Well presented. I come down on the side of the directors and producers -
that a move production should be taken as a whole work of art, in context;
not clip art. If it's not age appropriate, move on or divert the eyes. I'm
not sure what John would have thought of one's taking the needle and
skipping over every reference to "Lucy-in-the-Sky with Diamonds", because it
may have referred to... well... you know... although, I think we could
probably guess his reaction with some probability.
As to you and the kid watching a sanitized version of Alien, my money says it won't happen. Lee
> My TiVo fortuitously recorded an interesting documentary a few nights ago:
> "Bleep: Censoring Hollywood." It was a 45-minute show, aired on AMC,
> about companies like ClearPlay, CleanFlix, and the like, which "sanitize"
> DVDs for bluenoses, I mean, discerning parents, who want to watch movies
> that may have adult themes or situations, with the parts likely to be
> objectionable edited out.
>
> The show struck me as pretty well-balanced, showing the points of views of
> both the sanitizers and the movie directors. It covered the Family
> Movie Act, which at that time had been passed by both houses of
> Congress, but not yet signed into law. It looks like it's not scheduled
> for re-airing anytime soon,[1] but some copyright geeks like some of us
> (me, anyway) would find it worth watching if it re-airs.
>
> What surprised me is how many companies there were out there producing
> edited copies of the DVDs (the CleanFlix business model). I was aware of
> ClearPlay and CleanFlix, but the others were news to me.
>
> (For my part, I'm not sure how I come down on this, legislation aside. I
> don't see works of authorship as purely the author's work: I see it as a
> collaboration between the author and the consumer.
>
> The Beatles, for example, may have intended the "Sergeant Pepper" album to
> be taken as a whole, but if I want to listen to only "Lucy In the Sky With
> Diamonds," and take what I get from that experience, that's up to me.
> Hey, one of my favorite CDs is Fayray's "Genuine," but the last track is
> a just too-horrible remake of Blondie's "Rapture," and I just cannot hit
> that skip button fast enough.
>
> I can understand a filmmaker wanting to show his work the way he intends
> it to be seen. The balance of "Saving Private Ryan" arguably simply
> doesn't work unless you see the scenes depicting all the horrors of war
> presented in the first half hour; but if a viewer wants to see the balance
> without those scenes, why shouldn't he be able to? And why shouldn't he
> be able to delegate that editing to someone whose judgment he trusts, so
> that he can see the film without the gore, and without the trouble of
> doing all the editing himself (which of course, would require him to see
> the gore anyway)?
>
> And, finally, one objection the filmmakers had was that, now that films
> are in a digital format and amenable to editing, it's not just the
> sanitization-style editing that's possible. Why, people could take the
> film and decide what parts to include, and maybe add some stuff. They
> could, for example, make a comic film out of a film that was intended to
> be serious by the filmmaker. Quite frankly, I think that's actually a
> pretty exciting possibility, of creating, not merely an edited work, but a
> truly new and different work.
>
> I never watch movies on TV, other than films that are sufficiently old
> that I can be pretty sure are not being cut up, because I want to see the
> whole thing; but I can see where others might have a different point of
> view. I will probably never take advantage of products like ClearPlay,
> but I don't see any reason not to allow others to. (And, I should
> probably never say never. My only child is just seven weeks old.[2] When
> she grows older and we watch movies together, say, maybe 10-12 years from
> now, I might really want something like this.))
>
> [1] According to http://www.amctv.com/show/detail?CID=63457-1-EST>, it
> was scheduled to air only 4/26, 4/27, and 5/1; As I said, I only happened
> to catch it because my TiVo fortuitously snagged it for me.
>
> [2] I can't help it, I'm a proud papa: pictures at
> <http://www.tjc.com/Maddy>.
>
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
> Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
>
> Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at
> <https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
>
>
Received on Fri May 06 2005 - 02:25:00 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:55 GMT