Essay: "Dancing with Censorship", Part 1 of Several

Essay: "Dancing with Censorship, Part 1 0f Several

       In Missouri, a certain religious sect demanded that a certain high school forego their annual dance because, according to the sect, "Dancing is evil and is a device of the Devil". It is hard to believe that in this day and age people would have such ridiculous and archaic superstitions.

       Admittedly, I don't dance. I can't dance, and I don't particularly care to learn to dance. I also never enjoy myself much at dances. In fact, at most dances in ten minutes I'm late for the door. As a matter of fact, I generally don't give a damn about dancing or dances. What I am concerned about is the reason why this dance in Missouri was banned. After all, there is supposed to be a separation of Church and State in this country. Fortunately for the rest of us, back in the day Thomas Jefferson had the wisdom to see the abuse of power which would result if Church and State were not separate. Thus, Jefferson helped make sure that Church and State were separate entities in America. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court (in the early '90s) set our nation back several centuries by allowing this ban to be upheld. (to be cont'd)

 [The original version of this essay first appeared in Eastern Connecticut State University's Campus Lantern student newspaper in the early '90s and in my unpublished manuscript  "In Mediocrity We Trust... In Debt We Die" And Other Essays.]

Poetry: "He Who Puts His Smokes Away..."

Poetry: "He Who Puts His Smokes Away..."  A work in progress

               He who puts his Smokes away

               Lives to smoke another day.

               He who puts Smokes away for good

               Lives much longer than he otherwise would.

                He who never smoked at all

                Grew so big and strong and tall.

                 If a would-be smoker never starts

                 He'll have much stronger lungs and heart...

         

Essay: "NC-17 Films and Censorship", Part 8 of 8

Essay: "NC-17 Films and Censorship", Part 8 of 8

       An unfortunate result of the new NC-17 rating is that many morality groups and religious leaders want rating boards to rate films on a community by community basis. As a result, filmmakers in certain areas of the country may lose their artistic freedom, and likewise actors, directors, producers, screenwriters, movie theaters, and potential moviegoers may lose the freedom to choose what film(s) they would like to see, make, buy, or audition for.

 [The original version of this essay, then entitled   "NC-17 Films", first appeared in Eastern Connecticut State University's Campus Lantern student newspaper in the early '90s, in my unpublished manuscript  "In Mediocrity We Trust... In Debt We Die" And Other Essays", plus in UMass/Boston's  Mass Media student newspaper in the mid-'90s.]

       

Essay: "NC-17 Films and Censorship", Part 7 of Several

Essay: "NC-17 Films and Censorship", Part 7 of 8

       NC-17 is nor so much a moral issue, but an issue of freedom vs. censorship. In a free country we can live with NC-17 films. The alternative is to allow a few morally deluded moralists decide what is moral or acceptable for everyone. Then we will all be up the creek, because freedom will be in jeopardy. By the way, "protecting the children" as an excuse to censor is a right-wing cop-out. There ought to be a way to allow those of age to watch and to keep children out if need be. If you value freedom, and if you deplore censorship, urge the MPAA to retain the NC-17 rating. (to be cont'd)

 [The original version of this essay, then entitled  "NC-17 Films" was first published in Eastern Connecticut State University's Campus Lantern student newspaper in the early '90s, in my unpublished manuscript  "In Mediocrity We Trust... In Debt We Die" And Other Essays, and in UMass/Boston's Mass Media student newspaper in the mid-'90s.]

Essay: "NC-17 Films and Censorship", Part 6 of Several

Essay: "NC-17 Films and Censorship", Part 6 of Several

       Almost as soon as it was established, small-minded people already started to fight against NC-17 films. As could probably be expected, the pesky ultra-right-wing religious group, the American Family Association (with less than 3000 members in the early '90s) threatened to boycott Blockbuster Video if they ever started to carry NC-17 films. Soon afterward, Blockbuster Video caved and announced that no NC-17 films would be sold or rented in their stores.  A similar morality group,  Focus on the Family, pressured Burger King to stop advertising on allegedly violent or to them  'objectionable' tv programs, and BK likewise gave-in to a small minority of vocal loudmouths who put their narrow agenda ahead of the majority's interests. Likewise, Catholic bishops, continuing in their antiquated pseudo-moral arrogance, have judged the NC-17 rating sight-unseen. Fortunately, the notoriety of these prudes may result in more people seeing such films. Perhaps most disgraceful of all, even some major newspapers have refused to advertise NC-17 films. So much for the First Amendment! Those newspapers, Blockbuster Video, Burger King, and others deserve to be boycotted for promoting or giving-in to censorship.  (to be cont'd)

 [The original version of this essay first appeared in Eastern Connecticut State University's Campus Lantern student newspaper in the early '90s, in mu unpublished manuscript  "In Mediocrity We Trust... In Debt We Die" And Other Essays and appeared in UMass/Boston's Mass Media student newspaper in the mid-90s.]

Essay: "NC-17 Films and Censorship", Part 5 of Several

Essay: "NC-17 Films and Censorship", Part 5 of Several

       "Henry and June", the first movie officially granted an NC-17 rating, ended up being a big box-office failure. It lost money in part because, in most cases, television, most newspapers, and later video stores would not advertise or carry the film. And besides, certain cinemas, due to pressure by politicians, self-appointed morality groups, and narrow-minded citizens, would not or could not carry NC-17 films. (to be cont'd)

 [The original version of this essay first appeared in Eastern Connecticut State University's Campus Lantern student newspaper in the early '90s, in my unpublished manuscript "In Mediocrity We Trust... In Debt We Die" And Other Essays, and in UMass/Boston's Mass Media student newspaper in the mid-90s.]

Essay: "NC-17 Films and Censorship", Part 4 of Several

Essay: "NC-17 Films and Censorship", Part 4 of Several

       An alternative to receiving an X or NC-17 rating was and is to fail to submit a film to be rated at all. Filmmakers are charged a fee in order to be rated. It is hoped that once a movie is rated, the target audience will more than offset the fee that must be paid before film is rated. Since children under 17 are supposedly restricted from seeing R-rated movies, a movie which receives an R-rating could receive much lower box-office receipts than it might have earned as a PG or PG-13 film. When there was still the possibility of receiving an X-rating from the MPAA, an X-rated film could lose a substantial portion of its potential audience. So far, the impact of an NC-17 rating has had a negative consequence on a movie's audience appeal and on box-office receipts. So far, no NC-17 films have been very successful at cinemas that I know of, but Paul Verhoeven's notorious  "Showgirls" has become a cult classic on home video. Likewise, unrated films could also lose a large share of their potential audience. (to be cont'd)

 [The original version of this essay first appeared in Eastern Connecticut State University's Campus Lantern student newspaper in the early '90s, in my unpublished manuscript  "In Mediocrity We Trust... In Debt We Die" And Other Essays, and in UMass/Boston's  Mass Media student newspaper in the mid-90s.]