Reflections of Ourselves: A Content Analysis of Home Video Collections in the Greater Pittsburgh Area--Family Favorite Movie Videos and the MPAA Ratings

_________________________________________________________

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Seventeen years ago it was unimaginable to think that one day we would be able to watch what we wanted when we wanted on our televisions--even more so, to have our own personal movie libraries. In Video Review, David Hadju comments that before the mid-1970s, a movie was only an experience. He also states that a movie today is also a "plastic, tangible object you can pick up, carry around, watch, stop, replay, freeze frame, fast forward, shelve, share, give away, or save." (April 1990, 35) The plastic movie video, which fits conveniently in one hand, is the culmination of a creative process that involved the work of hundreds of talented specialists and millions of dollars spent. Hadju also states, "This singular development--the transformation of the nature of the motion picture from the experiential to the physical--cuts to the very essence of home video entertainment." (April 1990, 35)

Videos produced today cover a wide range of subjects, but when you think or talk about a video, you are usually referring to a Hollywood-produced motion picture. Hadju also says that since the emergence of home video, "Movies have come back as the common cultural link they were before the advent of television." (April 1990, 37)

Not only are we movie buffs again, but in a somewhat limited fashion, we have also become students and critics of this medium. We understand more today about the ways and means of the industry, the cultural influence, the art form, the technology. In The New York Times, Vincent Canby reports that we are more movie literate today because "we now see films in the kind of detail never before possible." (Canby, 1990, 14) The videocassette recorder (VCR) enables us to rewind movie cassettes for repeated viewings, to utilize slow motion or stop action for the viewing of specific scenes, to study editing and camera work, and to even pick out production flubs.

A. Videos as Hardcover Books

Al Cattabiani, president of Pacific Arts Corporation, says that we are in the "third wave of VCR use. First was time-shifting. Then came the movie-rental phenomenon. Now people are starting to use videos like books." (Graham, 1991, B1)

Hadju writes that "if movies are the literature of the post-literate age, the cassette is the hardcover, and our tape libraries are our personal symbols of what we have become." (April 1990, 37)

In his book No Sense of Place: The Impact of Electronic Media on Social Behavior, Joshua Meyrowitz makes this statement:

As an object, a book is more than a medium of communication; it is also an artifact and a possession. As such, it serves not only as a channel to provide information, but also as a symbol of self and identity. Just as we choose styles of clothing not for utility alone, so do we choose books that "appropriately" project our image and sense of group affiliations. (1985, 83)

In the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Jennifer Pendleton states that the past performances of sell-through titles "have proven customers will collect videocassettes like books." (1990, 16)

If videos are being collected like books, then these videos represent much more than mere possessions. Not only are they channels for information and entertainment, they are also reflections of self, identity, image, and sense of group affiliations. (Meyrowitz, 1985, 83)

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

In his book The Screening of America: Movies and Values from "Rocky" to "Rain Man," Tom O' Brien states that "any art form or medium both reflects and shapes the culture around it." (1990, 21)

Jack Valenti thinks movies are only reflective. Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, says, "Movies reflect society. When people ask why Hollywood doesn't make movies like it used to, my answer is, 'Why isn't society like it used to be?' " (Alter, 1992, 33)

George Gerbner, dean-emeritus of the Annenburg School of Communication, University of Pennsylvania, says that "the impact of the entertainment industry reaches into every age, education level, and income group in the society. (Medved, 1992, 248) He also says that most of the stories children hear "are not told by parents, the school, the church, or neighbors. They are told by a handful of conglomerates who have something to sell. That has a powerful effect." ("Violence on TV," 1992, 14)

In his book Hollywood vs. America: Popular Culture and the War on Traditional Values, film critic Michael Medved says this:

The research on the impact of popular culture by George Gerbner and others demonstrates that members of the public differ dramatically in their susceptibility to the ideas and standards which that culture transmits. A small minority will be quickly transformed by the media fantasies they watch; others will feel the impact more gradually and subtly; still others will remain largely unaffected. (1992, 260)

Medved also writes that the "major entertainment conglomerates disregard the conclusions of all the leading researchers and continue to insist that their work has no harmful impact on society." (1992, 249)

In their book Movies as Mass Communication, authors Garth Jowett and James Linton state that "whether the movies are reflecting or shaping, they are contributing to the overall perspective we have of our society." (1989, 84) Movie producer David Puttnam says, "Every single movie has within it an element of propaganda." (Moyers, 1989, 327) Jowett and Linton also state that movies "have made a significant contribution to the collective vision we have of things about which we know very little." (1989, 84)

Medved makes these comments about the Hollywood influence:

On the one hand we're told that an hour of television programming does nothing to shape the sentiments of the public, and on the other we're asked to believe that the brief spots that interrupt this program are powerful enough to change perceptions of anything from canned goods to candidates.... The motion picture business faces a similarly absurd internal contradiction in its refusal to acknowledge the influence of the movies it makes.

In recent years, what Hollywood calls "product placement" has played an increasingly prominent role in the production process, with corporate logos and brand names frequently displayed in the course of every major film. This process helps the producers defray the astronomical costs of filmmaking, as the advertiser provides props or sets or costumes, or agrees to help sell the film by mounting a tie-in promotional campaign at the time of its release. (1992, 251)

A. Hollywood

Medved says that of the "ten major movie production companies, only one of them, Paramount, is actually located" in Hollywood, California. (1992, 15)

In 1992, former Vice President Dan Quayle attacked Murphy Brown's television portrayal of single motherhood. When he remarked that "Hollywood thinks it's cute to glamorize illegitimacy," and that "Hollywood doesn't get it," Quayle wasn't referring to Hollywood, the place, but to Hollywood, the business. (Johnson, 1992, 1A)

Medved adds that the business of Hollywood "is by no means limited to making motion pictures." All of the major production companies are "connected to massive entertainment conglomerates that own everything from television networks to theme parks, from book publishers to gigantic record companies." (1992, 15)

B. Movies Are Different

...information to be added/continued.

...back to main page: home.