2. Music videos are generally regulated by the BBFC
and Ofcom, however certain organisations must
further adhere to individual standards of
censorship – for example, particular videos on
youtube require users to prove that they are over 18
prior to viewing
The BBFC provide age ratings for music videos – i.e
12, 15 or 18 – which are subsequently displayed
online (i.e on vevo/youtube), as well as bespoke
content advice surrounding violence, nudity etc
(also available online)
How are music
videos regulated in
the UK?
3. Regulation of music videos occurs in order to protect viewers
from sensitive content. An example of this can be attributed to
Shore’s theory that a vast majority of music videos exist solely to
satisfy adolescent male fantasies, featuring aspects of power,
wealth and women which reflect soft-core pornography. It can be
argued that regulation discredits this theory on the basis that
such music videos no longer dominate the industry as a result of
increased censorship, and thus there are increased videos
complying with regulatory rules. The need for regulation,
however, is evidenced in the existence of these videos, wherein
they would quickly grow to become a legitimated and
normalised form of pornography, widely available to people of
all ages. By deeming a text ‘inappropriate’ or ‘adult’, there are not
only laws in place which prevent children accessing it, however
also strict social norms – without regulation, children's access to
excessively sexual, violent or ‘mature’ content would be both
simple and legitimised.
Why are they regulated?
4. Music videos are further regulated due to the impact that their
access would have on the ‘wrong’ audiences. An example of this
is the desensitisation of children to violent, sexual or ‘mature’
content (i.e alcohol/drugs), which the hypodermic needle theory
would suggest is passively internalised by viewers. This can
further be attributed to Postman’s ideas surrounding the lack of
an ‘information hierarchy’ in modern society, wherein the decline
in print media has led to increased accessibility of children to
‘adult’ information (i.e the rise in television has meant that
literacy is no longer required to absorb mature content). Though
this can be criticised on the basis that children would not have a
sufficient understanding of such information to elicit a proper
response, the risk of internalisation and desensitisation is almost
undeniable. Regulation of music videos, therefore, ensures that,
in spite of no longer having a strict ‘information hierarchy’, a
hierarchal structure remains with regard to accessibility of
content; wherein vulnerable viewers are protected from
potentially harmful texts.
Why are they
regulated?
5. Music videos began to officially form during the 1960’s,
however did not entirely grow in popularity until the
1980’s, upon releases such as Michael Jackson’s infamous
‘Thriller’. Initially, there were few practices of censorship –
any music videos deemed ‘inappropriate’ would simply be
banned, and the basis of this inappropriacy would often be
limited to excessive nudity or violence. This can be seen
within a number of Madonna’s music videos, many of
which had been banned due to her expression of sexuality,
as well as portrayals of cross-dressing/homosexuality.
Though nudity would still be subject to censorship, external
forces (i.e social change) have subverted other aspects of
regulation – for example, it would now be deemed more
controversial to ban lgbt content than to display it.
History of
regulation
6. In spite of its perceived protective benefits, there are currently a number of
topical debates surrounding media censorship, and the extent to which
regulation is necessary and/or effective. Many arguments base themselves on
the concept of free speech, considering media censorship to lack a definitive
beginning and end – i.e a rise in censorship does not necessarily lead to solely
evasion of nudity/violence, but can drift into less harmful topics. An example
of a recent issue surrounding this is that of Youtube’s ‘restricted mode’
leading to a large number of LGBT content being hidden/blocked.
Controversy was inevitably sparked as a result of this – the fact that the
regulated ‘restricted mode’ had hidden both sexually graphic music videos
and LGBT music videos served to reinforce stereotypes surrounding the
demographic, as well as the idea that the content is somehow ‘inappropriate’.
This idea was further tested by comparing two of Halsey’s music videos,
wherein a less sexually explicit video featuring two women (‘Ghost’) was
restricted, and received far more critical backlash than that of a more sexually
explicit video featuring a heterosexual relationship, again perpetuating the
idea that lesbian relationships are inherently sexual, and thus unsuitable for
young viewers. Regulation, therefore, is arguably not always successful, with
existing arguments proclaiming that it does not solely protect children from
inarguably ‘harmful’ content; but rather serves as a method of reinforcing
hegemonic ideals (Gramsci) which maintain the dominant ideologies (Hall)
of ruling/majority groups.
Debates surrounding
media censorship
7. Robin Thicke’s music video for ‘Blurred Lines’ has been banned from youtube on account of
excessive nudity and sexuality, wherein the production features 3 undressed models
dancing around 3 (fully clothed) men. Such a video evidently conforms to Shore’s theory of
music videos existing as a form of ‘soft-core pornography’ to satisfy male sexual fantasises
via a socially legitimated manner. In addition to this, it arguably conforms to Mulvey’s male
gaze theory, wherein the women within the video exist solely for the pleasure of their male
partners. Though such an idea can be criticised on the basis of nudity not correlating
powerlessness, and the idea that women having control over male pleasure inevitably makes
them powerful figures; the comparison in costume (or lack of costume) as well as the
manner in which the male performers look at and touch the women indicates a sense of
ownership and objectivity. Though a ‘clean’ version of the video has since been created,
much of the problem lies within an audiovisual relationship between lyrics and on-screen
content. Goodwin’s emphasis on this as inherently positive feature of music videos can be
questioned through the use of this case study, wherein the singer attempts to convince a
woman to sleep with him by referring to ‘blurred lines [of consent]’. This further calls into
question the effectivity of regulation – though the visual portrayal of women within the
uncut version is almost inarguably dangerous, it is the lyrics which hold most power to
shape meaning. A lack of nudity, therefore, does not make the video ‘clean’ nor ‘safe’, as the
singer continues to subliminally legitimate sexual harassment through his lyrics, as well as
through the continued objectifying representation of women.
The male gaze theory, however, is arguably not entirely applicable to this case study. Where
Mulvey assumes the idea of women existing solely for male pleasure will be internalised by
viewers, many women have responded to the video with overt displeasure, actively
spreading awareness surrounding the song/video’s harmful implications.
Blurred Lines –
Robin Thicke
8. This task has, overall, strongly informed me about issues
surrounding music video regulation and/or censorship.
Though not directly applicable to my own production (i.e
I would not intend to create a music video with any such
‘banned’ themes/topics), the debates surrounding the
issue have provided me with an increased awareness of
audience response to music videos, and the way in which
viewers are able to actively respond to their own
negotiated readings (Hall) of texts. Furthermore, I have
been able to establish a closer understanding of regulation
not only as a general concept, however also within a
modern society. Within this society, debates surrounding
what is ‘inappropriate’ are spurred by social change, yet
the ability to entirely remove something from existence is
counteracted by its initial existence – an online age means
that ‘banned’ videos are not inaccessible, but rather
marginally more difficult to find. This leads the
fundamental principles of regulation and censorship to
grow increasingly difficult and arguably less powerful.
Conclusion
