The Cleaners
Submitted by dgeiser13 on Mon, 07/10/2006 - 12:31
Tags:
This seems like an interesting ruling and worthy of some further discussion by my favorite Listologists...
Judge rules against film sanitizers
"Sanitizing movies on DVD or VHS tape violates federal copyright laws, and several companies that scrub films must turn over their inventory to Hollywood studios, an appeals judge ruled.
'Their [studios and directors'] objective ... is to stop the infringement because of its irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies,' the judge wrote. 'There is a public interest in providing such protection.'"
My thoughts are in the comments. Your thoughts?
(via Boing Boing)
Did you guys here the one about the former sanitizer of rental movies being accused of paying teens for sex?
Disney finally comes clean!
The Center for Internet and Society (via the Stanford Law School) allows Disney to speak for itself regarding copyright law. The resulting comedic venality is worthy of, well... worthy of a Disney villian.
If you are a non-visual thinker you might want to read "The People Who Owned the Bible". In addition to Mickey Mouse religions it offers up the frightening possibility of Britney Spears in a production of The Beaux' Stratagem.
...I wish it was that easy for the good guys to win.
first of all I beleive at least one company that is being affected bought a copy for every copy it rented out... I think it's the stupidest thing in the world to want to watch a movie that needs to be edited for content, You should either want to see a violent movie or a kids movie, not a violent movie made into a kids movie... it doesn't make any sense, but this isn't about artistic expression(maybe some directors were in on it to protect artistic expression but it's not the reason it went through)... this is just more copywrite bullshit where big companies find any reason they can to make profiting off of their "product" is illegal with artistic expression as an excuse. Peronally I believe if these companies buy a copy and want to edit it before they rent it out(legally by the way) they should be able to, it's stupid, and anyone who actually rents from these places is an idiot, but so is anyone who pays to see half the movies being made today, does that mean i think shitty movies should be illegal to make in order to protect creative artistic impression... NO! It's ridiculous and it's greedy, it's how business is and it's despicable... if they want to rent movies legally and then edit them as well, they should be able to... this isn't going to save artistic integrity, this is just going to make big studios contemplate whether or not they could make money putting out yet ANOTHER version of all these films and if they can, you'll see "Clean-edit DVD's" on sale and for rent but this time the big studios will be making more money off of the stifling of artistic expression... if you really think any copywrite laws/rulings have anything to do with artistic merit, you are incredibly naive... this is about making money and studios finding a good reason to stop it... people should be able to watch and do what they want with their dvds, I think it's foolish, but they should be able to do it. you wouldn't believe all the federal copywrite laws we all break on a daily basis, it's just a good thing they don't have the resources to catch us all. copywrites are a good idea in very simple terms... to keep people from stealing ideas/works... but when you get into the making any sort of money off of it and you start nit-picking it's ridiculous.
as for censorship, in a small scale where people are given the choice, then I say it's ok... things like the mpaa rating system(or should I say mafia) are bad for artistic expression, because there is no choice, if your film goes unrated or is rated nr-17 the mpaa theatres will not show it, and then the studios will not release it and the artist will either get sued or the film will be censored or both, but this is harmful censorship, if you believe otherwise you are a huge film-snob... sure I think it would be beyond stupid and a huge waste of time to see a pg rated pulp fiction... but does that mean i'm snobby enough to say that no one except those who see the completely unedited pulp fiction are worthy enough to see pulp fiction no... only a**hole snobs are snobby enough to say a thing to that affect... if i were a director would i want people watching an edited version of my movie? no, but if the unedited version were out there in 10-1 numbers to the edited version than I honestly would not give a s**t and if you do, your a snob.
I agree with you about the economic motivation for this suit and ruling. I’m not so sure about companies that want to “buy a copy and want to edit it before they rent it out.” What if someone wanted to edit the violence out of Bonnie and Clyde? That way the attempt to steal a peach pie becomes ridiculously funny and nothing more. What if you only wanted to do away with the gunshots? The movie becomes just a love story with erectile dysfunction... well, that would probably also be edited.
So are you saying that movies are divided into just violent and kid movies?
Do you really think that people today are idiots for wanting to see current movies?
How does the artist get sued if their film isn't released?
You seem to be surrounded by snobs and idiots, by the way. Curious world.
I obviously should have refreshed myself and my browser before posting:
Keep in mind that you yourself are flanking him on the right. And remember that grandpa_chum thinks that pretty much everyone is an idiot and is willing to say so. His snark is worse than his bite.
haha... that is true... for me "idiot" is a term of aversion and nothing more, i might as well call you a "peron I often strongly disagree with and i wish would rethink his position"... if i actually meant idiot it would only be demeaning to myself considering how much I enjoy debating with "idiots"... I do on the other hand believe that just about everyone else in the country is a snob(including myself sometimes, like now)
first off let me apoligize, sometimes when ranting uncontrollably I don't explain myself very well...
I was simply choosing to use the two extremes, obviously there is grey area(even mostly grey area), but to illustrate my point I used the extremes.
I didn't mean to say that people are idiots for wanting to see current movies, I was referring to the half that aren't any good, in fact i'm one of the few people who believes that decent movies are being pumped out at the same rate today as they ever have, but that is another topic.
if an artist takes studio money to make a film and it can't be released without the studio spending millions of dollars to reshoot and re-edit, i would have to guess(i don't know for sure) there were would be a lawsuit.
The thing is i'm a snob and an idiot if you ask the people i believe to be snobs and idiots, so i guess it's just one of those things you can't avoid, I oppose the majority of people i'm surrounded by.
Aw, I'm sorry. When you explain yourself, I don't think you are an idiot. You're quite smart!
The point is obvious. There is more than one way to burn a book. --R. Bradbury
Do you really think this is "book burning" though? It's not like you can walk into a Best Buy and not find the original copy. I don't think I've ever seen a sanitized movie anywhere for sale in movie stores, or on any website. I don't think Blockbuster or Netflix carries any (I could be wrong about Netflix).
Unless the government starts to sanction only sanitized copies (like the Chinese government does), I'm not sure we have anything to worry about except some people want to be entertained, and that's it (they don't want to have to worry about things in a film they don't want to see). To me, it seems an incredibly minor issue, and a huge point of immaturity for the artists who are complaining.
I actually think that it is worse than book burning. At least the books that are burned have been allowed to retain the author's original intent. Censorship in a velvet glove is more insidious than a bonfire and it is therefore (much) more dangerous.
For people to be under the misapprehension that they have seen Pulp Fiction after all of the swearing and/or violence has been edited away does more harm than seeing (or not) the unexpurgated version. Of course it would save you almost two hours which you could devote to other activities... such as reading The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.
I am not saying that all works of art are of equal worth. But when we start deciding what art is "good" enough to escape editing then we start imposing censorship at the source.
I doubt the argument is being made for Pulp Fiction. I think it's being made for other movies that have a certain amount of content that is acceptable and a certain that is not.
Do you honestly believe that Americans will allow people to totally censor movies out of public distrust of artistry? We're the founders of Playboy, Penthouse, and Random House - we obviously believe that free speech is an inherent aspect of our society. I think the idea of sanitized movies is just to protect those families who want to make life easier in teaching their children what they consider to be proper values.
And if sanitized movies ever do become mainstream, do you really believe copyright laws would allow them to steal creative property? As shown by this case, there is very little to worry about. What is to worry about is the idea that Hollywood Creatives are so stuck on going against the will of the people.
The question of "content that is acceptable" is a question of censorship. It may not start (or end) at Pulp Fiction. We could start at The Sound of Music just to get rid of the Nazis.
I believe that Americans have already censored artists/movies out of "public distrust of artistry." The Hays Code is just a single example that made it on to paper. One could make the argument that learning how to practice "proper values" involves some exposure to the wider world. Whether or not that's true I don't think that being unsanitary allows an artistic work to be altered. This is especially true if the work is then passed off as being genuine.
I don't know who the "them" is in "allow them to steal creative property." I think copyright law is to protect economic interests. Any fig leaf of encouraging the creativity of artists has disappeared into the maw of the mouse. I also think that the sole aspiration of Hollywood Creatives is to go with the will of the people. If there is a revolutionary or activist bone in Hollywood's body I'd pay $11 plus popcorn to see it.
So I suppose, then, the question is who is making the buck out of these sanitized movies? Because if it's not the artist (which I'm assuming it is not, because of the controversy), then it is the companies. So are they trying to start a new trend in destroying Creative Enterprise, or are they merely trying to meet a need that has been expressed?
I don't know if these organizations that develop sanitized movies are doing so just out of economic prospects. I know they must be making some sort of headway to get a ruling like the article, but are they really threatening to crash down the walls of Hollywood's elite, or are they just pushing buttons that Hollywood doesn't want pushed? Is this a philosophical argument or an economic one?
With so much capital artists have at their command for film, is it even possible to hold them accountable to significant populations that are the cause for the sanitized movie demand?
You can't say that Father Frank and Mother Mary, Aunt Annie and Uncle Uriah are really co-conspirators to break down Creative Enterprise by just wanting cleaner movies to show their kids. They are just people who don't like what they see on the big screen, still want their kids involved in the culture, but maybe don't have the time to get involved intimately in every aspect of their children's life. It's hard for people these days, with two income families, daycare, and overworked salaries.
Most parents today have to have their kid enrolled in either after school day care, in the guardianship of a babysitter, or some sort of activity after school. I knew a couple kids from my previous day care counseling job; their parents would just sit them down in front of the TV and let them rot until they fell asleep (I'm not saying that is the majority; I know it an extreme example). But for those parents who do care about what their kids are seeing on TV, they want a modricrum amount of control.
The whole scenario has overlapped artistic merit, but has lapsed into social liability for many people. You can either not have a TV in the house (I know many who don't now-a-days, because they don't want to deal with the stuff on TV), you can subscribe to the culture and try to deal with it the best you can, or you can just give up and hope that the best is achieved. Maybe at dinner you could have a talk with the kids about why Samurai Jack is chopping up monsters, or why that girl on Smallville took off all her clothes for no apparent purpose. Or maybe you'll be too tired, because it'll be seven-thirty, your kids have been playing video games for an hour since they got home from school, and you're too busy just cooking them dinner, and making sure they are in bed by eight-thirty.
Or you could not have kids.
Either scenario is worrysome.
I think there are two (or more *sigh*) questions. One involving artists and creativity and the other involving companies and profits. I'm fairly sure that legal action was brought for reasons of commerce. Artistry does not help pay the lawyers.
I'm assuming that the sanitizing organizations are doing it for the money. Not that I have any way of knowing but there might be an ideological or "moral" component to this business model. But whatever the motives I do not believe that the scrubbed movies were being donated to families. I think that Hollywood's objection is not a "moral" one no matter how high a horse Hollywood rides in on. The threat that Hollywood sees is an economic one... they are not getting their cut of the money.
Hollywood will be held "accountable" in the only way that it knows how. Profit.
Frank, Mary, Annie, Uriah et.al. are almost certainly not conspirators. But the people who make and market these sanitory products are involved in a conspiratorial and illegal practice. There is a price to pay for raising kids within a culture There is also a cost in raising them "outside" or "without" a culture. I agree with you that the economic structure of today's society makes it tough. But if both parents work in order to afford scrubbed movies then... it's not just society that is failing.
I don't think that "sit them down in front of the TV and let them rot until they fell asleep" is an extreme example. I just have little sympathy for such parents and their "need" for cleaned up entertainment so that they don;'t need to worry about their kids. There's already a V-Chip (and pay cable, internet access, etc.) to "help" parents. If parents are truly worried they can avoid even buying televisions, VCRs, DVD players, computers, game consoles, radios, Etch-A-Sketches.
These battles in the public arena are fought on the (supposed) grounds of morality. This is because Hollywood (studios and so on) doesn't want to defend its economic ethos and families (society) doesn't want to decide its responsibility. So we fight about "morality," not artistic merit, creativity, profit or parenting.
Having kids is tough for one reason: It is supposed to be.
Anything else would be worrisome.
Gosh! That all sounded very declarative and authoritarian. It's not meant to be.
You make a lot of really interesting points.
I wonder if, as you say, this battle in the public arena is being fought on the grounds of morality, if in the courtroom such contexts even come into play.
It's strange sometimes to imagine such a gap between economics and values, but the way law is set up it is *supposed* to eliminate judgements so that pure logic can be discussed, logic that is not based on philosophy but on positive and negative rules garnered from declarative statements. It's a language game.
I don't disagree with you that raising kids is tough. My question is why are artists making it so much tougher? And why be so objectionable towards people's efforts to try and figure out positive ways to define how their families use their time?
I realize that parents in all different ages have had different things to worry about, and that they have overcome. I have no doubt that at least, a certain portion of today's parents will overcome. My only worry is that against such a colossal giant (big money comes to mind), is it really fair?
I think that there is very little morality in a courtroom. Regardless, it is poor public relations to say that you are motivated by one of the Seven Deadly Sins when you bring legal action.
I think that economic injustice is more than a language game.
Are artists really at fault for making it tough to be a parent? And are they really the moving force behind dictating how families spend their time? I would think that most artists want families to have more time together.
Fighting a colossal giant is never fair. What David needs to ask himself is, “Who has been feeding Goliath?”
big surprise here... haha... but that is another thing I find to be complete doodoo(i should cut down on the swearing), parents always like to think it's tough to be a parent when it comes to morality and raising good kids(don't take that the wrong way, no doubt it is very physically and mentally tough to be a parent, just not when it comes to the way you are talking about). It seems that parents who think it is tough to be good parents and try all they do to keep their kids from being "tainted" by things such as movies in reality can't do any wrong and in fact it would be very easy(in this sense) to raise good kids. On the other hand bad parents who end up raising kids most parents wouldn't be proud of could have had their kid watching barney 24/7 and still would have had problems. Parents like to make it a lot harder for themselves when in reality it is very easy to raise morally good kids.
i'm with you, i never did understand the 'sheltered parenting' approach, I'm lucky to have not been a 'sheltered' kid, I mean i don't want to induce nightmares, but aside from that I'm of the school that says as long as they know what is acceptable and what isn't, nothing can really hurt them, in fact the more exposure to horrible things the better, it's called the truth, it happens, anything that won't cause nightmares is good for kids who are actually taught what's right, instead of never shown what's wrong.
I think that I’d want my kids protected from cigarettes, murder and those horrible flying monkeys. I’d also worry that exposure to guns, sex and reality television would lead my child to think that those things were acceptable... if not by me then by the society at large. I know that those things actually are accepted by society but that doesn’t mean that my family has to accept it uncritically.
i think most people can agree that complete shelter from such things is not the best way to do that. it would be like continueing to claim that santa claus exists long after your kids find out he doesn't... i think kids knowing and understanding why certain things are accepted by society and then shown why they shouldn't be so accepting works much better... then again i'm not a parent and i'm on the side that says parents should be allowed to shelter kids from things as long as everyone else can watch some unadulterated sex, guns, and reality television... if you've ever seen my top movies list you'd know i'm nearly obsessed with movies about smoking men with guns in hand(the one with all the posters could be the homepage for the nra), yet i don't smoke and i haven't held a gun since i, ironically, was taken hunting numerous times as a small child by my parents.
So you believe that kids getting exposed to Jason chopping the arms off of teenagers without any clothes on for no reason but sheer anonymous gratuity, or Bruce repeating over and over "Yippee-kay-aye, mother(beep)er!" while mowing down terrorist after terrorist using a huge arsenal of weapons, including pistols, machine guns, knives, to breaking necks (I think he manages to murder eight people in one evening single-handedly, but I could have my numbers messed up) is necessary good education for children?
Is that really truth? (The correct answer is no - it's stodgy artistic license; stories written to bring out our primal natures of being thrilled at mutilation, death, and the ancient art of warfare. As if we don't get enough of that already...)
Of course, if you sit down with your kids and explain to them that people like Jason do not exist, it is not ok to borrow Daddy's chainsaw and act like you are killing adolescent girls, and people generally do not scream explitives unless they are going to get into an auto accident or are going through extreme psychological trauma, then perhaps it is ok to let them watch such things.
My parents had very little control over the stuff I watched. Perhaps that is because they are bad parents, perhaps it was because I was a bad child, or perhaps because it is a bad world. I saw my first "R" film at nine (I think it was Leviathan). Now, I was lucky to have parents who did understand right from wrong, and could help me muddle through the thick waters of Hollywood. I wish I could say the same for other children, but I'm leaning towards the *not*. Both of my parents worked out of the home, so they were around and had time for us, and they saw it their duty to teach my mother and I values that they felt were necessary for living. But they were rare - most parents cannot work out of the home. Society doesn't allow a majority of workers to be homebuilders at the same time.
I've headed off course, so I'll shut up and let you respond before I near the Cape of Storms and get really blown away.
You’re not that big of a blowhard.
Whose fault is it that you saw Leviathan?.. if fault there be. Arrrgh, me matey.
Actually, Leviathan was a complete surprise. I'm not sure it was anyone's fault, except for my friend's Dad, who rented it from West Coast Video. I guess then it would be West Coast Video's fault, for renting it to the guy whose kid would snag the video and watch it in his parent's bedroom unbeknownst (gosh, if my friend's mom had known, all heck would have been set loose...)
Or perhaps it was the fault of the supplier, or the manufacturer, or the courier, or the mail room clerk at the movie studio, or the manager of the sending and receiving, or the caterer who fed the manager so that he remembered to type "13" when asked to input the number of boxes to request of the manufacturer, or the mother of the caterer, or the mother of the caterer's friend who doesn't own a television and should have tried harder in convincing her friend not to allow her son to go to Hollywood to become a caterer to Hollywood business-types who sell movies to bankrupt video rental houses so that nine-year olds can rent Leviathan...
Seriously guys, how do you keep writing and, well, thinking, when the discussions get so long? It's like Star Wars in here.
This seems like an interesting ruling and worthy of some further discussion by my favorite Listologists... --dgeiser13
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
Don't discount your role. It takes two (at a minimum) to have a discussion.
As far as jason and bruce as necessary good education, I would say yes, because watching jason and bruce go hog-wild can be very entertaining, if like i said before there are no nightmares and the kids know not to imitate.
my question to you is... what harm is done if a kid enjoys watching jason and bruce killing people if a) the kid doesn't have nightmares... and b) the kid knows what they are doing is wrong and should not be done outside of movies and video games? I hate to sound pushy, but the answer is none, and i think you agree anyway so it doesn't sound so smug.
stories written to bring out our primal natures of being thrilled at mutilation death and the ancient art of warfare is a bad thing? maybe the problem is we don't get enough, personally I don't think you can get enough in that way. you basically just brought up my whole point, those kinds of things are nature, our primal violent nature causes the demand for such fantastic stories, not the other way around. if we aren't thrilled in the fictitious world, who's to say we wouldn't need other real world vices. The biggest problem I have with moralty(specially when it involves censorship, but most other times as well) is that everyone is making decisions based on how the egg lays the chicken and they have it all backwards.
we are all bad according to society and morals, morals and society are the anti-nature... I would however love to meet the person who, never having been taught right from wrong, was ultimately swayed towards wrong by hollywood... i doubt one ever existed... like you said, we get 'enough' of that in the world already.
Your argument is similar to the video game controversy, which it a lot other bag of beans (namely, does watching people who do bad things influence us to do bad things?). I'm not going to get into it, at least for now.
As for your morality argument... I really don't know what to say.
Yes, we are all screwed up, but the aim is not to support that kind of behavior, but rather to try and become better as a species. So... that's why discussions like this exist, so that we can break free from our savage tendencies and become civilized, decent, loving people.
I don't see the benefit of "mutiliation, death, and the ancient art of warfare," and I can hardly see how it is a good thing or how we should have more of it. If your reasoning is if we have more of it then we wouldn't have more of the real thing, I don't think you can logically support that argument except in pseudo-theory.
There are a lot of countries where people who didn't grow up in a Judeo-Christian worldview do not believe we are born bad. That is a whole other discussion, so I won't get into now, but know that your argument is very Western foundationally.
you don't think accepting what people like to WATCH in movies or PLAY in video games WHATEVER that may be would make us better as a species?
the idea that the aim is to change things from bad to better is the judeo-christian view, I'm more of a realist or some would say darwinist(survival of the fittest must fit in somewhere i don't really see the comparison) and believe that it can't be changed and trying to make people better is ridiculous, what we can do is stop denying that video games, movies, and tv are irrelevant in the morality of people... the morality of people creates a demand for what is in movies, on tv, and in video games, this isn't a dictatorship, those aren't propoganda devices, it's a free market and the things sell that the people want, no one forces it on anyone.
if you can't see the benefit of enjoying harmless fun than I don't see why you even bother watching ANY movies, what you can't see is that someone may actually enjoy HARMLESSLY watching movies or playing video games which contain "mutilation, death, and the ancient art of warfare".
I don't believe we are born bad either, I use the term loosely because otherwise no one would understand what I meant, I think we are all born the way we are which is just fine, that just happens to be bad in most societies... i believe good and bad arbitrary and really mean nothing and should be left that way in such things that don't hurt anybody... for example movies and video games.
Depends on what you mean by accept. If by accept you mean that we accept they are realities, then absolutely not would it make us better as a species. I think that would be a veritable sign of us going insane as a species. "Hey, look over there! It's not a cloud! It's King Kong! He's coming to kill us all!" Joking aside, if romance actually happened like it did in the movies... well, life would be sad. If one night stands were really paramount to lasting relationships, then perhaps we have been wrong for the last seven thousand years in assuming marriage is even a necessary social institution for the continuation of civilization.
If by accept you mean we understand why what is being said is just art, and it is not necessarily truth, then yes, I think that's perfectly acceptable for people to accept. But I wouldn't be so gung-ho about it and say that because of this increased wisdom, people should fill their minds with this stuff: moderation in all things.
I don't consider Jason with his chainsaw, Bruce with his explitives, Freddy with his fingers, Silent Hill with its flesh stripping, Bond with his seminating charm, Ferrell with his feral humor, or even Barnyard with its trembling udders, to be "harmless fun." I think each of those comes from a general and a specific philosophy (general is the particular movie house the film comes from, and specific is the vision of the creators), and we need to be aware of those various philosophies.
Of course, you might say I'm taking the fun out of going to the movies. Yes, you are probably right.
I'm still having fun though. It is possible.
... do you really believe that a free market is only supplied by demand? Have you ever heard of marketing theory? About *creating demand* through various strategies?... just a thought...
yeah, i know demand can be created to a point, I just don't believe that violence, swearing, and sex need any extra push, people want to see them because it's what they like, not because it's being forced down their throats.
you, by the way, are farther on the other end of the discussion than I thought... by accepting I only mean to allow other people to do with what they please. Only allowing movies with certain philosiphies in them? that sounds pretty horrible to me. I know this sounds stupid to say, but I really wish large groups of people were more selfish than they are, namely people who want to attack art and fun for the good of humanity, specially when humanity doesn't want to be saved, I'd rather the world end next week then not be able to see all the violence I want in my movies... and that isn't an exageration.
You'd rather the world end?
Do you see no good in it?
"...which it a lot other bag of beans..."
Haha...
(which is a whole other bag of beans)
Yeah, I don't know how. Don't ask.
If one is too lazy to raise one's kids properly, not having them doesn't seem worrisome to me.
I think parents are trying to raise their kids properly; that's the dividing line here, and the reason why sanitized movies are come out in the first place. These big companies, however, are not rooting for the parents.
Of course parents will figure ways around it, but it's troublesome that these, ahem, monkey-making guild members are making such a big fuss without offering solutions.
Of course, I'd be more sympathetic to them if they were offering solutions...
Should big companies be “rooting for the parents”?
I think that would be a good gesture.
Honestly, I've only skim-read this now-epic discussion, but I'll butt my head in anyway. I'm going to side with the people who say that parents don't need edited DVDs to raise their kids in an environment they deem safe. They don't even need DVDs. Hollywood is a very powerful evil, but individuals (and parents) have more power. They can simply choose not to consume the product. It's not like Hollywood is the only one selling bread. Or selling bread.
"As I stand watching my preteens enjoying these violent, lewd, R-rated movies, because an edited version isn't available, I can't help but wonder how the system has failed."
When quoting you have to source Mr. Stewart.
Oops, I forgot that there are people who don't watch The Daily Show. :)
If you honestly believe that it is possible to raise a child in America without the influence of cinema, DVDs, television, and Hollywood icons infiltrating a major part of their life, or at least teaching your children how to use and understand the medium that surrounds them, then I applaud you (I am not being sarcastic).
It's hard though - it's not like there are classes in local community centers on understanding the archetypes of Hollywood cinema or very strong and active community groups that boycott certain brands of media product. It's really not feasible to form community groups, just because the culture is so saturated with Hollywood product.
I'm not saying it is impossible, though. If you understand that our culture has this veneer coating of dionysian (yet again) values, and you know how to teach that knowledge that to your family, then by all means, I say embrace the culture so that you can perhaps change it (if you wish), or at least, bear with it and come out a little wiser about the nature of man.
If parents are just going to act like victims in this great charade, then I say let them be victims. Honestly, I believe people will never stop fighting against the system in order to get what they want. But like I've said before, I do wish that artists would take more care in their work. It's seems like they've become increasingly lazy as the years have advanced and the bucks have rolled in more than ever.
In a way, I would say that Hollywood is selling bread. For a family not to own a television or have any movies is rare, but not unheard of today, because specifically of this controversy. To say that America was not built through the efforts of the movies would be to disregard one of our most important exports, as well as cultural speciality.
It's not feasible to think that someone from Saudi Arabia could ignore the affects of Islam in their life, when it is so saturated. Obviously the example is more extreme than our relationship with Hollywood (we are not persecuted if we do not watch movies, and we don't have ID cards that have our favorite movie star on it), but there is a similarity in the infusion of the culture.
Even if you are a cultural isolationist, book stores, gas stations, magazines, newspapers, doctors' offices, hotel bedstands, highway advertisements, radio programs, even churches and community establishments (and probably more if I thought about it more) have embedded within their systems an acceptance of Hollywood, at least externally. We are encouraged to understand what is going on in that area of life, and we are held accountable, often to our friends or social group, if we are out of sync. This accountability isn't direct, but rather indirect, and if we fall out of it, we usually feel left behind.
If the guild members of this Great Art in the bosom of LA will not be held accountable for their actions, people take action in order to heal what they consider to be wounds inflicted among them and their families. Perhaps stealing movies and editing the content and reselling them isn't the way to go. I have two main gripes: 1, that guild members either don't realize the power they have over society or they do and are taking advantage of a system for totally immature and irresponsible reasons, and 2, that people should be allowed to give their children entertainment without having to deal with explitives, women taking off all of their clothes indecently, and people being murdered in lots of horrible ways.
I'm trying to be reasonable.
You make it sound like these are the choices:
[a] Isolate your kids from all media.
[b] Let them watch sanitized movies.
[c] Give up and expose them to the debauchery.
My video store has a pretty big section of family films though. I don't see what's wrong with this option:
[d] Let them watch age-appropriate material.
It works for me and my girls so far. They get to watch age-appropriate movies, and as they get older they get to watch a broader range. I have not run out of things for them to watch, even without turning to sanitized movies.
At the risk of oversimplifying, this is how it looks to me:
[1] If you are a parent who wants to protect your kids, a broad continuum of movies already exist. Sanitized movies are unnecessary.
[2] If you object to the content of these films from a moral perspective, then buying sanitized versions seems hypocritical. You are supporting the very system you deem objectionable.
This is separate from the question of whether sanitizing movies and then selling them is right or wrong. But I'm not buying the argument that this decision "hurts parents who are trying to raise their kids right" (paraphrasing).
I'm not referencing movies bought on a personal basis. I'm speaking more to the movies that are on television and that are secondarily seen outside of the parent's permission.
I have a really good friend, and even though she is nineteen, her parents still refuse to own movies they consider to have bad content. I know a lot of people like this, so I am not disagreeing with you Jim. But unless you are an extremely controlling parent, you may find your girls have exposure to other films outside of your control.
Most people's reaction to this is: "Yeah, so what? That's life. You need to accept it, and not complain about it. What, do you want to destroy all creative expression, just to fit your own little box? They will watch the bad stuff anyways, there is nothing you can do about it."
There are two things you can do about it:
1 - you can discuss with your kids what is going on in movies. Yes, you won't always be able to protect them, but you can equip them so that they can protect themselves.
2 - You can buy or make edited movies, and have a little less worry on your mind when it comes to exposing your children in your own house to some of the more degrading aspects of humanity. Sanitized movies do make a statement. That's not to say that in the future your kids won't want to see the real thing. I'm not sure the point of sanitized movies is to erase "bad things" from existence. It seems to me more than sanitized movies are merely a protection tool for parents who want to concern themselves with other things in raising their children.
Or perhaps you are right and parents who buy sanitized movies are just being lazy.
Oh, and by the way... I've been really surprised at a lot of family films recently. There has been increased exposure to underage children using violence, drugs, and explitives, for no point at all but to do it. It's not uncommon for some kid to yell out "sh*t" or make another kid bleed for no apparent purpose except gratutitous violence. I think the trend started back in the early nineties, and has been getting worse ever since. I've always been quite surprised that some of the content of children's films goes as far as perhaps not graphically displaying lewd sexual acts, but insintuating in the dialogue of things like that happening between children.
Call me a Conservative Prat (C.P.), but isn't that bordering on a little obsessive?
I'm not disagreeing with you either! You raise valid cultural issues, I just don't see sanitized movies as addressing those issues. Either they are unnecessary (plenty of wholesome PG entertainment to be had), hypocritical (one objects to the source material, but still fund the creators), or irrelevant (they don't have any affect on "incidental contact", i.e. movies my kids watch outside my control (not that I think I'm particularly controlling)).
"you may find your girls have exposure to other films outside of your control"
Yeah, but you have to ask yourself, how will kids end up seeing age-inappropriate material? I'd say the two most likely scenarios are (1) watching the movie on TV or (2) watching the movie at a friend's house. It seems unlikely that buying sanitized movies will help either scenario. Maybe if you think it's possible that the kid will accidentally pop in Daddy's copy of Terminator 2, it will help if all the violence is edited out, but will Daddy really want to buy that version for his own entertainment? It seems like sanitized movies just add more parent-approved options to the list, rather than preventing kids from incidentally watching age-inappropriate movies. So either way, you're going to have to resort to choice #1 of talking to your kids (God forbid!).
As for family movies, studios do that so parents aren't bored out of their minds, and any sexual references are generally subtle enough that adults will laugh but children won't have any idea what they're talking about. The PG rating has actually gotten a LOT stricter over the years; it used to be applied to movies that were really intended for adults. I just watched the PG-rated Kramer vs. Kramer which contains full frontal nudity and multiple uses of the S-word. Nowadays I really doubt you can use any profanity beyond the most innocuous of swear words in a PG film (PG-13 films are a different story, but of course they are suggested for kids 13 and older). Cartoony violence has been in family films forever, and I must admit I've never seen a family film with drugs in it.
"learning how to practice 'proper values' involves some exposure to the wider world"
Exactly. The way for parents to teach children proper values is not by shielding them from all objectionable content, but by discussing the films with their children, helping them understand the content, and placing it in the correct contexts. Furthermore, I really fail to see how Titanic's values are altered by showing or not showing Kate Winslet's boobs. If you're just plopping kids in front of the TV and having them watch edited movies with the same moral values as their R-rated versions but with content edited out, that's not responsible parenting.
you are correct... but in the same light the way to make everyone happy is not to decide on one way to do things... it's amazing how both sides of just about every moral issue in the world must have it their way or no way, why can't the people who don't want to show their children kate winslet's boobs watch it edited out while the rest of us stare at kate winslets boobs... I'm not for censorship but i'm also not for outlawing it, it would be incredibly easy to have it both ways but no one wants that for some reason. What difference does it make to anyone(except big business wallets) if people who would never normally want to sit down and watch a violent movie with swears sit down and waste their time watching it with the violence and swears edited out... it makes no difference to the artist, they weren't going to see it unedited anyway, as long the unedited version is the norm and readily available i don't see any problem with it.
You might want to ask what James Cameron (or Kate Winslet for that matter) thinks about alterations. I'm against plopping in any sense and I would love to see equal time spent using the V-Chip and parenting. But notice that it serves neither sides interests to question the inherent value of using the product. Hollywood is not going to say that families can live without popular media. Families (parents) are not going to say that they should invest more time in their children.
That's just "crap."
To be perfectly, err, un-sanitizingly, honest.
With the load of drivel that is coming out of Hollywood these days (you can go to almost any other movie house today and find better films, both in quality and content), this is just a whining song that is being sung by a dying breed.
The truth is that Hollywood is obsessed with evangelizing a philosophy and a lifestyle that most of the world doesn't lead or want; they are hurt emotionally by those who tell them they are cutthroat dionysian plurists, and hurt physically when those same people do not purchase their grossly made films. For many people, they would be embarrassed (or feel like they should be embarrassed) even showing one of those films to their mother.
Note I am not saying all people, just most or many. The fact that we own films that we may find internally objectionable is due to the fact that Hollywood is inculturated among us, and the only way to avoid such escapades is to either run off to another country, or become an cultural isolationist.
Hollywood needs to lay off people's right to protect themselves and their family from what so much of the world considers poison. It's not right or fair that in order to function in a society as a stable human being, one must both own a television and witness the death of humanity. I know people will disagree with that last statement, but many people, not only here in America, but in other countries (I can name five or six big countries that have had heated discussions about the lewdness of Hollywood films leaking into their society) believe that this kind of film-making is lecherous.
I am not positing to create a scenario of censorship, nor am I saying that we cannot have freedom of expression, so don't jump on me for that. I am only saying that with the current system that exists in America with the media and the need of media (or assumed need; you can argue against this but it is an undercurrent in our American philosophy that if one is not connected with the media they are out of sync) it is not fair to force people to be fed dirt.
Ahem.
Creatively, expressed, artistic dirt. With exquisite little swirls of color, and fancy flying special effects.
But it comes out the same. "Crap."
Yup! I totally agree. I mean, nope! Wait a minute... whuh?
Your anger is more than justified. I'm just confused as to whether you are angry at Hollywood for producing such dirt (with all of its "exquisite little swirls of color, and fancy flying special effects") or at people for wanting and consuming such "lecherous" product even after it has turned to bland mud. With all of the sifting out of sexy gold nuggets it gives a whole new meaning to "panning a film."
While I certainly agree with the sentiments I believe that Hollywood's obsession, evangelism, philosophy and lifestyle are all greed. (Did you mean "Dionysian pluralists"? If so then that's a very nice invocation.) Money is very egalitarian... and evil. Very, very evil.