovisual context. Not only was the MPAA led to intervene among audiences, but the American government as well.
Back to summary

Lobbying: When Hollywood goes to Washington

As all representative organizations of large companies, the MPAA benefits from a “privileged position” in the American government, to quote the pluralist theorists of the American political system[+] NoteCharles E. Lindblom, Policy-Making Process, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1980, p. 71 sq.X [15]. The success of this prosperous industry abroad was supported early on by the U.S. government. With an elaborated organization comprised of national and international offices, its financing is beyond comparison in the world cinema industry[+] NoteAlthough the budget of the MPAA decreased by $29 million in 2007, it still amounted to $64 million in 2010, of which $1.7 million was dedicated to lobbying stricto sensu with the American government. Cf., Jim Puzzanghera, “Christopher Dodd Brings Hollywood Glitz Back to Washington,” Los Angeles Times, 10 May 2011.X [16]. As developed in a previous article, the MPAA is consulted on numerous subjects about intellectual property, trade agreements and other audiovisual matters. In addition, as a member of the International Intellectual Property Alliance, it is associated with all decisions leading to reports on the country’s legal copyright protections, and also to their condemnation for unfair trade practices, according to the 301 and 306 section of the trade law[+] NoteFor more information, cf.,the site of the IIPA.X [17].

In addition to the association’s financial resources, Hollywood studios exert an influence on the politics of Washington since they possess multiple forms of capital. Indeed, the atmosphere surrounding its players, the impact of symbolic factors and its capacity to mobilize the American society puts much at stake for statesmen, and explains the political clout of major studios. The elections are an opportunity for many stars to publicly support the candidate of their choice[+] NoteJill Goldsmith, Pamela McClintock, “H'wood Bets Its Schmooze Can’t Lose,” Variety, 380 (12), 6 Nov. 2000, p. 1.X [18]. American celebrities have a status comparable to that of intellectuals in Europe. These representatives of the studios have a close relationship with politicians; reason for which the latter are impatient to attend private screenings at the MPAA, situated near the White House.


The majors have always named public figures who have already worked in government positions to the head of their organizations: former MPAA President Will H. Hay, a lawyer by training, previously worked at the Republican National Committee and as the U.S. Postmaster General during the Harding administration; Jack Valenti was among the top advisers of President Lyndon Johnson; and Dan Glickman spent 35 years on Capitol Hill, most notably as Secretary of Agriculture under the Clinton Administration[+] NoteBroadcasting & Cable, 20 Dec. 2004, p. 23; Film Journal International, August 2004 ; Le Monde, 4 Mai 2007, p. 27.X [19]. The current head of the organization, Chris Dodd, was a senator for 36 years[+] NotePuzzanghera, “Christopher Dodd Brings,” op. cit.X [20]. Despite the implementation of the ratings system, criticism has not weakened Hollywood.
Back to summary

The MPAA and its audience: PR in a vice-like grip

Representing the studios in society, as with political figures, the MPAA was confronted with scathing criticisms of its socio-cultural adaptation targeted at content for not conforming to the ideals and mores of American society. They particularly targeted films that showed licentious, violent behaviors deemed disrespectful to social institutions. Following the example of William Hays, who challenged his critics by meeting directly with educational, religious and civic groups[+] NoteRichard Maltby, “The King of King and the Czar of All the Rushes: The Propriety of the Christ Story,” in: Controlling Hollywood, op. cit., pp. 60-86.X [21], the MPAA defends its productions during ceremonies, conferences and festivals[+] NoteThe most important event is the Oscars, organized by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which celebrates cinema through awards.X [22]. Indeed, successful motion pictures must not only find a creative line or a key concept but also must correspond to the diverse mores of a society, not shocking or putting off audiences by an overdose of conformism. Conscious of the considerable impact of film and the effect of this true “form of popular art”[+] NoteErwin Panofsky, “Style and Medium in the Motion Pictures,” in: Irvin Lavin (Ed.), Three Essays on Style, New York, MIT Press, 1997, pp. 91-128.X [23], these organizations heightened discontent and accused Hollywood of corrupting youth and encouraging violence.

The MPAA is in a vice-like grip between conservative tendencies, nostalgic for the past and deploring moral liberalization, and liberal associations that regard it as an anachronistic representative of reactionary companies. In the face of the evolution of Hollywood productions, considered by conservatives as a moral laxity, numerous boycotts were organized. The film Brokeback Mountain (2005)—about the homosexual relationship of two cowboys—raised protests. If the economic consequences remained minimal, they contributed nevertheless in tarnishing the image of the studios. If Evangelical churches and Catholic associations were concerned mostly with youth, they reserved most of their criticism for Disney. They encouraged their supporters to boycott any products or creations produced later than 1996.


The American Family Association, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, the American Life League and the Southern Anabaptists reproached Disney for promoting homosexuality by financing Miramax films. Miramax, headed by the Weinstein brothers, has produced numerous full-lengths films such as The Priest (1994), Pulp Fiction (1994), Dogma (1999) and Kids (1995), which are considered violent and disrespectful of religion. Some film makers have tried to appease these specific audiences by responding to their demands in terms of content. With this aim in mind, feature films such as The Passion of Christ (2004) or Nativity (2006) were produced, some of which were hits.

Contrary to the excess of liberalism for which it is generally reproached, Hollywood is also strangely accused of diffusing racial stereotypes and conservative values. In this respect, the case of Disney points to this vice-like grip, highlighting the diversity and contradictions present in American society. According to gender study principles, Disney depicts women as passive, illustrated by the characters of Jasmine in Aladdin (1992) or the heroine in The Beauty and the Beast (1991). In addition, Africans, Jews and Arabs are said to be shamelessly represented. To exemplify this, African Americans and Hispanics appear as hyenas in the Lion King (1994). Associations such as The Queer Nation or the Gay and Lesbians Alliance Against Diffamation (GLAAD) complain about the lack of recognition towards non-heterosexual relationships and minorities in films. However, there recently seems to be a change in attitude with regard to most minority groups[+] NoteAnthony Sprauve, “Out of the Closet,” in: 62nd Anniversary Issue, Hollywood Reporter, 1992, p. 36 ; Steve Chagollan, “Attitude Adjustment,” Hollywood Reporter 64th Anniversary Issue, 1994, p. 22.X [24]. This criticism led Disney to produce a film about Pocahontas, and American Indian. More recently, the firm released The Frog Princess (2009) where the title role is a young African-American. Since 1991, Disney World has organized one day out of the year dedicated to homosexuals, called “Gay Day,” and in 1998, welcomed 60,000 visitors. More recently, Disney authorized the organization of homosexual unions for employees of its parks[+] NoteFrank Ahrens, “Disney’s Theme Weddings Come True for Gay Couples”, Washington Post, 7 April 2007, p. A1; For more information on the Disney case, Cf., Alexandre Bohas, Disney. Un capitalisme mondial du rêve, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2010.X [25]. Consequently, studios, as well as their representatives, have been caught in the middle of a  culture war[+] NoteCf., Chapman, Culture Wars, op. cit. ; James D. Hunter, Culture Wars : The Struggle to Define America, New York, Basic Books, 1991.X [26] which has undermined a consensus –desired by the majors— for a wider diffusion of Disney content. Regardless of its legitimacy and credibility in the eyes of the American government, the prestige of the MPAA has been threatened, along with its ability to represent Hollywood.
Back to summary

A contested representative of Hollywood

The MPAA is usually considered the spokesman of the movie industry, and is classified as “the most influential entertainment lobby” by the National Association of Broadcasters[+] NoteBroadcasting & Cable, 20 Dec. 1999, p. 19; Mediaweek, 6 June 2005, p. 12.X [27]. Although other powerful organizations exist in the domain, the actions of the MPAA—particularly its fight against piracy and trade tariffs—has bestowed upon it considerable legitimacy in Hollywood[+] NoteVariety, 21 March 2004.X [28].

These days, however, the long-held favorable opinion concerning the association is being called into question. With the internationalization of their activity, the five majors have shown decreasing concern for common good of the industry of cinema. The “denationalization” which has lead to global transformations has helped to cut costs by producing out of California, saving money by using cheap infrastructures[+] NoteSaskia Sassen, “Globalization or Denationalization”, Review of International Political Economy, 2003, 10 (1), p. 22.X [29]. In addition, most countries wishing to attract international investment put in place systems of tax reduction, all the while using cheap labor to make their sector more appealing to investors[+] NoteCenter for Entertainment Industry Data and Research, The Global Success of Production Tax Incentives and the Migration of Feature Film Production From the U.S. to the World, 2006, Year 2005 Production Report.X [30]. In these cases, states have tried to encourage the competitiveness of their economy[+] NotePhilip Cerny, “Restructuring the Political Arena: Globalization and the Paradoxes of the Competition State,” in: Randall Germain (Ed.), Globalization and its Critics. Perspectives from Political Economy, Basingstoke, Macmillan, 2000, pp. 117-138.X [31]. Consequently, delocalization has intensified, representing more than $23 billion since 2000[+] NoteHollywood Reporter, 1-7 August 2006, p. 3 (62) ; Variety, 31 July 2006.X [32]. Similar to cinema, more and more television programs are now being shot and directed abroad. California professionals have looked for political support, hoping to tax companies that want to offshore their businesses. The MPA has vigorously defended its members against such attacks. Along with the Producers and Directors Guild of America, it opposed the petition—produced by the Committee of Action Film and Television, Made in the USA and the Union Screen Actors Guild—given to the Secretary of Commerce which recommended the implementation of a tariff on U.S. films produced in Canada[+] NoteHollywood Reporter, 12 Dec. 2001, p. 4.X [33]. As a result, discrepancies in the film industry have come to light. The center of the world of cinema has proven itself to be equally affected by globalization.

For more than two decades, the restructuring of cinema production has obliged the MPAA to reconsider its relationships with cinema professionals. For instance, it did not support the North American independent studio in the rivalry between the MIFED (International Market of Films taking place in Milan) and the AFM (American Market of Films in New York). It took a clear stand against them in favor of the European organization when American filmmakers tried to impose their festival. It appeared that the association sought to gain European ascendancy in Italy[+] NoteVideo Age International, February 1991, p. 18.X [34]. Presently, what is good for the major studios is no longer good for the United States and Hollywood.

In addition, the MPAA is full of internal tensions and rivalry, which has weakened it. Previously, the expansion of studios at the national and international level had made the conquest of each film company a positive-sum game for Hollywood. Now major studios compete for world predominance when acquisitions of one firm are to the detriment of another. Each studio tries to limit the development of the other. For example, Disney attempted to prevent Time Warner and AOL from merging, even though it had also become a media behemoth thanks to its acquisition of ABC in 1995[+] Notecf., Variety, 31 July 2000, p. 6.X [35]. The number of mergers has as led to the formation of vertically-integrated entities, which drives majors to compete not only in the motion picture business but in all audiovisual fields. Indeed, they have merged with conglomerates owning cable and satellite providers—such as DirecTV or Comcast—from which television networks broadcast[+] NoteCf., Variety, 15 May 2000, p. 15; Variety, 13 March 2000, p. 35.X [36]. Power conflicts have come into the limelight because of transformations which have shaken the motion picture industry. The arrival of high-definition technology has provoked lasting opposition concerning which type of medium to adopt: while Columbia-Tristar, MGM, 20th Century Fox and Disney support the Blu-ray DVD model launched by Sony – which owns two of the major studios – Universal, Paramount and Warner have adopted the HD DVD, developed by Toshiba. Although each justifies its choice with technological arguments, this confrontation of norms remains dominated by a rivalry between conglomerates wanting to dominate the HD world market[+] NoteCf., Variety, 13 Dec. 2004.X [37]. Regarding the internet, similar clashes are occurring. In 2007, Viacom took Youtube– owned by News Corporation – to court and demanded $1 billion for illegal broadcasting[+] NoteCf., Le Monde, 15 mars 2007, p. 18.X [38].

The MPAA holds an essential place in the prosperity of Hollywood’s motion picture industry. Indeed, it has continued to develop, thanks to the goodwill of Washington and the spread of cinema. While the fragmentation of the industry and the segmentation of audiences have made the Production Code obsolete, the current ratings system has somehow appeased critics and oriented audiences through new movie releases. Yet the restructuration of globalization in the world cinema and the diversity of American society continue to question the legitimacy of the MPAA’s activities. It has created tension within the industry, making American producers the target of cross-criticism coming from conservatives and liberals alike.  The MPAA has managed to renew itself domestically—rendering itself indispensible to the American film industry—even if in the process it has forgotten the original purpose for its creation.

--
Photo credits:
- First image, screenshot from the MPAA website
- Hollywood, BAMCAT - Flickr
- Jack Valenti's star, Thomas Hawk - Flick
- Disney Hollywood Studio, Antony Pranata - Flickr
Back to summary

References

Bernstein Matthew (Ed.), Controlling Hollywood. Censorship and Regulation in the Studio Era, London, The Athlone Press, 2000.

Bohas Alexandre, Disney. Un capitalisme mondial du rêve, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2010.

Bourget Jean-Loup, Hollywood. La norme et la marge, Paris, Armand Colin, 2005.

Caïra Olivier, Hollywood face à la censure. Discipline industrielle et innovation cinématographique 1915-2004, Paris, CNRS Editions, 2005.

Chapman Roger (Ed.), Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Viewpoints and Voices, vol. 1, Armonk, M. E. Sharpe, 2010.

Gomery Douglas, The Hollywood Studio System: a History, London, British Film Institute, 2005.

Hunter James D., Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America, New York, Basic Books, 1991.

Schatz Thomas (Ed.), Hollywood: Social Dimensions : Technology, Regulation and the Audience, Piscataway (NJ), Rutgers, 2004.

Wasko Janet, How Hollywood Works, London, Sage, 2003.
Back to summary
  • 1. Douglas Gomery, "The Hollywood Studio System : a History", London, British Film Institute, 2005 ; Janet Wasko, "How Hollywood Works", London, Sage, 2003.
  • 2. Quoted by Douglas Gomery. Cf., Gomery, The Hollywood Studio System, op. cit., p. 65.
  • 3. Olivier Caïra, Hollywood face à la censure. Discipline industrielle et innovation cinématographique 1915-2004, Paris, CNRS Editions, 2005; Thomas Schatz (Ed.), Hollywood: Social Dimensions: Technology, Regulation and the Audience, Piscataway (NJ), Rutgers, 2004. The Production Code is also known as the Hays Code, named after the first president of the MPAA who initiated its implementation.
  • 4. Jean-Loup Bourget, Hollywood. La norme et la marge, Paris, Armand Colin, 2005, p. 123 sq.
  • 5. For more information on this case, cf., Stephen Vaughn, “Morality and Entertainment: The Origins of the Motion Picture Production Code,” The Journal of American History, June 1990, 77 (1), pp. 39-65.
  • 6. Douglas Gomery, The Hollywood Studio System, op. cit., p. 67.
  • 7. The editor of the Motion Picture Herald, Martin Quigley, and the Jesuit Father Daniel A. Lord.
  • 8. Jacqueline Nacache, Hollywood, l’Ellipse et l’infilmé, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2001, pp. 221-223.
  • 9. cf., Lea Jacobs, “Industry Self-Regulation and the Problem of Textual Determination,” in : Matthew Bernstein (Ed.), Controlling Hollywood. Censorship and Regulation in the Studio Era, London, The Athlone Press, 2000, pp. 87-101.
  • 10. Gomery, The Hollywood Studio System, op. cit., p. 181; Ruth Vasey, “Beyond Sex and Violence: ‘Industry Policy’ and the Regulation of Hollywood Movies, 1922-1939”, Bernstein (Ed.), Controlling Hollywood, op. cit., pp. 102-129.
  • 11. Cf., Justin Wyatt, “The Stigma of X: Adult Cinema and the Institution of the MPAA Ratings System,” in: Bernstein, Controlling Hollywood, op. cit., pp. 238-264.
  • 12. Stephen Prince (Ed.), Screening Violence, Piscataway (NJ), Rutgers, 2000.
  • 13. The reputable Harvard School for Public Health released an analysis confirming the lowering of standards in the ratings system. For more information on this study, cf., Roger Chapman (Ed.), Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Viewpoints and Voices, vol. 1, Armonk, M. E. Sharpe, 2010, pp. 370-371.
  • 14. Joan Graves, “MPAA Ratings Chief Defends Movie Ratings,” 2 Feb. 2011, Hollywood Reporter, available on the site: hollywoodreporter.com.
  • 15. Charles E. Lindblom, Policy-Making Process, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1980, p. 71 sq.
  • 16. Although the budget of the MPAA decreased by $29 million in 2007, it still amounted to $64 million in 2010, of which $1.7 million was dedicated to lobbying stricto sensu with the American government. Cf., Jim Puzzanghera, “Christopher Dodd Brings Hollywood Glitz Back to Washington,” Los Angeles Times, 10 May 2011.
  • 17. For more information, cf.,the site of the IIPA.
  • 18. Jill Goldsmith, Pamela McClintock, “H'wood Bets Its Schmooze Can’t Lose,” Variety, 380 (12), 6 Nov. 2000, p. 1.
  • 19. Broadcasting & Cable, 20 Dec. 2004, p. 23; Film Journal International, August 2004 ; Le Monde, 4 Mai 2007, p. 27.
  • 20. Puzzanghera, “Christopher Dodd Brings,” op. cit.
  • 21. Richard Maltby, “The King of King and the Czar of All the Rushes: The Propriety of the Christ Story,” in: Controlling Hollywood, op. cit., pp. 60-86.
  • 22. The most important event is the Oscars, organized by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which celebrates cinema through awards.
  • 23. Erwin Panofsky, “Style and Medium in the Motion Pictures,” in: Irvin Lavin (Ed.), Three Essays on Style, New York, MIT Press, 1997, pp. 91-128.
  • 24. Anthony Sprauve, “Out of the Closet,” in: 62nd Anniversary Issue, Hollywood Reporter, 1992, p. 36 ; Steve Chagollan, “Attitude Adjustment,” Hollywood Reporter 64th Anniversary Issue, 1994, p. 22.
  • 25. Frank Ahrens, “Disney’s Theme Weddings Come True for Gay Couples”, Washington Post, 7 April 2007, p. A1; For more information on the Disney case, Cf., Alexandre Bohas, Disney. Un capitalisme mondial du rêve, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2010.
  • 26. Cf., Chapman, Culture Wars, op. cit. ; James D. Hunter, Culture Wars : The Struggle to Define America, New York, Basic Books, 1991.
  • 27. Broadcasting & Cable, 20 Dec. 1999, p. 19; Mediaweek, 6 June 2005, p. 12.
  • 28. Variety, 21 March 2004.
  • 29. Saskia Sassen, “Globalization or Denationalization”, Review of International Political Economy, 2003, 10 (1), p. 22.
  • 30. Center for Entertainment Industry Data and Research, The Global Success of Production Tax Incentives and the Migration of Feature Film Production From the U.S. to the World, 2006, Year 2005 Production Report.
  • 31. Philip Cerny, “Restructuring the Political Arena: Globalization and the Paradoxes of the Competition State,” in: Randall Germain (Ed.), Globalization and its Critics. Perspectives from Political Economy, Basingstoke, Macmillan, 2000, pp. 117-138.
  • 32. Hollywood Reporter, 1-7 August 2006, p. 3 (62) ; Variety, 31 July 2006.
  • 33. Hollywood Reporter, 12 Dec. 2001, p. 4.
  • 34. Video Age International, February 1991, p. 18.
  • 35. cf., Variety, 31 July 2000, p. 6.
  • 36. Cf., Variety, 15 May 2000, p. 15; Variety, 13 March 2000, p. 35.
  • 37. Cf., Variety, 13 Dec. 2004.
  • 38. Cf., Le Monde, 15 mars 2007, p. 18.
Would you like to add or correct something? Contact the editorial staff