July 26, 2004
Drink Deeply or Not At All
Will somebody please think of the children? What about family values? What about consumer choice?
Then again, what about our constitutionally guaranteed rights to the exclusive control over distribution and alteration of artistic and documentary works?
This is the can of worms Representative Lamar Smith hopes to open up with a bill designed to end the Movie Industry’s litigation with Cleanflicks and other family filters.
Frankly, I don't have much sympathy with the Cleanflicks people. Sure, they're trying to protect families. But they're essentially stealing somebody's work and presenting it to the world with the author's name on it as if it were still the work the author's created. As a future filmmaker, I shudder at the thought of having that done to one of my movies.
And really, does it actually do what it's supposed to do, protect children and families? No, what it does is decieve them, render them ignorant, while giving them the illusion that they've seen the actual movie they rented. No, they haven't.
It was always interesting as a kid to see how movies got edited. They might edit out some violence, blank out the sound over a curse word, or even more funny sometimes, insert replacement language. The prize for creative vocal editing in my mind goes to Michael J. Fox's movie, The Hard Way. Fox's movie star character is prevented from following the hard-bitten detective played by James Woods onto the beat by means of a handcuff to the bed. Foxes, response, on learning this, is to call him an SOB. In the TV edit, he artfully calls him "you slime in a ditch!". Ah, the good old days.
Of course, such language, in the Era of NYPD Blue, would hardly raise an eyebrow. But that's beside the point. The point is, when they dubbed that line, cut the line, or edited for time or content, it was the filmmakers or studios doing so. Mostly the latter, owing to the fact that legally a movie's author is the studio, not director or screenwriter. There are exceptions, of course. Mel Gibson owns The Passion of The Christ. George Lucas owns every Star Wars movie, even the original, which he bought from 20th Century Fox.
Lamar Smith is basically asking Lucas, Gibson, and Fox to give up their rights as copyright holders to companies that did not ask their permission, nor involve them in the decision making process. They are taking the material that people like Spielberg, Gibson, and others worked to produce, and used them for their own purposes.
Removing violence, language and sexuality in a film are not neutral or necessarily positive things to do to a film. As a unproduced screenwriter and student of film, I can attest to the fact that the shape of the content affects the movie that contains it. More than that- Form and content are one thing in the end, viewed from two different angles.
Spielberg intended the violence to be of forensic quality. He uses the prologue at Normandy Beach to put the audience into the head of soldiers who fear from one moment to the next that their heads might get blown off. He stripped anti-glare coatings from the lense, did many shots with handheld cameras, set shutter angles(which affect how smooth or jittery the exposure looks) double printed frames, and used surround sound and film editing to put the people at grunt's eye level. Some critics contend that the movie becomes more cliched as it heads into the plot proper, but I say that after the first twenty-five minutes, the audience's perspective changes. Since the violence, when it does come back, is no less graphic, I would argue that Spielberg has not compromised the story by not making the rest of the movie like the first twenty-five minutes, but rather allowing the audience some rest from it. One cannot help but be haunted by the memories of what happened before. Spielberg had no need to belabor the obvious.
But what if it's no longer obvious? If the Bullet holes don't bleed, if the casualties are no longer so extreme, what becomes of a movie where a large part of the emotional impact of the film is based on the horrors of war?
But that's not the worst part. Movies are often edited for television, scenes cut out or switching offensive takes for inoffensive. That's to be expected.
The worst part is that a law like Lamar's essentially gives license to involuntary alteration by one company of another's product, another's art. As an unproduced screenwriter, I have been made keenly aware of the effect altering scenes, their structure and their content can have on a film. With Lamar's law, Once people have a license to chop into other people's work like that, they have license to alter not only the violent, sexual, or profane content of a film, but also the religious and political elements of it as well. Whole scenes or hearts of scenes may end up torn out, Altering the balance of what message the audience gets. This can turn into a vicious cycle of alienation of people from outside thought, as all films end up reviewed and altered to fit the agenda of local customers. Instead of the back and forth exchange of ideas between different, sometimes antagonistic groups, we have simple isolation and cultural stagnation.
That would be a pity. I think good ideas wash back and forth thorugh our arts along with the bad. Political parties absorb consensuses across partisan lines, groups in one social sector become interested in appeal to other sectors. The very demand for these cleaned-up movies shows it.
To fairly, wisely, and accurately understand the people who make these works, and their sensibilities, you must watch the movie they made, the version that expresses their values, whether you reject those values or not.
Let's not justify the muddying of the waters of our cultural communication in this fashion. Let's not fail to listen to what people are really saying in our race to make it comfortable
to our sensibilities.
Article 1
Article 2
Article 3
Article 4
Stephen, excellent topic. Seems to me the focus of remedy is in the wrong place. What fuels motives toward censorship (at least in the loudes rhetoric) is the loose access to objectionable material defined by local standards or interest groups, like parents of young children.
A much more effective and even legally supportable approach is to focus on access, not content. If parents had an effective and easy method of determinining what is objectionable for their children and equally effective and easy method of blocking their children’s access, we could have a solution that does not step so heavily and closely on the 1st Amendment. Adults can exercise choice of materials. Parents agree as I do, that young people are not experienced or knowledgeable enough to discriminate between that which is pornographic for their age group and that which is not.
I am limiting my daughter’s access to the Japanimation programs which are deeply rooted in violence and power over others as noble traits. Of course when I am not around, and forget to reset the filter, she has full access, though she is only 13.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 26, 2004 02:00 AMI think the logical conclusion to your post is to have a govenment momitoring program to ensure that people do not fast foward through seens… Oh, I forgot, Hollywood is already trying to do that with Tivo. If consumers deamand “cleaner” movies and there is a market for it, wouldn’t be easier for the filmaker to put a “G” cut on the DVD and enhance the value of their product to the consumer. As the RIAA learned with file sharing, you can either get behind technology and consumer demand, or lose your market.
Posted by: Dave at July 26, 2004 07:39 AMNo, what I’m against is the wholesale unauthorized manipulation of an artistic work by another private company or individual, who then seeks to replace somebody’s work with their own version in the marketplace. I’m all for fair use provisions, which the DMCA neglects, and other exceptions to the rules which are traditional. Heck, people can do whatever they want to the film footage, as long as they don’t try to make money off of it, or depriving the company of it’s due payment for copies.
The point about artistic integrity is more of a social point and commentary than it is a legal argument. Take George Lucas. If you’ve had any exposure to his works lately, you’ll know he tinkered with much of his works, with his Special Editions. He’s even doing something of that kind with his first movie, THX 1138.
He got flak for it, especially for the infamous “Greedo Shoots First” revision. People went into a whole bunch of handwringing about revisionism in film. I didn’t worry about it much myself for the following reasons:
1)He’s the filmmaker. Such revisionism is within his rights as an artist, especially in the light of the unfinished nature of his saga.
2)It has prompted an increase in director’s cuts on video, which has made for some interesting alternate versions. Among them, of course, are the Extended Editions of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the improved version of E.T., and various restorations.
But this is him doing it. He jealously guards his work against revisionists and spies who would reveal his work before it got to theatres.
This is more than just fast-forwarding. Fast Forwarding is non-destructive. It may not make for the purest watching experience, but it allows it to occur at some point. The same goes for the rating system in this country, which allows parents to make the decisions as to what their kids watch. That’s its inherent purpose as a matter of fact: parental advisory.
The Cleanflicks technology is destructive to the work. it prevents people from seeing the original for its own sake. What’s more, it encourages a kind of delusionary thought that somehow they’re the getting the best of both worlds, when in fact it’s the worst. You don’t get the movie in its full aesthetic presentation, the feel of it as close to the author’s intentions as possible. But you also expose your kids to films which they may see, like, and decide to go over to a friend’s house and see the real version. The censorship backfires, encourages more exposure to objectionable content.
That’s why I say “drink deeply or not at all.” It is one thing for kids to tempted to go and watch bloody, risque and/or profane movies on their own initiative. Show them cut down versions that they know are cut down, or that they’re told are cut down, and you make them curious as to what they’re missing.
David:
I think it bears mentioning that your typical Anime work are better overall works in terms of drama and comedy. They take it seriously, unlike our domestic media, which tends to make animation kids stuff. I would also say that it is of interest to understand another culture. I’d say, look at some of these works more in terms of their quality and cultural context, than the simple impulse to remove politically incorrect material from view.
That said, on content grounds, you have every right to limit her access to Anime. The Japanese attitude towards animation means violence can be r-rated, language can be coarse, and the sexual innuendo out in front. It is isn’t kids stuff, at least not as we define it.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 26, 2004 09:29 AMStephen-
I tend to agree with you here. I don’t know the underlying law, but my gut is telling me that Cleanflicks is making money off of a work product without license of the owner to do so. It would be different if they were selling the technology to allow parents to clean-up say a DVD within the confines of their own home like as part of a TiVo or something, but they are selling the re-worked work product under its previously copyrighted name.
As for cleaning up movies and changing the artist’s vision, the edited version of Scarface takes the cake. That version is one of the better comedies you will see!
The best filter you can have is to instill some good moral fiber into your child. I’ve let my 7 year old watch some PG-13’s in the past, and her mind does a good job of ignoring the bad words. She seems to understand that there are bad things and bad behavior in this world, and that while it might be acceptable to some to do those things it is not acceptable for her.
The Junie B. Jones series of books is good training for this. The main character June B. has terrible grammar and usually has some not so good behavior and emotions. Many don’t like the series because of it, but everything is not perfect in this world and allowing children to see that early can only help when they get older and start to deal with really bad stuff.
Posted by: George at July 26, 2004 11:57 AMI’m not clear on the legal issues here because I don’t know how film makers, distributors, etc., are paid for their video releases. I presume that a standard video store buys copies of the films, probably at a substantial discount, and then rents those copies to customers.
So how do the companies that modify films do it? Do they produce copy-for-copy films that they’ve purchased under the same procedure? If that’s the case, then where is the theft?
I reject your assertion that those renting the revised versions think they’re seeing the original movie when they’re not. Anyone who goes through the hassle of paying to have specially produced films mailed to him that he can watch with his family isn’t likely to think he’s watching the original film. If there was no demand for edited versions of films, there would be no companies like Cleanflicks.
Any company that purposely ignores customer demand will suffer losses in sales and the same principle applies even to the land of make-believe in Hollywood. You’d think all those artistic geniuses would be bright enough to figure that out and do something about it. Good luck with that one.
Posted by: NOTOTH at July 26, 2004 01:43 PMNOTOTH-
Cleanflicks essentially edits out certain shots and parts of shots, and sometimes the images themselves. Then, they sell that to the consumer. But not having copyright in the first place, they have no right to sell version of the film to consumers that they altered. It doesn’t matter whether they bought the original.
I think you’re right in a sense, but I think you’re wrong in another way. These people think what they are getting is the essential movie without the objectionable parts. The problem is not all filmmakers use the objectionable material gratuitously.
Demand does not justify breaking the law. If that were true, the DEA would be unnecessary. If you were to say there is a demand for movies with less objectionable content, I’d agree with you. But filling that order doesn’t require one to hijack and censor somebody else’s intellectual property. All those people have to do is set up their own low budget outfits and get creative.
It’s my experience that the true successes in Hollywood are the result of people filling just those kind of needs. Farenheit 9/11, Star Wars, The Passion of The Christ, Titanic, and Jurassic Park All did something of that kind. All challenged one assumption or another about how films were made, and what they were made about.
My artist’s conception of free speech is: don’t waste your time getting in the way of somebody else’s opinion or point of view. Go out and make your own contribution, paint your own picture. If the people who run cleanflicks are so interested in making content safe for families, they should produce their own stuff.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 26, 2004 02:59 PMStephen:
Here is what Cleanflicks says about the legality of what they do:
CleanFlicks’ current president, John Dixon, maintains that his company is not doing anything illegal, and he took careful legal steps to ensure that. Every CleanFlicks store is officially a “co-op”, where the customers, as members, also have a share in the ownership of that store, and subsequently they own all the videos that are sanitized and offered for rent. Thus, a viewing of a CleanFlicks video is not a “public viewing” in the eyes of the law. “We’re paying for these films up front,” Dixon stated in an interview with The Village Voice. “For every single copy we send out we have to have the original, so the studios are receiving full payment.”
I can see why moviemakers might be up in arms about the precedent of allowing someone to alter their film, though I don’t see why they’d object to someone simply “cleaning” up the film. After all, that’s what happens to most films before they go on television anyway.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 26, 2004 03:22 PMJoe-
Well that’s one way around the work product issue. But that doesn’t sound like a really great business model; Sam’s club and maybe Uniway have been able to do the membership thing but most of those types fade away pretty quick.
Posted by: George at July 26, 2004 04:42 PM“Any company that purposely ignores customer demand will suffer losses in sales and the same principle applies even to the land of make-believe in Hollywood. You’d think all those artistic geniuses would be bright enough to figure that out and do something about it. Good luck with that one.”
Well, real “artistic genius” types dont normally look at themselves or their creative output as products to be sold. (Hopefully) they are out to express themselves and not shape their creations to a marketable mold. Of course, as with all things, there are exceptions. Im talking about real “artistic geniuses” here, not people like Britney Spears or Jerry Bruckheimer.
Posted by: James Fitzgerald at July 26, 2004 04:48 PMJoe-
A copyright means you have exclusive rights to your work, with minor exceptions for personal and academic uses.
Even if by technicality they are not in violation of the law, they are definitely violating the spirit of it, which is rewarding authors for their hard work in creating a movie by ensuring that the rights of authorship, including compensation for one’s work, and editorial control over content remain with the holder of the copyright for a limited period of time. After that, people can do as they please with the work
Editorial control is important. A person should not be able to alter the work you have copyrighted without your permission. Movies Edited for Television are always done with the permission of copyright holders, who are instrumental in the process of reworking the films. Nominally at least, this is important, because that film reflects on the author. Thus Michael Moore’s trouble with Michael Eisner.
That “Cleaning up” of the movie can make it say things that it wouldn’t in its original version. The edited for television version at least has been reworked with the knowledge and consent of the authors. This means they have editorial control over those changes, such that, if they see fit to do so, they can minimize the damaged done to the movie by the content revisions and cuts for time.
There is no such editorical control, knowledge or consent given to the people at Cleanflicks. There’s no Spielberg, coming up with ideas to conform to television standards and restrictions, while preserving the spirit of the work. Instead, what you have are a bunch of self-appointed guardians of morality making substantive changes to the images and editing of movies that do not belong to them as intellectual property.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 26, 2004 11:45 PM
