It's not Yours
August 09, 2002
The Salt Lake Tribune -- 'U'-Rated Edits in for Fight
The debate in Utah began four years ago when an American Fork company, Sunset Video, found a profitable business in clipping a nude scene from hundreds of video copies of "Titanic" brought to them by owners. The concept of so-called "family-friendly" videos was well-received in Utah and other religiously conservative parts of the country, spawning ever more creative video-editing technology and marketing.The companies involved in the business believe the edits are legal because they are done to film recordings after they are purchased by consumers, video clubs or co-ops.
But Coolidge and other filmmakers argue the films are the creative property of the filmmakers and cannot be altered without permission. A person who is troubled by the content of a film should simply not watch it. Censoring it even temporarily is not an option, she argues. "We are talking about a technology that obliterates the intention of a movie. Parents can control what their child sees by not allowing it in the house."
While I can understand these families wanting to be able to see movies in a manner that they think is appropriate for their homes, the simple bit is that these works aren't theirs to change. Creating a visual work, a good one or a bad one, is rather sacrosanct, in my book.It's what the artist wanted, or what, under the terms of the contract that s/he signed inorder to have the funds to make the work, agreed to make.
While many artists know going in that their movies will be edited for television and airplanes, many also have a say in how those edits will be made and what language or alternative scenes will be put in there. They are the ones who actually film the alternative, non sexual or less violent scenes that are later inserted. They also are the ones who decide what alternate swear word goes into the film in place of the more adult one in the initial product.
Some artists even make the statement that they will not compromise their vision at all and choose to work with less money, second tier actors, or inferior equipment, all because the vision on the screen is totally theirs. The "offensive" bits are there because they believe it makes the point for the story they wish to tell. Y tu Mama, Tambein was as god as it was because the story, script and direction included all of the shocking bits. Far from being gratuitous, they were necessary to the story. Taking them out -- with a red marker which is what this software does -- violates the ethics behind artistic expression.
Yes one can get pissed that something was made. (Don't see it.) Yes, one can be offended about something they saw within a movie. (Tell others not to see it.) But no, no one has the right to take a work of art and line through the bits they (or those like them) don't like or agrees with.
One has the choice to view art, hate art, complain about art, even deny funding for art to be created. But tampering or changing art? No. It's not yours to do with as you please.
Posted by Jody at August 9, 2002 10:10 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://WWW.nakedwriting.COM/mt-tb.cgi/1388Comments
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)