A recent appellate court ruling has decided that it is illegal for companies to pay Hollywood for movies and then sanitize them of gratuitous nudity, over-the-top profanity, and puerile violence. For years, Hollywood has found ways to insert into otherwise coherent storylines scenes of nudity, sex, profanity, and violence.
In what seems like a simple compromise, a company would pay for the video, sanitize the content for those who request that service, and then sell the video to the consumer. In these cases, Hollywood gets paid for the price of the movie.
That apparently is not enough.
It isn't enough for Hollywood to get paid for their trash, consumers must watch the garbage in unedited form to make sure that viewers either have to manually fast-forward or otherwise endure pornography that is completely irrelevant to the storyline. Hollywood says that editing their films destroys the "creative intent" of movie producers.
Exactly what does a nude Kate Winslet add to the storyline of Titanic… well, besides masturbatory material?
Christians and other groups have responded to the trend of Hollywood being barely able to make a movie without some B-list actress flashing the audience by setting up companies to siphon out the irrelevant content. Again, in cases where people buy these movies with the cleaned content, Hollywood gets paid full price. They make exactly as much as they would if someone bought the unedited film some place else.
The economics of the process are simple. This is a free country, if people demand porn; they can get porn (despite the clear objectification of women and harm it does to society). However, if people want movies without the extraneous and non-plot enhancing nudity, violence, or profanity, that is something that presents a clear and present danger to our nation. In this case, we cannot allow supply to meet demand.
Here's the interesting feature, by pursuing this line of litigation with firms like Clean Flicks, Hollywood is causing direct harm to their bottom line. Instead of allowing consumers to buy the films edited to their standards, it generates a conflict. Consumers are now faced with the choice to either buy the film that they object to as-is, or to not buy it at all. This litigation has made the voice of the American Family Association, Coral Ridge Ministries, and the like that much louder. Ever better, it gives a catalyst to help propel the nascent efforts of a Christian movie-making industry into a viable movement.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
John,
Intereting article. Fortunately, this is merely an appellate court ruling. One can go a bit higher, and this is an interesting issue for the Supreme Court legal clerks to look at. It's not as "sexy" as abortion, but it comes close.
I remember the time when getting pornogrqphic movies was an enterprise that bordered on illegal - and how the worm has turned. Now, getting non-pornographic movies will be illegal!
Anoither reason to hope for a messianic redemption "soon and in our days" - just to get rid of this crappy mentality that forces everyone's nose to be rubbed in the feces that American culture has become.
2 - Ty
"The Passion of Christ, Lord of the Rings, and other family-friendly films"
The Passion is family-friendly? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You are a hypocrit, my friend. Bashing violence but upholding Passion as family-friendly just because it gruesomely shows Christ being crucified? Funny stuff.
"The economics of the process are simple. This is a free country, if people demand porn; they can get porn (despite the clear objectification of women and harm it does to society). However, if people want movies without the extraneous and non-plot enhancing nudity, violence, or profanity, that is something that presents a clear and present danger to our nation. In this case, we cannot allow supply to meet demand."
If you want censored crap, you can watch hours on end of PAX TV and your Christian crap. There is no need to promote censorship of Hollywood movies. If there was enough demand of the putrid crap you want (yes, having films edited as you suggest is highly objectionable to me and most people), filmmakers would listen and create films to cater to your fringe group. They might even base an industry of it in Salt Lake City, CHRISTIAN_COALITION_WOOD.
"They believe that their monopoly on American moviemaking gives them the right to dictate what society's values should be."
If you had it your way, every movie store would only have films like CLEANFLICKS. Now who thinks they can dictate what society's values should be.
I for one am scared to think you and your fellow crazy Christian co-horts might one day eliminate Hollywood. You all would just love that, wouldn't you?
3 - Paul
"They make exactly as much as they would if someone bought the unedited film some place else."
Usually Hollywood ONLY cares about money. This is showing they care about the art form of film and that these movies should not be edited in an unauthorized fashion.
Funny how you bring up the Titanic scene. Yes that is a tiny feather in your cap, but you ignore the COUNTLESS times in film history (just an example) that nudity and/or sex was VITAL to the story, yet Cleanflicks also edited those scenes out too. What do you have to say about that?
Somehow I doubt people who think like you watch movies that have nudity and/or sex that is vital to the movie, but what gives you the RIGHT to demand that these filmmakers tone down their movies just to please you.
WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?
I agree with Ty. You are just a fringe group that really doesn't matter. If you mattered to Hollywood, they would get into the Cleanflicks game and already offer up the edited versions of movies. Instead you don't really matter, and Hollywood does not need to censor to make you or anyone else happy.
4 - Japhet
There are many films that don't feature "explicit" sex or violence. As you pointed out yourself, there is a small Christian film-making contigent churning out productions that celebrate righteous values so a minority's productions should fulfill a minority's entertainment needs.
What's really funny is how you're confusing the question of choice. If you don't like it, don't watch it. If you want to change an artist's intent, ask permission. If they give it, it's fine but if they don't you have to respect their wishes and leave the piece as it is. People own the content of their creations (unless they sell it) and there is enough content for every conceivable interest.
Hollywood is not dictating society's values; you're giving them far too much credit and unwittingly pointing out a tremendous gap in too many families today. The parents should be taking charge and actually raising their kids, sensibly and rationally; not by hiding them from the various realities of the world but presenting and explaining them in a mature, reasonable fashion that is neither explicit or patronizing.
5 - Jim C.
Does this ruling mean that movies can no longer be "edited for content" when shown on television? It would seem so.
6 - Clark Westfield
I don't understand why people shouldn't have the right to buy a DVD movie where the nudity is tagged in such a way that a player can optionally skip past them. What next? Hollywood forcing people to watch commercials and prevent them from fast-forwarding their DVRs? If I want to read a John Grisham novel but skip past the two pages of a sexual encounter because the writer doesn't have the slightest clue how to write about them, should I not be allowed to do that?
7 - Dave D
"I don't understand why people shouldn't have the right to buy a DVD movie where the nudity is tagged in such a way that a player can optionally skip past them."
Right to buy a movie? WTF? Make your own movies! Vote with your wallet and don't watch the Hollywood ones you object to.
8 - JP
How about independent film? Aren't there a number of Christian sites and others listing films that do NOT include the nudity you wish to avoid? Watch those!
As an artist--a musician, specifically--I can volunteer that EVERY bit of a song is painstakingly controlled, so that the listener's experience is exactly as desired. That's what producers do. Directors do the same thing in movies. What you consider "irrelevant" is not to the person who created the film. It should not be altered.
And as for the rest of the article, you write "The ability to choose the gender of one's sexual partner is hailed" as if you think someone ELSE should be able to choose the gender of one's sexual partner? Whose decision do you think it should be??
9 - JP
Also--how would you react to a Jewish film-editing company removing the scenes of "Passion" that are perceived as offensive to Jews?
10 - Matt Paprocki
Would you have a problem with CNN editing out stories that may be offensive to you? It's called free speech. If a director intended a scene to be in his film, then it stays, period. If you're too sensitive, don't watch it. It's not that complicated.
In all honesty, this piece should be satire. Deep down you can seriously believe that Passion was a family film? Huh? The guy has chunks of flesh ripped out of his back in slow motion, but the bare breasts in Titanic is offensive? I can't even begin to process any sort of logic from these statements. This country is so ass-backwards it's not even funny.
11 - John Bambenek
"WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?"
I think I'm the consumer. In a free market, the consumer rules, not big business. Funny, I thought the left agreed with that.
If I were "in charge" of the world, Hollywood would be free to still make their trash, Cleanflicks isn't demanding that they replace Blockbuster. They are supplying the demands of some subset of consumers, a set of consumers that you believe have no rights in the free market.
I thought you guys were on the sides of the consumer?
In the end, my critics misunderstand my point. If Hollywood wants to pick this fight, they're entitled, but they are attacking their own financial interest in doing so. Instead of people buying clean versions of their films, they are forced to not buy at all.
Some of you are attacking me with a point I outright made.
12 - Ray Ellis
I'm afraid you have once again missed your own point. It's about creative freedom, not financial interests. We all have agendas, and yours is blatantly clear--what you and the so-called "Christian Right" really want is an America that adheres to your dogma.
Sure, 97% of everything is garbage. But how do you propose to "sanitize" a movie like "The Godfather" or even "The Searchers" without losing the crux of the story? You can't.And you know it. Would you watch a film about gangsters in the first place? How do you fit them in your cookie cutter world?
If you thought Kate Winslet's brief nude scene (posing for figure art) in "Titanic" was only "masturbatory material", it speaks volumes about your psyche and nothing about artistic merit.
Let's take your premise a step further (which you guys invariably do)and cut out "objectionable" scenes in-oh, I dunno-- the Bible. Oh, those scenes were necessary to make a point, weren't they?
You have the ultimate editing option--don't buy it if you object to it.
13 - Silas Kain
Sigh. Lions, Gladiators, Christians in the Colisseum. The days I long for are gone.
14 - RedTard
How are the nutjobs turning this into christions trying to force their values on them?
By the same logic, shouldn't that little chapter skip button on your DVD player be illegal as well?
If Hollywood is getting paid each time for each movie, then the end user should be able to edit out whatever the fuck they want. If their is a company set up to provide that editing service so be it.
This shines a harsh light on the hypocritical leftists who claim to stand for freedom. It shows their real agenda is the take down of traditional values, not the freedom to choose an alternative.
15 - Matt Paprocki
"I thought you guys were on the sides of the consumer?"
We're on the sides of filmmakers to make their films as they seem fit. They DO NOT have to conform to a sector of the public because they find the material offensive. It's utterly absurd that one would even suggest it.
With something like this, you also run into the problem of what is offensive. How much of the film would be censored to fit someone's narrow minded view? What if they left the "damn" in Gone with the Wind? Someone could be offended by that, but hey, let Cleanflicks edit an American classic.
The simple fact that you suggested Lord of the Rings and Passion as family films shows how hypocritical your debate is. You honestly believe if this group got a hold of Passion and edited out the violence it would be the same film it was before? All of the drama and tension in that film is because of the violence.
16 - Ray Ellis
There is no such thing as "traditional values"--that changes from generation to generation, and from culture. Sorry, Redtard, but you're just spewing rhetoric to avoid the issue. Typical.
17 - RedTard
Spewing what rhetoric? I beleive in freedom, period. I do find it hypocritical that the left usually stands for individual freedoms except in this one instance. Honestly, of the people here who are against these groups editing content, how many of you download songs illegally online?
I thought so. You don't give a shit about the nuance of copyright laws, you're just happy to stick it to those dirty christians you hate so much.
18 - Ray Ellis
Oh, Redtard--I am fully cognizant of the nuances of copyright law. You do not have a legal right to alter an author's work in any form "without the express written consent of the artist unless otherwise noted".
This isn't an "us versus them" issue--it is simply a reaffirmation of copyright law. As I said before, you can edit anything you want--once you've bought it. Outside companies cannot edit forprofit.
19 - RedTard
"This isn't an 'us versus them' issue"
Yes, it is. It's selective enforcement of copyright laws because some of 'them' want to edit it their way. DeeJay's at the local strip club, where drugs, alcohol, and weapons abound edit songs, play them over one anther at their hearts content.
Why don't they bust them for changing the artists work without written consent? Answer, because drugs, alcohol, backroom prostitution, and late night drunken shootings are the types of values these 'Artists' stand for.
In the end it probably is all about money. People who want quality entertainment without all the violence and nudity are a tiny minority. The industry will gain more by alienating them and looking 'cool' in the process. (sticking it to those dirty christians is pretty cool these days)
20 - Dave Nalle
RedTard and others who think that the issue here is the right of organizations like Cleanflicks to edit movies have the entire rights issue backwards. The rights which need to be protected here are those of the director of the film. It's a work of art and the creator of that work should have the final say on how it should be presented to the public. That's his absolute right. All it means is that Cleanflicks needs to contact the copyright holder on the film and get permission to modify the film. That's not unreasonable at all. Lots of films are voluntarily released by their production companies in rated and unrated versions with directorial approval for specifically this reason. What we've got here is a non-issue being puffed up to push the repressive moralist agenda by making them look persecuted when that really isn't the case.
Dave
21 - Ray Ellis
Your hyperbole is showing, Redtard. To seem to think that you can prove a point through inflamatory rhetoric rather than a reasoned discourse. You have yet to answer my question regarding how you would edit "The Godfather" to make it palatable without altering its point. Since you can't. I'm forced to assume that carrying your argument to its logical conclusion that we would have to purge the film from our memories completely.
22 - Matt Paprocki
"People who want quality entertainment without all the violence and nudity are a tiny minority."
But why would you be watching, say, a mobster movie in the first place? Why would you buy a Star Wars movie is the violence wasn't to your taste? The industry produces hundreds of family, perfectly clean films that suit your needs.
"You have yet to answer my question regarding how you would edit "The Godfather" to make it palatable without altering its point."
I asked the same thing to the author about Passion of the Christ and never got a response.
23 - RedTard
I don't have to show you why the Godfather would be different, I'm not the idiot who would want an edited version. I like porn, strip clubs, 'smut', and saying fuck, shit, and goddamit and I'm proud of it. I personally enjoy unrated director's cuts with extra added bonus shit.
I'm not saying I'm one of them, It just seems to me that people who don't appreciate language, nudity, and the like and are willing to pay retail for a movie full of those things should be able to edit them out without having to go through a court battle. (or pay a company to edit for them)
24 - gonzo marx
comment #20 lays out the Truth much more completely than the original Article
the Issue here are the copyright and Intellectual Property rights of the owners of said Properties...
read the FBI warning...even tho you buy the DVD, you cannot copy and resell it without permission of the owners of said Intellectual property rights...
that's called piracy, and is a felony
now, you can buy the DVD, and edit it on your computer, then play it for your Family...that is legal, what you CANNOT do is change/edit it and then RESELL it...this violates numerous federal laws
someone broght up the TV "edited for content" showings....if you check, much legal wrangling is done and legal agreements between the broadcaster and the owner of the Property are created
this IS about the rights of ownership of Intelectual Property and copyright laws...which the mentioned companies are in direct violation of
the bottom line, if you don't liek it, or the film and some of it's content offends you..
DON'T fucking buy it!!!
just that simple, you have every Right not to view or purchase content which offends you, but you have NO right to change/edit content which you do not own and resell it....
period
Excelsior?
25 - Les Slater
Dave #20,
I totally agree.
Les