|
Statement of Robin Bronk,
Executive Director of The Creative Coalition
House
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
Tuesday, September 26, 2006, at 2:00 p.m.
2322
Rayburn House Office Building
Good afternoon Chairman Stearns, Ranking
Member Schakowsky and members of the Subcommittee.
My name is Robin Bronk, and I am the
Executive Director of The Creative Coalition. I am
honored and proud to be called upon to testify at this
hearing and – as a working mother -- I thank you for
your time and efforts on behalf of America’s families
The Creative Coalition is a nonprofit,
nonpartisan advocacy organization of the entertainment
industry. Founded in 1989 by prominent figures in the
creative community, The Creative Coalition works to
educate and mobilize leaders in the arts community on
issues of public importance. Our members are actors,
actresses, writers, producers, directors, and others
involved in America’s creative arts.
I thank you for having me here today to
address this issue that is so important to so many
members of my organization.
Article I of the U.S. Constitution gave
Congress the authority to protect intellectual property
in order to promote the sciences and the arts.
This construct has been SPECTACULARLY
successful – AND TIME TESTED I MIGHT ADD -- in
protecting and nourishing the arts which are essential
to a flourishing American culture.
Nowhere, perhaps, is America’s
contribution to the arts more pronounced than in
cinema.
Movies are an American art form. It’s
NOT just another business. It’s NOT just about money.
It’s NOT about a PAY DAY.
Yet, too often, there’s a tendency to
view filmmaking that way.
We don’t seem to have this same problem
when discussing literature or sculpture.
Just think how different this discussion
today would be if we were talking about for-profit
companies censoring America’s great novels to omit
material that someone found objectionable.
Moviemakers are artists, and the creative
choices that they make are at the heart of their
artistic expression.
I’d like to talk for just a moment about
my personal experience dealing with the artists involved
in making motion pictures.
While the media seem obsessed with big
budget movies and blockbuster releases, the truth of the
matter is that most moviemaking is an antithesis of a
guaranteed, get-rich-quick scheme.
My members dedicate years of their lives
to getting films completed --and a message…a lesson…a
moment in history…in front of the public.
In many instances, actors -- even the
most lauded in the business -- work for scale wages just
to ensure that pictures get made, and messages are
heard.
Directors pour themselves into projects
that – if they ever looked at the statistics – they’d
know never to expect to make much, if any, money at
all.
I mention this because discussion of
these new technologies often turns quickly to how movie
studios and artists don’t necessarily lose money due to
the release of these unauthorized edits.
If this were just about money, however,
we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. Absent any
involvement from Washington, there are already
tremendous economic pressures in Hollywood to make
movies that can get G or PG ratings because those movies
have the broadest possible paying audiences.
Why then are these artists making movies
with content that some find objectionable, KNOWING
they’ll get ratings that will limit their potential
audience?
They do it because – as ARTISTS – they’re
working to tell a unique story, to convey a specific
feeling to the audience, to reflect an image of our
reality back to us.
And for many artists, including material
that some may find objectionable is essential to telling
a story or making a story believable to an audience so
that the movie screen doesn’t act as a barrier between
the filmmaker and the viewer.
The old axiom IS true: art imitates
life.
Walk the halls of this building or the
sidewalks of Washington, and you’ll hear language that
finds its way into films.
If you read the morning newspaper or
watch the evening news, you’ll see violence that some
would object to in films. And love stories are
universal.
Subjectively editing movies can change
effect and meaning.
Filmmakers have historically gotten into
enormous fights about edits with the studios, which are
paying for production, because edits can change the
essence of the art.
That IS why it is so important to all of
us as consumers, as citizens and as filmmakers that art
not be subjected to unauthorized altering and then
marketed under the artist’s name without permission.
At the same time, the members of The
Creative Coalition would be the first to tell you that
all content may not be appropriate for all audiences.
Writers, directors, and actors, they have kids of their
own. In fact, my members routinely make movies they
don’t allow their own children to watch.
It’s not rocket science; it’s Parenting
101 that teaches us that not everything that is
appropriate for an adult is appropriate for a child.
The creative community has supported the
ratings system. A few years ago, the ratings system was
expanded to give parents more specific information about
why a movie received the rating it did, all in an effort
to give parents information and user-friendly resources
they can use to make decisions for their own families.
And last year’s Family Entertainment and
Copyright Act gave parents additional choices for
controlling what their families watch. Ultimately,
people don’t have to watch a movie if they don’t want to
see what’s in it. If you don’t want to see statues with
nudity, just don’t go to the classical art museum.
The same idea holds true for film, which
– like sculpture – is art. I firmly believe that we can
achieve the objectives that all here seek without
interfering with the artistic vision that our freedom of
expression and our copyright laws exist to foster.
And, frankly, giving a darn doesn’t cut
it, when you just have to give a damn.
I thank you all for your time and look
forward to your questions.
# # #
|