Why Does Hollywood Continue to Submit to Clinton’s Rebukes?

Hollywood has an image of being tough as nails, populated by calculating executives and driven performers who would happily sell out their mothers to be associated with that next ratings winner or box-office hit.

Yet when it comes to their counterparts in Washington, D.C., these same industry heavyweights are frequently exposed as a bunch of marshmallows, an overpaid collection of wimps.

Never has this been more glaring than in the entertainment industry’s fascination with President Clinton, who has an uncanny ability to render jaded show-business types positively star-struck. No matter how much ridicule and criticism he deigns to heap upon them--something he has done, at well-timed intervals, throughout his presidency--Hollywood luminaries line up to beg for more, usually paying for the privilege with bloated checks.

Television has frequently found itself at the center of this maelstrom. Paul Simon, then a Democratic senator from Illinois, brought the issue of TV violence to the fore in 1993, and Clinton famously summoned industry leaders to Washington three years later to adopt a “voluntary” system to rate programming for content--an event viewed by many executives, then and now, as an election-year photo opportunity for the president, undercutting Republican challenger Bob Dole’s accusation that Hollywood spewed forth “nightmares of depravity.”

Then only a month ago, entertainment moguls and stars turned out for a Clinton fund-raiser in Beverly Hills only to be chastised for the media’s role in our violent society, a charge renewed on both sides of the political aisle since the school shootings in Littleton, Colo. Shortly after that gathering, Clinton urged the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department to launch an investigation into the marketing practices of the film, recording and video game industries, a move that left industry officials feeling blindsided.

Of course, this is nothing new. San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown was once asked by “Politically Incorrect” host Bill Maher how he could take money from lobbyists and promptly vote against them. Brown drew big laughs by replying that the best part of politics was being able to take people’s money and do precisely that.

What remains fascinating is that entertainment figures appear so willing to silently endure this derision from Washington’s political class, one of the few groups with a worse image than their own in terms of values and morality. Indeed, there’s far more sex than violence in the new crop of TV series planned for next season, though Clinton seems less likely to weigh in on that specific point, no doubt aware of the guffaws that would follow.

This is not to say that some of those who run the film and television business don’t legitimately see wisdom in cleaning up their houses, as the president has asked them to do, not just for their own benefit but for the possible good of the country.

In their heart of hearts, however, most of these people--many of whom grew up watching violent TV shows and movies without shooting up their schools--truly believe that televised violence rates low on the list of factors contributing to societal violence, far behind such issues as access to guns, poverty, out-of-wedlock births, drug abuse, dissolution of nuclear families and more participatory forms of violent entertainment, especially video games.

*

Motion Picture Assn. of America chief Jack Valenti articulated this view at the president’s first TV summit, talking about the need for a moral renaissance in reaching out to at-risk and alienated kids.

“Absent that kind of moral regeneration, in the home and in the family and in the school and in the church,” Valenti said in his trademark drawl, “frankly, no ratings system, however purposeful, no V-chip or electronic device and no governmental law is going to salvage that child’s conduct or locate his lost moral core.”

Moreover, television executives have for years fallen back on the concept that Americans get, and consume, the television they want. Programmers conduct their own opinion polls daily based on how many people tune in, and a lot of somebodies out there are casting their ballots for wrestling and “Jerry Springer.” As for those viewers who strongly object to a program for any reason, they have never before had more channels to which they can escape.

Despite their past chants of this free-market mantra, entertainment officials continue to take actions and make announcements on their face designed to curry favor with the White House. The most brazen may have been CBS’ contention that “Falcone,” its prototype for a dramatic series based on the movie “Donnie Brasco,” didn’t land a spot on the network’s prime-time fall lineup because of concerns about violence related to its Mafia-related theme.

This was widely accepted as an epiphany, which would truly be remarkable considering that CBS apparently feels no such compunctions about airing the action-packed martial arts shows “Walker, Texas Ranger” and “Martial Law” every week--or, for that matter, about scoring big ratings with the 1997 Mafia miniseries “The Last Don” and last year’s sequel, which featured more rub-outs than an eraser factory.

A cynical observer might chalk this up to posturing or the shifting political winds, but what can’t be overlooked is what might be called the “currency of fame”: the fascination celebrities in one sphere harbor for those in another. This cross-pollination of the famous ranges from the stars who fill court-side seats at Lakers games to athletes who put out rap albums to show-business types who yearn to rub elbows with the president.

Clinton’s undeniable charisma can’t help but impress those in a business in which such intangible qualities make or break careers. So though they like him, they really like him, they also seem to have forgotten that he is by nature a politician, one willing to break ranks with his most ardent backers when the need arises, no matter how much they cozy up to him.

Perhaps this needs to be framed in terms TV people can easily understand. The highly entertaining Home Box Office movie “The Rat Pack” depicted Frank Sinatra as being desperate to gain approval from then-presidential candidate John F. Kennedy. Sinatra raises money for Kennedy, pals around with him and calls on his “connections” to help bring out the vote for him.

Kennedy, of course, drops Sinatra as soon as he gets into office. It’s an old story, and from the way things look, Hollywood is unwittingly producing yet another sequel.

*

Brian Lowry’s column appears on Tuesdays. He can be reached by e-mail at [email protected]