Cleaning Up Their Acts

At the close of the 20th Century Hollywood made itself a new enemy: Movie Sanitizers. It all started with TV Guardian – a product that automatically muted foul language based on a program’s closed captioning which replaced the profanity with a socially acceptable version of the audio in text form on the screen. Then, companies arose that allowed consumers to simply purchase technology that edited films for them. In the year 2000, Ray Lines started CleanFlicks, a Utah-based video sanitizing company that cuts out nudity, sex, violence, and foul language from movies, and then sells the edited films (along with a copy of the original) to consumers. These “clean films” went for about $12.00-$17.00 depending on the amount of work involved to clean the film up. Another company, ClearPlay, did not change the original movie at all. Instead, ClearPlay provided hardware and software that skips flagged content based on the viewer’s pre-selected choices. The ClearPlay DVD player sold for about $150.00. Other companies, such as CleanFilms, Video II, MovieMask, Family Shield, Clean Cut, FamilySafe, Play It Clean Video, and Family Flix provided essentially the same types of services in various formats.

Members of the Director’s Guild of America (DGA) raised an outcry against this practice – what they consider to be illegal, or at best immoral, tampering with their work. These “e-rated” (for “everyone” or “edited”) movies, they claim, also violated federal copyright law. The sanitizers argue that the practice is protected by the law’s “fair use” provisions (such as allowing parodies to be made without the original director’s intent). Indeed, what the sanitizers are doing is not all that different from studios creating edited versions of movies for TV or airline flights. The directors’ answer is that those changes are made with their permission and remain true to the original intent for the film.

Sanitizers said they were simply meeting a market need and argue that they have actually created a market for Hollywood that it would have otherwise lost. Consumers who would never purchase a non-edited film might now do so. Studies consistently show that the majority of Americans think movies are too violent / sexual and would like to have the ability to view the films with these elements taken out, and family friendly movies continue to top the charts.

The Empire Strikes Back

In September of 2002 the editing companies and the DGA with eight Hollywood movie studios (including MGM, Time Warner, Disney, Sony, and Universal) and sixteen major film directors (including Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Michael Mann, and Robert Redford) became involved in suits and counter-suits over copyright and trademark infringement issues. Four years after the original suits began, on July 6, 2006, Colorado federal appeals court judge Richard P. Matsch ruled that CleanFlicks, CleanFilms, Play It Clean Video, and Family Flix (and, by precedent all similar editing companies) were acting in violation of copyright laws. [Specifically 17 U.S.C. § 106[1] and 106[3]. See the United States district Court for the District of Colorado Civil Action No. 02cv01662RPM]

Fortunately for ClearPlay, its movie filtering technology was protected by Congress when they passed the Family Movie Act of 2005. ClearPlay was officially upheld in court in August of 2005.The Family Movie Act, spearheaded by ClearPlay’s CEO William Aho and introduced by Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), clarified the legality of technologies that edit out unwanted content in movies without changing or duplicating the original media.
The legal issues have been settled for now. Although it was a close call, Hollywood won the most points in their case against the cleanup of their movies. The letter of the law won out over the spirit of the law. But it raises some interesting questions about Hollywood’s motives and the real issues that were being fought over in this case.

What Is the Real Issue?

Money?

Although it is often the first thing that comes to mind, the issue was simply not about money – and few people argued that it was. Many people remain convinced that Hollywood is just giving people what they want in order to make more money, but box office records disagree. Family-friendly films are well known for being the top overall moneymakers. According to the Internet Movie Database (www.imdb.com), only one of the top 25 all time box office sellers in the US is rated “R” – and it is a Christian film (The Passion of the Christ – at number 11). In fact, there is no notable collection of “R” rated movies on the top list until the 50–60 range. If directors were truly concerned over monetary issues they would produce more family-friendly pictures since these have historically generated more money than non-family-friendly movies.

Further, sanitizers are quick to point out that they are not robbing Hollywood of its income. In fact, they actually increase income by creating a market that the original movie might have lost. When CleanFlicks sold a copy of one of their sanitized movies the consumer was also sent a non-edited copy. Thus, for every sanitized DVD CleanFlicks sold, a corresponding non-edited DVD was also sold. Finally, companies like ClearPlay do not change the studio version or produce edited copies at all, yet the DGA comes after them too. Hollywood is clearly not concerned over income loss.

Freedom of Speech?

The claim that sanitization is a violation of the director’s First Amendment Right is simply absurd. There would not be a sanitized version of a film if the director had not already been allowed to produce the original. On the contrary, disallowing people from editing what they watch may very well be a violation of their First Amendment rights, which includes protection from indiscretion. People clearly have the right to censor what they watch, and simply because a company is providing prepackaged versions of censored films does not change that fact.

Hollywood can produce whatever it wants under the First Amendment, and individuals can personally edit what Hollywood produces under that same Amendment. So long as these edits are not being sold or misrepresented as original works then copyright law is not violated. If this is the case then selling these edits should not be considered immoral either. Further, some companies, like ClearPlay, do not change the studio version or produce copies at all – they merely add electronic flags on to certain scenes that their software can detect and skip if the viewer desires. Yet Hollywood comes after these companies as well.

False Advertising?

The idea that directors/studios do not want their names associated with these sanitized films would be more legitimate if it was not done all the time for other reasons (e.g. airlines and television edits). Further, those who own a sanitized film are well aware that it has been edited. Why else would they buy it? The idea that people will credit the director with a badly edited version is rather ungracious. The directors obviously do not care about this particular audience anyway since they continue to make violent, sex-filled movies despite their proven overall unpopularity in the market (according to the MPAA website, PG and PG-13 films accounted for 85% of 2005’s top 20 films).

Parental Responsibility?

Hollywood directors seem to be altogether ignorant when they claim that this is simply an issue of parental consent regarding “adult oriented” films. They argue that parents should have an active role in determining what their children watch (which is true), and that this is the purpose of ratings. However, it is not this simple. First, ratings are fairly subjective and based on the MPAA membership’s personal beliefs. The MPAA also seems to assume the position that the appropriateness of certain material simply has to do with one’s age. Somehow, once one reaches adulthood offensive elements automatically become acceptable (thus the euphemism used when referring to pornography as “adult films”).

Parents often unwittingly buy into Hollywood’s morality by trusting the ratings that Hollywood gives to its own movies. In fact, according to the official MPAA (which, oddly, is made up of parents) ratings explanations, they apparently do not recommend that parents begin thinking unless a film is rated “R”! [see www.filmratings.com] Perhaps all people should do their thinking no matter what the MPAA has to say.

Movie Police?

One common objection to this cleansing process is that sanitizers are deciding what people should and should not watch. But how, it might be asked, is this any different than what the directors are doing? Directors seem to think that what they create is what people want to see. The popularity of the sanitizing business indicates that they are in fact wrong in many situations. Studios playing the ratings game also have control over content – the existence of “uncut and unrated” versions bears testimony to this fact. All sanitization does is provide additional options. So why is it that only the “moralists” are being attacked? In either case products are being made for a certain market – the double standard is glaring.

Further, different companies base their editing on very different standards. CleanFlicks and CleanFilms edited the kind of material most conservative moviegoers (religious or not) might find objectionable (such as sexuality, cussing, gore, violence). Another company, FamilyFlix, also edited out religiously offensive material (such as using titles of deity as curse words), homosexuality, inappropriate dress, crude humor, sexual innuendoes, alcohol and drug content, etc. and refused to edit films with objectionable themes. This should thrill Hollywood directors as the audience now has more content choices than ever! Instead, the DGA’s position seems to be that movie viewers need to be protected from their own choices.

Sauce for the Goose?

Some directors have asked, “Why not take all the sex and violence out of the Bible or Shakespeare?” This only reveals their ignorance of the world outside Hollywood, because this has already taken place. Children’s Bibles, for example, do not include such content (not because it is morally repugnant in significance, necessarily, but because many parents simply do not want young children exposed to such things).

Artistic Integrity?

This challenge to the sanitizing practice is based on the fact that a screenwriter’s story, a director’s vision, or an actor’s art, is considered the intellectual property of that person. To tamper with it is to change it into something its creator never intended. Members of the DGA seem scandalized by what they consider to be poor editing and the destruction of their creation. This might be closer to a legitimate objection. As a writer and musician myself, I understand that creators do not like any secondhand distortion of their creation (just ask God). This is also closely related to ego issues – credit is difficult to assess in a situation where the creator cannot claim sole responsibility. The main problem as I see it is that directors want to be celebrated for their creations and cannot stand it when the majority of moviegoers wish the film had been done differently.

A case in point happened in 1999 shortly after the release of Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. There was almost universal dislike of the character Jar-Jar Binks. This created a demand in the market that was met by the release of a re-edited version of the film (variously referred to as “The Phantom Edit” and “Star Wars Episode I.I”) with Jar-Jar and other goofy material removed. This version quickly became more popular with many fans than the original film. Writer/Director George Lucas (who has himself created several controversial edits of his own movies) was surprisingly non-outraged.

“Armchair Directors” have always existed of course, but never before have they been able to so easily do something about it. I believe it is an affront to some director’s egos that others think they can “do it better than they can”, or, “some amateur” messing with “their vision.” However, if these amateurs were not producing something that literally millions of consumers are willing to pay extra money for it is doubtful that the practice would ever has become such an issue. The popularity of the re-edits should perhaps be clues as to how high Hollywood directors ought to think of themselves in the first place.

Ego Issues?

The loss of artistic control and integrity is an issue. However, it should be noted at the outset that very few movies are the creation of a single source. The very existence of “Director’s Cuts,” “Unrated / Uncut Editions,” and “Extended Versions” argue for this fact. Few directors are given carte blanche with regard to their films. The final film product is almost always a collaboration between the producer, studio, director, screenwriter, editors, actors, etc. In fact, there is even a term (auteur) used of directors who have gained enough control to be considered the primary source for a film.

The fact is that many people make decisions about the “vision” of a film besides the director – and this often massively affects the final product. In fact, this is a large enough issue that official DGA policy has been enacted to address the situation. When directors believe that they have lost control of a project, and are so unhappy with the result that they no longer wish to be associated with it, they may appeal to the DGA to have their directorial credit listed as “Alan Smithee” (an anagram for “The Alias Men” – the only allowable pseudonym for a director). So the DGA’s claim that to edit their work is to destroy it requires a somewhat dishonest assumption about the actual process that led to “their” creations.

Further, even if it were true that these sanitized films rob a given movie of its original intent, beauty, intensity, sexiness, or whatever – so what? If someone is truly concerned about these things they probably wouldn’t watch the sanitized version in the first place. All sanitization does is offer people a choice (which is, ironically, the paramount ethical consideration in most Hollywood dialogues).

Finally, this position might be seen as simply hypocritical. Screenwriters and directors are constantly “adapting” books into movies without authorial input (or, in some cases, the author’s approval – such as the case of Roald Dahl and the 1971 version of Willy Wonka). Why aren’t these directors concerned about authorial intent when revising other people’s visions? As far as credit goes, many times the original creators are barely noticeable in the credits (Stephen King has stated that fans continue to be surprised to find out that 1986′s Stand By Me and 1994′s The Shawshank Redemption were both taken from his book Different Seasons). This practice is not limited to book or play adaptations. Within Hollywood itself countless “remakes” and “re-imaginings” of older films are done all the time – often without attention being called to the original. It is widely thought that these remakes almost never live up to the originals, yet no one complains about it except fans. Cliff’s Notes are well known for the violence they do to the texts they summarize, such as the Bible or Shakespeare. This does not necessarily make the process legitimate, but it does show that originals do not lose value just because alternate versions exist.

A More Simple Solution

Re-editing / sanitizing is no more immoral than hip-hop samples, cover tunes, parodies, Cliff’s Notes, or paraphrases. Certainly these kinds of works do not reflect a high level of artistic quality, and only the original work should be considered when evaluating the director (or writer, or actors, or studio, etc.), but to consider this kind of work immoral or illegal is nothing more than special pleading (the application of standards to others while exempting oneself without good cause).

Personally, I try to get as close to the director’s vision as possible when evaluating films. I will almost always choose the Extended / Unrated / Uncut / Director’s Cut versions of any movie I wish to see in order to best evaluate what the movie’s creator(s) had in mind. I also believe that style elements should not be universally categorized as right or wrong without considering their intended effect. However, I would certainly consider making user-controlled filtering technology available for times when I did wish to remove objectionable elements in order to accommodate my tastes or those of more sensitive viewers (see Romans 14).

Finally I wish to encourage movie lovers out there that perhaps rather than spending so much time “sanitizing” Hollywood, Christians should simply make better movies themselves. For most of the Church’s existence it led the way in the arts (and sciences, and philosophy, and most other fields). The expectation that the world will be better at producing these things is extremely new to the scene. But we (Christians) have sacrificed significance for style, and cultural relevance for cheap “gospel messages.” Even in this fallen world, quality is what counts (as films like The Passion of the Christ have demonstrated). So long as artistic fluff is offered as the pinnacle of Christian creativity we will have little to complain about when it comes to Hollywood’s popularity.