Digital Joe #19

---

Tools:
Send to a friend »

---

Maybe you heard, but earlier this week, a Federal Court ordered four different companies who "sanitize" various movies to cease operations and hand over all copies of their product to the originating studio. Basically, these companies bought DVD´s and, through the miracle of the computer age, "cleaned" them up. The definition of "cleaned" up varies, from the stories I´ve read. Everything from profanity, nudity and violence to "abnormal" human behavior (homosexuality was mentioned as an example) as well as regarding references to God is included.

The argument, from Hollywood and the Directors Guild of America is that movies are copyrighted by their creators and no company has the right to infringe on that copyright. The clean movie companies claim it is fair use, the same statute that allows sketch comedies like "Saturday Night Live" to parody everybody and everything. They also claim there are people around the country who want to watch edited, "clean" versions of movies.

Let´s start with Hollywood´s side, which I completely support. Movies, like it or not, are pieces of art. And art, for whatever reason, should not be modified without the original author´s input. When television versions of films are created, the director or editor is included most of the time. Moreover, film crews spend years working on a film, agonizing over budget details, shot selection, framing, dialogue, actions and everything else in front of and behind the screen. Why should anybody have the right to buy the material like a normal consumer, edit and modify it to their hearts content and then resell it? Would this practice be acceptable in, say, publishing?

Consider this: a company thinks there was a market for the book "Hannibal" but without the violence, gore, horror and profanity. They bought a dozen copies of "Hannibal" off the shelf, edited out the profanity and anything else that was offensive and resold them. Can anyone honestly say this is okay?

While I don´t support any of the companies who engaged in this business (they will not be named in this piece since I have no intention of giving them more publicity than they have already gotten), I understand there is a segment of the population who is offended by every little thing out there. They should fully have the right to view material that does not offend their sensibilities and throw their world into a crisis.

By all means, if you find something not to your liking or against your morals, don´t watch it. It´s called freedom. If I don´t want to listen to garbage radio, I can turn on my iPod. If I don´t want to each fish, I can order anything else from the menu. Simple, isn´t it?

But to censor a movie and resell it to the public with any creator input? I don´t approve of that.

In essence, free willed adults are relying on a third part to tell them something is okay to watch. Going back to Nipplegate, the V chip and the FCC crackdown on television programming, there is a feeling that adults need someone to monitor what they watch. Perhaps the saddest part of all this is that adults feel they need to be monitored.

Some people will use the argument that the censorship is for the kids. They don´t want the kids to see blood or breasts while watching a program. Which lead to a simple solution: Mom or Dad monitors what the kids have on the tube.

Ya know, back when I was growing up in the 1980s, no one ever thought kids should be watching TV at 8 or 9 pm by themselves. The claim is times have changed and parents today "don´t have time" to sit with their kids. In essence, they don´t have time to be parents. But, that´s going to have to be a discussion for another day. It is definitely outside the scope of this court ruling.

Frankly, if adults can´t look at a movie on the shelf in the store and determine if its appropriate for their viewing, then they have no business stepping out into the world. Guys, there is an MPAA rating system for a reason. Every single movie on my shelf includes that rating. Even our TV shows are rated now. The reasons for any rating are mostly listed on the back of the box, right? "Lost: The Complete First Season" lists a TV 14 rating. My "He-Man" sets are unrated. The theatrical cut of "Alien vs. Predator" has a PG-13 rating attached with the descriptors "violence, language, horror images, slime and gore" (SLIME? Are you kidding?). The point is, for any reasonable adult, this information is readily available before the movie is purchased.

Why should the violence and profanity by taken out of "The Godfather"? Why take out blood, scares and cursing from "Jaws"? What would be left of a movie like "Friday the 13th part I"?

The most simplistic answer is that none of this stuff should be done. It is the responsibility of every person to determine appropriate viewing their tastes and sensibilities. If violence and profanity bother you, don´t watch "The Godfather". Have a problem with sex, stay away from "American Pie". It´s as simple as that.

In other terms, what I am advocating is "changing the channel". There are literally thousands of films out there for every person. Animation, sci-fi, horror…and sub-genres of the genres. Slasher horror, supernatural horror, man vs. beast horror, psychological horror, the list goes on.

I know I´m going to be blasted by someone for telling the complainers out there to exercise discretion. The argument is going to be along the lines of "these are indecent pieces of filth and shouldn´t be shown anywhere".

So let me head this off at the pass. Everyone finds something different offensive. I am offended that people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are allowed to spew hate on the airwaves. I find movies that play on stereotypes like the Cuba Gooding, Jr. vehicle "Boat Trip" offensive. To put it bluntly, I find people who yell to the heaves that I am going to hell, people who protest the funerals of murdered kids, people who discriminate on any basis to the offensive.

But no one is trying to silence them. I´d be told to look the other way or its freedom of speech. Fine, as a journalism major, I accept that. As an American citizen, I accept that. Why can´t the forms of entertainment we have in our culture be afforded the same protection?

Would the general public be okay with covering Michelangelo´s David´s penis and testicles? How about the breasts on the Sistine Chapel? Probably not, since both are considered works of art. We decry violence and blood, yet the depiction of one of the most perverted religions out there is a man nailed to a cross. We don´t want to see blood and gore in "The Godfather", but watching an actor portray a Biblical figure getting tortured is okay? That´s bullshit. It´s hypocritical, inane bullshit. There is no difference between "The Godfather" and "Passion of the Christ"…except the Mel Gibson film is "real". (Again, a discussion for another day.)

You think these forms of entertainment are decaying our society? There are other, bigger reasons our country-and world-is going to hell in a hand basket. (Let´s say it all together now…a discussion for another day.) The basic problem, though, is lack of accountability on the part of thinking, rational adults. Judge for yourselves what is and is not appropriate for you. Do your research before plunking down money to watch "Narc" which features gratuitous violence, blood and, if I remember correctly, 200+ uses of the word "fuck".

Do we really want to be a society that is told what is and is not acceptable? The sad part is I think there are people who would answer yes to that question.

---