Posted on 08/23/2002 1:34:04 PM PDT by weegee
NEW YORK (The Hollywood Reporter) --- When Steven Bochco first pitched the concept for "NYPD Blue ( news - Y! TV)," ABC nearly passed on the controversial cop show. Its liberal use of profanity and partial nudity was so problematic it required an extra year of development before the network unveiled the series in 1993.
What a difference a decade makes. While Bochco was busy preparing the series' 10th season, network brass approached him about giving him even more latitude regarding sex and language. "I've actually had conversations with ABC about going a little further than we've been going; I guess that's a bit of response to shows like 'The Shield,' " Bochco said, referring to the envelope-pushing police drama that has made such a splash on FX.
ABC's attitude adjustment reflects mounting pressure on the broadcast networks to test the limits of primetime propriety, especially in the face of increased competition from such provocative cable hits as "The Shield" and MTV's bleep-steeped "The Osbournes." The boundaries are already being blurred by this summer's racy slate of reality programs, leaving frustrated producers wondering where exactly the line between the two exists.
Determining that line is the work of the networks' beleaguered standards and practices departments, which are responsible for vetting programs and commercials for unacceptable levels of sexuality, violence, profanity and other indices of decency. They are left with the tricky task of enabling the networks to steal cable's thunder without weathering storms of protest from advertisers, affiliates or viewers, not to mention the FCC ( news - web sites).
"I would not be forthcoming if I didn't say that what's going on in cable, the movies, music and shock radio isn't creating pressure to loosen up," said Alan Wurtzel, who oversees standards at NBC as president of research and media development. "And to some extent, we have."
The average network standards department employs a staff of about 20 people. They can be a source of aggravation to producers and programming chiefs, who must adhere to their highly subjective guidelines, as well as critics who regularly accuse them of ushering in the downfall of Western civilization. "It's not like TV is a parallel universe," Wurtzel said. "TV is the reflector of the values society holds."
On the cable side, plenty of networks don't even have a formal standards department. Programming executives often end up handling screening duties.
The problem posed by cable's more lax standards was publicly addressed last year in a memo written by NBC chairman Robert Wright, who asked the network's staffers to consider how broadcasters could compete with premium cable fare like HBO's "The Sopranos ( news - Y! TV)." The dilemma has only deepened as basic cable networks have been following HBO's lead.
"There's been a revolution in content going on over the past 10 years," said Rick Mater, head of the WB Network's standards and practices department. "And it's not slowing down -- it's speeding up."
The networks had their foot squarely on the accelerator this summer in a pair of hit reality programs that boasted gratuitous partial nudity. On the new NBC series "Dog Eat Dog," a female contestant engaged in a competition that might best be described as football meets strip poker: She stood completely naked in front of a studio audience, her private parts blurred for the broadcast.
Pixelation was also necessary for some errant bare buttocks on CBS' "Big Brother 3" during a contest in which participants filed into a canister filled with slime, rushed to remove their bathing suits and exchange them for swimwear of the opposite sex. Lingering shots on curvy bodies and frank sexual discussion are also apparent on both programs, which occasionally air at 8 p.m. in many markets.
Network reality fare is even raising the eyebrows of cable programmers like Mark Sonnenberg, executive vp entertainment at E! Networks, which has a standards department. "I'm sure there are things that we have probably pixelated on '(The) Howard Stern (Show)' that you could see unpixelated on broadcast television in some of the reality shows," he said.
Wurtzel argues that viewers bring a different set of expectations to shows like "Dog" than they do dramas or comedies. But he conceded: "Am I going to say that 'Dog Eat Dog' would have been on the network five years ago? Maybe not quite the way it is now."
The double standard infuriates Bochco. "It's one thing to see a model spilling out of her skimpy little top, which is just a blatant grab for the sexual attention of the audience; it's another to see two people making love," he said.
Network dramas can be held to a higher standard. When "Shield" became a breakout hit, executives at Fox Broadcasting Co. considered repurposing the series in primetime or developing a similar show, Fox broadcast standards vp Roland McFarland said. But he knew he could never countenance copying the drama with anywhere near the levels of profanity and violence on "Shield."
"We really looked hard and long at trying to find a way to modify that for network consumption," he said. "But basically we would have just eviscerated that show."
Language has been another contentious issue. Even newsmagazines got saltier this year, with both "60 Minutes" and "Nightline" allowing the word "bullshit" in their broadcasts. Five of the "Seven Dirty Words You Can Never Say on Television," a famous George Carlin bit criticizing TV censorship, popped up elsewhere on the air.
"I think there's three or four words left that honestly everyone would agree are still inappropriate, and I'm sure those (words) are going to fall by the wayside anyway," Wurtzel said.
Even wholesome programs have their struggles with language. Gavin Polone, executive producer of the WB's family-friendly "Gilmore Girls ( news - Y! TV)," has high regard for broadcast standards but often finds himself negotiating with them over the slightest profanity. "I'm constantly arguing that words like 'ass,' 'hell' and 'bitch' are not that big a deal," he said.
Determining where exactly the lines of acceptability are drawn on network TV can reach the point of absurdity. Dick Wolf, creator and executive producer of all three versions of "Law & Order," found that out firsthand last season. In the final scene of an episode of "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit," detectives enter the home of a man who had just put an end to an incestuous relationship with his mother by stabbing her after they had sex. It wasn't incest NBC objected to; standards execs just didn't want the characters to appear naked. The postcoital killing had to be shot with the son wearing a T-shirt and the dead mother dressed in a nightgown.
Wolf was so incredulous when he reviewed the results of the shoot that NBC relented to his demand that the scene be reshot sans clothing, "SVU" co-executive producer Judi McCreary said. "He went nuts when he saw how unrealistic the scene was," she said.
Jonathan Pontell, executive producer of Fox's "Boston Public ( news - Y! TV)," recalled sending Fox standards frame-by-frame snippets of a scene depicting oral sex in order for them to gauge exactly at what moment the female character's head should be shown.
Before "Public," Pontell produced "Ally McBeal ( news - Y! TV)," where he learned the nuances of Fox's guidelines on displaying naked rear ends. Some creative postproduction transformed the derriere of a stand-in doubling for actress Dyan Cannon. "We had to wind up CGI-ing her (rear) cheek to make it bigger to hide the crack," he said.
Pontell appreciates standards' involvement but gets annoyed from time to time. "I would love to work on a cable show, to tell you the truth, where it's a little looser," he said.
Polone has ventured into the cable arena, producing HBO's often outrageous "Curb Your Enthusiasm," with "Seinfeld" co-creator Larry David. Unencumbered by a standards department, HBO never interferes with "Curb," Polone said. On one occasion, he was sure the network would object to an episode that made light of an incest survivor group.
"I said to Larry, 'I think this may have gone too far,' " Polone said. "I thought there was going to be blowback. But there was nothing."
Fox's McFarland acknowledges that the producers he deals with long for the freedoms cable affords. "I hear frustration because they really want to be as competitive as possible," he said. "But the parameters that are established in network television might be somewhat of an impediment."
Nearly halfway through a five-year production deal with Paramount TV, Bochco says he's pondering making his next series his first foray into cable. He is talking with various networks but won't divulge any concrete plans. But he has some advice for producers struggling with network policies.
"The one thing you learn over the years with broadcast standards is there's no such thing as broadcast standards," he said. "The standard is anything you can get them to let you do."
Neither are essential to the "plot".
WFTR
Bill
Despite liking some of their series, we cancelled our HBO when I realized that I could just not support, through my subscription dollars, their making more Liberal Propaganda Moviesof the Week. I think it was their attempt to rehabilitate the image of LBJ that finally pushed me over the edge. No Cinemax, either. As a bonus, it greatly reduced the amount of smut that I accidentally surf into.
Word!
That image is not rehabilitatable. The dark days of the Democratic Party started with Johnson.
All of this crap should be verboten on T.V. You want smut, pay for it special.
If analytical psychiatric principles were to be employed, the conclusion would be that these voyeurs can't get it on the "normal" way, and have to resort to getting their kicks on the film set watching some bimbo take off her top.
The Hollyweird types are a bunch of warped individuals who inflict their sexual inadequacies on the rest of us.
Maybe I can help: There is no limit to human depravity. If you're expecting to touch bottom somewhere, forget it. There is no bottom. You just get deeper and deeper into filth and eventually horror. Ever heard of snuff films? That's not the bottom either. It can always get worse. And if it can, it will.
It's nice to see a fellow conservative with an appropriate estimation of human nature on these boards--counteracts all the "perfect world if we only had total freedom" libertarians.
Question: the Supreme Court recently ruled that simulated child pornography is protected by the First Amendment. Let's say your next door neighbor takes a piece of this filth pornography and blows it up to 12' by 12' and constructs a billboard of it in his front yard. It's "his property" and he's "not hurting anyone" and "no child is being harmed". If you're a libertarian, you should have no problem with that, right?
You don't pay as well as the networks do. ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.