This week, at 82, Valenti announced that he was ready to step down as chairman and CEO of the MPAA. But let’s be clear here. “I do not intend to fully retire,” Valenti tells NEWSWEEK. Nor is he cutting his ties with the MPAA–just loosening them. The search for his replacement could take three to four months. And Valenti says he hopes to continue serving as an unofficial adviser even after his successor has been selected. He’s not likely to back down from his battle against video piracy or any other issue that might adversely affect the industry he loves anytime soon either. “I am blessed with a very energetic gene,” he says. NEWSWEEK’s Jennifer Barrett spoke to Valenti by phone about the changes he’s seen in Hollywood, the changes he hopes to see, and what role he might play in implementing them. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: What made you decide to step down now?
Jack Valenti: What I really announced was that I wouldn’t be back at ShoWest [an annual convention for the motion-picture industry] next year. I have not formally resigned as CEO, which I will do at a later time. We have hired a search firm. I have been trying for a year and a half to loosen the ties as chairman.
When do you expect to actually resign as chairman and CEO?
I’m guessing two and a half months to three and a half months from now. But I don’t intend to fully retire. Retirement to me is synonymous with death. I would hope I would be on call privately to offer advice and counsel to a new person. It will be 38 years in May for me [that I have been here], and after 38 years you ought to get the hang of a job.
So why stop now?
The only reason I am stepping down is that change is good. And you ought to leave a job when everyone wants you to stay and not wait until someone asks you to leave.
You’re leaving some big shoes to fill.
People say, “It’s hard to fill your job.” And I’m flattered, but it’s not true. Everybody can be replaced. It may be different, but it may be better. Change is the indispensable irrigation of life. Personally, I’m challenged by change, and I find it fascinating and exciting.
How has the moviemaking industry changed since you took the helm of the MPAA in 1966?
When I took over, studios were kingdoms unto themselves–fiefdoms run by hard-driven, egocentric extraordinary people. Now studios are all part of a larger media company–a division of a company–rather than the capital of the kingdom itself. Second is that it has become a global business. When I took over, the total revenues were under $2 billion worldwide; now that’s around $40 billion. Forty-one percent of studio revenues come from overseas. American movies dominate the world still, but not because we have a patent on it. We don’t have a magic formula, but we think and act globally and try to tell stories that every creed and culture will find interesting. The third change is technology. The difference between digital and analog is like the difference between lightning and the lightning bug, to quote Mark Twain.
What do you consider the highlight of your career at the MPAA?
Yesterday, somebody asked me what my greatest achievement was, and I said, “I survived.” And believe me, that is not an inconsiderable asset. But probably the thing that will live on is the voluntary ratings system, which we created on Nov. 1, 1968. As I have said often, nothing lasts 36 years in this volatile and brutal marketplace unless it is providing a service. I feel the ratings system is alive and well. It is subject to criticism because we are dealing with subjectivity, not with Euclidian geometry. But I think, overall, the ratings system has made a big difference in helping parents better guide their children’s movie decisions. Last September, we took a poll and 76 percent of all parents with children under 13 said they find the ratings system fairly or very useful in guiding their viewing choices. I’m also proud that I have been a vocal advocate of the First Amendment.
I understand that you established the voluntary ratings system in part as a challenge to government boards that tried to censor some of the content in Hollywood movies. Do you feel like we’re encountering some of that now, with Clear Channel’s decision to yank Howard Stern’s show off some stations and the FCC’s fines of nearly $2 million against him?
I am troubled sometimes by people who want to go too far. We have to remember that we didn’t get to be a free and loving land by restricting some people from speaking. There are some rules of the game, and criminal obscenity laws, but it is difficult to define them. The Supreme Court has been unable to define what pornography and obscenity are. They are legal terms. We have to be very careful that if you are going to write rules of the game and prosecute people, you must define with great clarity what is the law that they are breaking. As far as movies are concerned I am confident that as the Supreme Court has said, the movie industry comes under the canopy of the First Amendment and the government is precluded from making governmental judgments about what people can and can’t see. I am a parent, and my wife and I took great pains to guide our children in the books they read and the movies they saw. But I certainly wouldn’t want the mayor of my town or my congressman telling me how to raise my kids. These are parental responsibilities.
How much do you think the standards regarding violence and “indecency” have changed over the years?
You see things now on TV and on premium cable that you never saw before. But if you don’t like it, cancel your subscription or turn off the TV, and make sure you know what TV programs your kids are watching. We do have a TV ratings system, but I think few people tend to it the way they ought to. The ratings board tries in its way to keep up with the threshold of acceptance in America. You can’t be sterner than TV because TV comes into your home. The ratings board asks themselves if that rating is the one they think most parents would agree with.
You’ve talked about how the cost of making movies has skyrocketed. Last year, the average cost of making and marketing a film rose to $102.9 million–a 15 percent increase. That’s a staggering number. What is driving up costs?
The largest increase was in marketing. Most films use a lot of TV and that’s where cost increase just erupted. It has to do with whether you are making a film with digital special effects. Above the line, star prices are pretty high, but so are basketball players and football players because they put butts in those seats. What studios will have to do, and will do, is go into overdrive on cost control.
You’ve also fought hard against video piracy. How much do you figure the industry loses to piracy?
We estimate that in analog and optical-disc piracy–DVDs and VCDs–we lose about $3.5 billion a year from illegal duplication. We haven’t been able to find ways to measure what we lose off the Internet yet. Some independent studies say that 400,000 to 600,000 movies are being downloaded illegally every day, and that’s probably going to get even worse. The newest intrusion into the movie industry is the file-swapping sites. This is our challenge. There’s no silver bullet. It will be a mixture of technology–digital rights and procedures, encryption–along with persuasion and education. We have not sued anybody yet, but I have said before that that is an option.
Will it come to that?
I have no idea. But when you are dealing with the malignancy of abduction of our films you can’t rule out anything.
One of your efforts backfired when you banned the video copies of films that are sent to the Academy Award voters ahead of the Oscars. A judge overturned the ban later. Do you feel like opponents misunderstood what you were trying to do?
In 2002, companies sent out about 68 titles, and half of them were pirated. What I was worried about was that we would have stealing of our products traced back to these screeners. The fear I expressed was not a figment of my imagination. But if I had to do it again I would have conferred more with people outside of the studios about the nature of the menace and why it’s necessary to take these actions. I probably erred a little bit in moving too fast, but we were running out of time. The motive is still there. You can’t send out brand-new movies and not expect them to be stolen.
Do you think the ban would have affected the chances of some independent film nominees winning awards? Perhaps “Monster”–whose star, Charlize Theron, won the best actress award?
I don’t know how it could have made any difference. I don’t know the answer, but I know the thievery was definitely there. The MPAA will not have a screener policy; that will be left to each of the individual companies now. I am going to try to hold a meeting in which I will invite all interested parties and talk about this.
In 2003, total box office totaled $9.5 billion–the second largest in history. What do you think keeps drawing people to the theater–especially now that we have so many other entertainment options?
I am one who believes that the movie theater will have a long endurance because it is the one different place that you see a movie. If you look at DVDs and the Internet–it’s all in the home and you’re viewing them about the same way. But the theater, with the huge screen and the digital sound, offers you an epic viewing experience you simply can’t duplicate in your home. I don’t care about all the home entertainment magic. People will still want to go out. Going to see a movie is still an alluring social adventure.
