Just How Socially Responsible Is Hollywood?

During the 1930s, the motion picture industry's producers and distributors adopted a set of principles called the Hays Code in acknowledgement of their "responsibility to the public." Included in the general principles and its applications were assertions that no film should be produced that would lower the moral standards of its viewers.

Presenting crime or sin or wrongdoing in sympathetic terms was unacceptable. Nor were pictures to be excessively graphic in depicting violence. It was not to be implied by motion pictures that "low forms" of sexual relationships were acceptable.

The section providing the rationale for the code actually stated: "The motion pictures, which are the most popular of modern arts for the masses, have their moral quality from the intention of the minds which produce them and from their effects on the moral lives and reactions of their audiences. This gives them a most important morality."

It went on say that not only do the films "reproduce the morality of the men who use the pictures as a medium for the expression of their ideas and ideals" but that they also influence those moral standards.

Now imagine what the enforcers of that code would say if they saw the two Biggest-grossing movies of the week, “The Matrix Reloaded” and “Bruce Almighty,” with the former's reliance on graphic violence and the vulgarity and low standards of behavior that were displayed in the latter.

Some critics said the happy ending of "Bruce Almighty" in which the film's main character becomes a humbler, more generous and thankful person was overshadowed by the earlier part. That is when, endowed by God with His powers, the character played by Jim Carrey is thoughtless and materialistic and unconcerned with the sanctity of marriage. (Incidentally, this film received a PG-13 rating.)

"The Matrix Reloaded" is a film that raises some interesting questions too. Recently, the Washington Post's Tom Jackman wrote about the case in which a 19-year-old had come to confuse his life with that of the movie and ended up killing his parents.

Jackman noted: "Some high-profile crimes since the movie's 1999 release have allegedly been committed without any obvious motive other than attempts to escape 'The Matrix.' "

This kind of shooting usually brings calls for gun control from the groups on the left who tend to rail about the irresponsibility of the manufacturers.

What these groups neglect to note is that quite frequently crimes are committed by those who know exactly what they are doing or, if a killing takes place in the heat of passion, it could easily be done by some other kind of weapon. It is the irresponsibility or lack of respect for socially accepted standards of conduct by the individual that leads to the commission of a crime.

No one put a sign on that gun saying "Use me to kill illegally." Nor do gun companies advertise their product in that way. In fact, the National Rifle Association promotes the importance of gun safety. The first rule to be learned is the importance of keeping the gun pointed in a safe direction to avoid harming people. Yet this teaching is directly undermined by how weapons are portrayed in Hollywood films.

There are many reasons we are a more violent society nowadays. But one important factor is the prevalence of movies and TV shows featuring gun-driven violence.

One film, “Bonnie and Clyde,” released in 1967, was particularly influential in changing how American films depict violence and criminals. Not only did the film rely on extremely graphic depictions of violence, but its presentation of the criminals was disturbing too.

Bonnie and Clyde, killers in real life, were presented in the film as light-hearted innocents who ended up as victims of cold-blooded law enforcers. This film has been widely imitated in the years since its release, including the 1970s and 1980s, two bloody decades in which high real-life homicide rates were accompanied by the release of plenty of films glorifying killing.

Or was it visa versa?

Retired Army officer Dave Grossman is actively warning about the influence of violent films and videos on children. For instance, in researching his book, “Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill,” Grossman found that many perpetrators of violence developed their marksmanship skills on video games. One 14- year-old boy named Michael Carneal actually killed several members of a prayer group in Paducah, Ky. He had never fired a gun before but was well-practiced in marksmanship, having trained on video games.

The children who commit such violence must have other things wrong in their lives besides an addiction to video games. But even that can be no excuse. Individuals are responsible for their actions, certainly when it comes to murder.

However, if the producers of video games adhered to the Hays Code of the 1930s, the instruction on how to commit crimes and the incitement to do so would not be provided to youngsters such as young Mr. Carneal.

Hollywood and its related industries bear their share of the blame for our problems with violence in society. They glamorize lifestyles that are immoral and violent, and provide graphic instruction on how to lead such lives and to create mayhem.

Because Hollywood's leading stars and producers tend to pride themselves on their deep concern for our world, it's worth asking: Where is their concern for social responsibility when it comes to their own products?

The film industry refuses to police its products in any meaningful way, and affiliated industries such as the music, television and video industries can be just as bad – even worse, in the case of the latter. Consumers, particularly parents with children, need to know the real story behind the movies and videos and TV shows made by Hollywood.

The Parents Television Council, the Christian Film and Television Commission, Catholic Digest, Preview Family Movie and TV Review Online, and the National Institute on Media and the Family represent some of the organizations that judge the products of the entertainment industries from a viewpoint that is friendly to family values.

PTC (Parents Television Council) is particularly impressive, given its 800,000 members, grassroots chapters, strong advisory board composed of well-known celebrities, and its in-depth analyses of TV programs, films and video games. The group has been waging a campaign to protect the integrity of the family hour, even challenging the advertising of R-rated movies on shows aired during that hour.

PTC takes a three-pronged approach, not only rating shows but also educating parents about their entertainment options, and trying whenever possible to work with Hollywood and the Federal Communications Commission to improve the quality of entertainment.

But it is willing to raise a ruckus when necessary, even taking on Howard Stern. PTC is a proven friend to families that want to ensure their children watch good, clean, wholesome shows.

Now a new group wants to enter the scene.

Common Sense Media has two ex-Federal Communications Commission chairmen on its board. With assistance from the publishers of Zagat's guidebooks, it plans to place on its Web site a ranking of a wide variety of entertainment products based on the criteria of language, violence, sexual content and adult themes.

It is an organization receiving significant support from the establishment, but it is new and therefore it remains to be seen whether it can make good on its intentions.

It's good to know that groups such as the Parents Television Council are working to clean up the video pollution that has saturated our culture in recent decades. They deserve our support.

But what's long overdue is an acknowledgement by Hollywood that it can become a truly socially responsible industry again. When it comes to advocating such "socially responsible" issues as the environment or gun control, the Hollywood establishment takes a holier-than-thou posture.

Now even Hollywood is starting to acknowledge that showing stars lighting up cigarettes is recommending unhealthy behavior to impressionable young minds. Then what kind of effect is the unceasing firing of guns in Hollywood films having on young males?

In the end, people are responsible for their own actions. In no way should sane individuals escape culpability for committing violent, indecent and immoral acts.

But artists are often fond of emphasizing their own responsibility to the truth, and executives stress their responsibility to the bottom line. The truth in this case is that the products of Hollywood and its related industries are polluting our culture, giving sanction to violence and sex in ways that are at odds with the functioning of a stable, orderly society. The bottom line is it is having an adverse impact on too many impressionable individuals.

It's time the entertainment industries start policing themselves with the same integrity and vigor that the Hays Commission did back in the 1930s. In reality, that day may be a long way off. So, at this point, this remains a story whose happy ending has yet to be written.