My first event of the day was the "Censorship Panel: Why Censorship is Bull$#!@" featuring Eric Holmes, Daniel Way and Mort Todd.
Of the three, Eric Holmes was the most difficult to understand due to the poor acoustics of the room. He's very soft spoken...unlike Way and Todd, whose voices could be heard in the hallway. Holmes is a video game designer from the UK, but since he was so difficult to hear I couldn't tell if he's British, Irish or Scottish. He talked of the European rating system for games, and how it's completely different in America.
Way sounded the most knowledgeable of the ins and outs of censorship in general, since he has had the most recent experiences dealing with censorship while writing for Marvel. He mentioned that there is no clearly defined set of rules for censoring, which was done on purpose, so that things can be dealt with on a case by case basis. He also discussed the difference between being censored and being edited - one is a blatant "no, we can not allow this", the other is more of a "you can't do this, but how about if you try...". Way admitted that he's had a few "no's", but a lot more "how about's" and that the best editors he ever had worked like that. Todd agreed.
Todd, who also worked at Marvel but years ago, brought
his most recent bout with censorship to the table: the conflict he had against Portland's homeless community due to an article he wrote in his self-published paper
Vex.
All three agreed that when something is officially censored, it becomes a marketing point for the item. People hear about the product, become more interested in seeing/hearing/playing the product...and essentially buy the product
because it's been censored.
They also mentioned the ridiculousness of censoring nudity and/or sex, but allowing blood-spattered violence in games, movies, comics, etc...
Todd told a story that while he was at Marvel, the company got a letter from a young boy saying he was upset that certain characters in the comics - Nick Fury, The Thing and Wolverine specifically - were smoking. So Marvel went overboard and told all their creators that
none of their characters could smoke anymore.
It turned out the boy's father - an advocate against smoking - made him write the letter, but the damage was done.
The topic turned to self-censorship and the impact that
not showing something could be far worse than actually showing it. Way brought up the movie
Fight Club as an example.
(SPOILER ALERT)
First, Way explained that the writer of the novel that the film was based on wanted the movie to be as visual-oriented as possible. The writer felt that he'd already put in words the thoughts and feelings of the characters, and hoped the film would be a more visual interpretation rather than a literal one.
Way then mentioned a specific scene in the film that takes place at the club: one man is on top of his opponent and continuously hitting him past the point of unconsciousness. The producers saw the footage and told the director that it was too graphic and the scene needed to be re-shot. It was late in production and the director agreed to shoot the scene again with less violence, but told them that whatever he
did shoot would have to be in the film. The producers agreed, thinking that whatever was added couldn't be any worse.
The end result...which did end up in the final cut...had the camera pointed at the men
watching the fight, and their cheers slowly turned to looks of disgust. It is one of the most chilling scenes in the film...without actually showing anything.
(END SPOILER ALERT)
This brought up the fact that sometimes what
isn't shown can be way worse that what
is...totally debunking the concept behind censorship in the first place.
The hour ended rather quickly, and there wasn't time to ask questions, but if I had the chance, I would have brought up my own "between the panel" shock:
Green Lantern (1990) #54 - which was published in August 1994, long before the current rating system.
There's a panel where new GL Kyle Rayner's girlfriend is killed by Major Force and stuffed in a refrigerator:
Obviously, this was an edited version and not the original concept. It affected me. Not to the point that I'd never read a comic again, but it made me realize that it isn't just Frank Miller - who goes for the graphic visual, and Alan Moore - who goes for the cerebral, out there to shock and occasionally offend, but a growing generation of creators that are blending the two schools. They're shocking readers by what isn't shown, yet making them think about what is.
By the way - this one panel made such an impact that comic writer Gail Simone created a website dedicated to the abuse of female characters in comics, called
Women in Refrigerators. However, according to the site:
This isn't about assessing blame about an individual story or the treatment of an individual character and it's certainly not about personal attacks on the creators who kindly shared their thoughts on this phenomenon. It's about the trend, its meaning and relevance, if any. Plus, it's just fun to talk about refrigerators with dead people in them. I don't know why.
Would this have happened if the original idea was used?
One more thing - and this is from me - if the gender roles in the above panel were reversed, and it was the woman who became the next GL and Kyle who wound up stuffed in the fridge, would have it been as dramatic and caused all of this?
.jpg)
.jpg)
