Hollywood Surprised by Clinton’s Violence Inquiry

Shortly after President Clinton loosed federal investigators on the entertainment industry last week, Hollywood began cooking up conspiracy theories. What, blindsided executives in Los Angeles wanted to know, had made this Democrat--a fan of pop culture, defender of the 1st Amendment and major beneficiary of the industry’s largess--launch a $1-million inquiry into how they market violence to children?

Was the lame duck president searching for a legacy that wasn’t scandal? Was he mad that not a single Hollywood honcho had attended his May 10 youth violence summit? Was he trying to give Hillary Clinton a springboard to run for the Senate?

“Clinton did this in a surprising way,” said Donna Bojarsky, a Democratic activist with long-standing Hollywood ties. “People are trying to understand it.”

What had happened in the six weeks between the high school massacre in Littleton, Colo., and Clinton’s unprecedented probe of entertainment violence only underscored how the insular worlds of Washington and Hollywood play by different rules. If on the surface they both attract big egos, value showmanship and survive by figuring out what America wants, they are different in one key respect: Washington lives by votes, and Hollywood by profits.

“We’re driven by market forces,” said one movie industry insider, rejecting the notion that Hollywood’s production of violence is out of sync with the nation. “We are in sync with America. People love violence. They will rebuke it all day long, but ‘The Matrix’ just made $155 million.”

However accurate, that bottom-line viewpoint--bolstered by the fact that moviegoers often say they want one thing then plunk down $8 at the multiplex to see another--may have left Hollywood unaware that this time Clinton meant business. Few in the entertainment world expected the boom would be lowered so quickly, or that Clinton would be the one to lower it.

But if the industry was in tune with the desires of millions of consumers, it was hopelessly out of touch with the depth of the national sentiment demanding action after Littleton and the political realities of Washington.

“Clinton was well-armed with polling that told him what this would mean, and he doesn’t move without that,” said one East Coast film industry lobbyist. “There are few forces of nature more powerful than a political opportunity waiting to be seized.”

Political insiders agree that the events of last week were vintage Clinton--co-opting a popular issue with expert timing. The Senate-passed legislation ordering the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice to investigate the marketing of music, movies and video games to children was awaiting approval by the House. When Congress went out of town for the Memorial Day recess, Clinton leaped out front and ordered the probe himself.

His action was consistent with his history on similar issues--pushing a balking television industry to accept sex and violence ratings, lambasting violent rap lyrics and publicly condemning the industry’s excesses.

Inquiry Follows Party Fund-Raiser

What recent events illustrate is the sometimes profound disconnect between the Democratic president and the industry that thinks it has a relationship with him. In the weeks after Littleton, the links between the two power centers were frayed.

Some East Coast political analysts said Hollywood’s strong financial support of Clinton’s agenda probably boomeranged--targeting the industry rather than shielding it.

The inquiry came two weeks after DreamWorks principals Steven Spielberg, David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg hosted a Beverly Hills event that raised $2 million for the Democratic Party. Some saw the inquiry as a move to ward off charges that the Democrats use Hollywood as a cash machine but are loathe to take it to task on tough issues.

“After that fund-raiser in Los Angeles what could [Clinton] do?” said one political observer. “People were going to say Hollywood bought him [and the Democrats] off.”

Those contradictory perspectives were voiced time and again last week: Washington accused Hollywood of hiding behind the 1st Amendment to defend the production of disturbingly violent product, and Hollywood decried Washington for scapegoating. Many in the industry said it was their earnest desire to help curtail youth violence, but that the White House slammed them before they had the chance.

“[Clinton’s] announcement certainly felt like finger-pointing,” said Andy Spahn, corporate spokesman for DreamWorks SKG, adding that the timing and scope of the inquiry seemed inconsistent with the president’s earlier invitation to work together without blame.

Industry leaders were discussing possible steps to reduce youth violence when Clinton charged ahead. “Why none of us were consulted and why that process wasn’t permitted to unfold isn’t clear to me,” Spahn said.

Nevertheless, one entertainment industry publicist noted that though Hollywood players may feel miffed, they don’t have a lot of alternatives.

“It’s not just about the money. They share their aura, their glitter, their fairy dust. They let [politicians] come to their homes. That’s what flips them out more than anything else. They thought the seduction had worked. They thought they owned this guy,” the publicist said. “But they’re stuck. There’s nowhere to go.”

Clinton Earlier Expressed Concerns

Clinton’s concerns about media violence are not new--he has been consistent about the issue since he first campaigned for president in 1992. After TV’s “Murphy Brown” featured Candice Bergen as an unwed mother--drawing fire from the likes of then-Vice President Dan Quayle--Clinton said he was “troubled by the gratuitous violence and sex and mixed moral signals on television.”

Visiting Hollywood in late 1993 after his election, Clinton urged agents at the Creative Artists Agency to take personal responsibility for what they helped produce.

Then at last month’s White House summit, Clinton spoke of a direct link between violent images and violent acts. The combined eagerness of Congress and the White House to find a solution--or at least to appear to be actively searching for one--made it clear in Washington that some federal action had to be taken to assure the nation that its government wasn’t just sitting around waiting for the next campus tragedy.

“The president was determined from the beginning to focus our efforts on ending marketing of violence to young people, and since the summit he has made that point in a variety of ways,” said a senior White House official. “Many in the entertainment industry haven’t grasped the distinction between marketing and creative license, and they had a reaction to any action by the government, even one that’s designed to reinforce the spirit of the industry’s own [movie] rating system.”

Hilary Rosen, president of Recording Industry Assn. of America, responded: “It’s not that the industry didn’t understand that Washington was serious. But there is a broad-based cynicism about the president’s motives--that something has to be done because we have to look like we’re doing something.”

The federal inquiry may only be the beginning. On Friday, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) joined Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in a bid to expand the law that requires warning labels on cigarettes to apply to violent entertainment products. They plan to introduce a Senate bill to that effect next week. Industry analysts saw the action as the latest volley in a game of one-upmanship, with Clinton and Congress now competing to see which could slap Hollywood hardest.

As politicians such as Lieberman vowed to deliver a “wake-up call,” by week’s end Hollywood was already wide awake.

“Bill Clinton loves black people. He rebukes Sister Souljah,” mused one Hollywood insider, recalling Clinton’s 1992 condemnation of the militant black rap singer’s comments after the Los Angeles riots.

“Bill Clinton loves poor people. He signed the Republican version of welfare reform. He’s a friend of Hollywood and he bashes Hollywood. It’s not inconsistent with the middle of the street he likes to walk. We are Sister Souljah right now.”

What inflamed Tinseltown most was Clinton’s decision to limit the federal inquiry to the entertainment industry, leaving the impression that the guns were not part of the problem.

TV producer Norman Lear, a longtime supporter of Democratic causes, said, “Singling us out--looking at the entire culture, the whole fabric, and picking out one thread and pointing the finger because that’s the way the wind is blowing? My visceral reaction is the president . . . had nothing to say, so he grabbed at a straw. I find that totally objectionable.”

That people feel not just ambushed, but spurned, could have lasting effects for the Democratic Party, part of the reason Clinton’s decision to launch the inquiry did not have the unanimous support of his advisors, according to one senior White House official. But Clinton “felt comfortable” with the timing, the official said, and remarked heading back from the Rose Garden Tuesday that it was “the right thing to do.”

Part of Clinton’s comfort could stem from the fragmented nature of contemporary Hollywood. The movie studios now are part of multinational corporations with myriad products and competing interests. Actors and directors often are dissatisfied with the ways studios market their films.

“There is no monolith Hollywood,” said one Washington lobbyist. “One guy can’t stand up, snap his fingers and say, ‘We will no longer support the White House, Hillary or [California Democratic Sen.] Dianne Feinstein.’ Not like other industries where they all support their friends all the time.”

Meanwhile, there are signs that Hollywood is responding in its own way. Agents report a “chilling effect” on violent projects, even the most innocuous. Disney’s plan to create a feature film franchise called “Fear Street” (based on a series of humorous children’s books by R.L. Stine) reportedly was shelved in the wake of Littleton.

And not everyone is chafing at the inquiry.

“I understand being singled out looks bad, but to think that the gun lobby hasn’t been singled out since Columbine is inane,” said Jeff Ayeroff, co-chief of Sony Music’s Work Group label, who in the early ‘90s helped create “Rock the Vote,” a voter registration effort aimed at young people. “Self-examination isn’t a bad thing.”

*

Times staff writers Ronald Brownstein and Elizabeth Jensen contributed to this report. Wallace reported from Los Angeles, Fiore from Washington.