Clean Films

| | Comments (11)

Y'all may or may not be aware of a little organization called Clean Films, which takes popular Hollywood movies and reedits them to remove offensive content.

I'm of several minds about this service. First, how do they get away with it? I suppose Hollywood favors anything that makes more money, but I'd be surprised at the director who would release his or her film to be cut by someone else according to their standards. Does anyone have any idea how this arrangement is done?

But on the other hand, what a pleasure it would be to be able to bring a film into the house and know that the whole family could watch it without having to worry about language or nudity or any number of other things that can crop up in films as "mild" as PG.

It does seem an infringement on artist's rights, on the other hand, it is such a fine service to families with young children. A dilemma.

Bookmark and Share

11 Comments

I believe they have been sued in the past over the issues you bring up. All they are doing is what movie studios use to do themselves to format a movie for broadcast TV.

Hollywood is always saying they make the movies the public wants, yet outfits like cleanfilms are growing. It would be so easy to release movies on DVDs that allow the user automatically skip parts they find objectionable. Cleanfilms is only doing what many of us already do with the fast forward and next scene button.

Dear Jeff,

I do hope I made it clear that I am not necessarily opposed to this endeavor, assuming that it is both legal and ethical. Just that it raises some question for me from an artistic standpoint.

I agree with what you have to say, but as an artist, I wonder how I would feel about someone taking up my book and excising whatever they might find objectionable to make it suitable for their audience.

Let's look at it a different way. What if it were a Muslim censor doing this and all the scenes that featured pigs and eating ham were cut out of a film because they were deemed objectionable. We might have a different reaction to that. So I can see a highly secular artist objecting to the "laundering" of the film.

As you point out, this was done in the past (and is still done today) to make such movies acceptable to broadcast, so the only reason any one would object is because the group doing it has a religious basis for their reaction--and that is nonsense.

So, I just wanted to reiterate that it raises questions in my mind beyond the simple matter of legality and practicality--and you know, it's really good to think about these things sometimes.

shalom,

Steven

According to their web site, they are some kind of co-op, which provides them the latitude to make modifications for their members. They may or may not be on firm legal ground in doing this, but I don't think they're the only ones to have done so: for example, I was once told some years ago that movies rented by Blockbuster were commonly edited.

A bigger problem for me, though, is that by participating in this service, you are agreeing to accept any changes they make, without knowing what those changes are. Clean Films provides general description of the modifications they make, but as far as I can tell, no specifics are provided or available. So you don't know whether they just bleeped over a word or two, or chopped out significant scenes that they considered objectionable. You're just in the dark, and can only hope that your tastes and theirs are congruent.

If you would like to obtain better information with which to make an informed decision regarding a movie, I suggest that you check out www.pluggedinonline.com, a web site run by Focus on the Family. Other than www.screenit.com, which is no longer free, it is the only site I have found that provides pro and con details for each movie. Besides describing positive and negative elements in general, they also list spiritual content, sexual content, violent content, crude and profane language, and drug and alcohol content. You may think it picayune for them to mention that a character smokes a cigar once, or has one glass of wine, or that "Hell" is blurted out a couple of times, but at least you can make your own decisions based on this, and needn't simply trust their evaluation of the goodness or badness of a film. In fact, I don't always agree with their overall assessment, but at least I know how they got there. I don't know that I could make the same statement about Clean Films.

I don't think your "artist's objection" has a valid point of view. This isn't like (say) Muslim censors chopping things out of films that they don't like, because the original films are still available — indeed, they're more readily available than the "censored" version. All you have to do is walk down to Hollywood Video, or rent them online from Netflix, or whatever.

Dear Jack,

But that is because you are not the artist. How would I like it if the presentation of my Madonna cuts out Christ because he is objectionable to someone--is there any consolation that someone can go to a museum and see the work as it really is? I think this was really driven home to me when I started to see letter-boxed versions of movies and realized how I had not seen the vision of the artist for years and years of watching movies. In some cases, that is probably no big deal--you are watching the equivalent of pulp fiction. But in many cases it makes a great deal of difference. The art of cinema is the framing and the organization of material. It is presumptuous of anyone to say that an artist should not object to the degradation of his original work if the original still exists to be viewed. If I were to take Raphael's paintings and remove every instance of Jesus because He was offensive, I could argue that the original still exists somewhere for people to look at. It is neither the right nor the perogative of any individual to alter an artist's work to suit his own purposes unless they be indeed entirely and only for that individual. In altering a work you misrepresent what the artist envisioned and you put words into his mouth. I think I have a very strong argument against arbitrary and unauthorized changes of any individual's work.

Say you wrote a poem and published it and I came along and saw that there were several references to Jesus that bothered me, so in order to fit the audience I had in mind, I republished your work with your name on it and put Satan or Mao every time you had written Jesus. You might find that problematic. So to with an artist who has gone out of his way to make a point that someone finds objectionable. The work is altered and words a put in or taken out of the artists mouth. The work no longer has integrity.

No, as a would-be artist I would not take kindly to anyone altering my work for any reason. If they found it objectionable it were better they did not read it.

On the other hand the only thing Hollywood seems to find objectionable is NOT making money. So it is entirely possible that no one particularly cares about this, or that those who do take steps to make certain that nothing happens to their work.

shalom,

Steven

I think you may be straining at gnats here, given that movies, unlike books or paintings, do not necessarily have an "official" version, as the following examples should demonstrate:

1. The original Star Wars trilogy, which have been digitally enhanced since their first release.

2. The Lord of the Rings movies, which have significantly extended for DVD release.

3. The Passion of the Christ, which is being re-released this month in an abridged format.

4. Numerous films (e.g., Amadeus) which exist in a Director's Cut edition in addition to the original.

5. Numerous films released for broadcast on TV with scenes modified, deleted, or added.

I think the reason for this plethora of versions is that movies involve a good deal of compromise, probably due at least in part to the bottom line, as you suggested. Given that, I think it's going to be very difficult to know what the "correct" or "pure" version of a movie is.

Note that the Passion of the Christ is being re-released in an edited format, precisely because some people found the violence offensive. Of course, you might argue that the artist himself is making the changes there.

How would I like it if the presentation of my Madonna cuts out Christ because he is objectionable to someone--is there any consolation that someone can go to a museum and see the work as it really is?

Yes, I think there's consolation in that. If the revised version proves to be more popular than the original on the open market, tough luck. I've seen a number of versions of the Pietà that change it in various ways; one of them even put a smile on Mary's face and hung a sign that proclaimed, "God makes no mistakes." (This was a devout Catholic, too.)

I don't know how Raphael feels about all these T-shirts going around with an altered version of his painting of God touching Adam's hand, but that's certainly an alteration and I doubt many people wearing the shirt know (or care) what the original is about. I think some ofh te T-shirts with this design are for rock bands.

The number of jokes made at the expense of the Venus de Milo defies enumeration.

Art that's released to the public no longer belongs exclusively to the artist; it belongs to whomever has seen it. Once you show it to someone else, you've affected their soul (which is nice) but you don't have the right to control how that soul acts. Your art is not an end-in-itself; the soul has the right to express itself in a way that it sees fit, even if that diverges from the original intention of your art. Artists retain copyright for a limited period of time so that they can make money off their work; they do not retain copyright because their work is considered sacrosanct and thus can be protected from imitation, modification, or whatever. After all, we do have concepts of fair use, and parody has always been permitted — except in totalitarian states.

Rap takes original works and modifies them immensely, often in ways that the original artist finds offensive. Last year, there was for a while some flap about the White album (Beatles) + Black album (JayZ I think) = Gray album (mixer).

I don't think you're going to make a convincing argument by complaining that you have some right not to have someone re-interpret your work, in a way that they find less offensive (as in Cleanfilms) or more offensive (Two Live Crew).

Dear Jack,

I have no problem with you latter points. Art does become part of the public domain. But when an alteration is made to it, it is no longer the work of the original artist and SHOULD NOT BE attributed to him or her. That is my point. If someone tampers with my work, it is not mine and it should not be made to appear as though it were.

There is a difference between creating new works from old and simply altering and manipulating old in such a way as they are distorted. This is unethical, and in some cases immoral behavior (depending upon intent, who and what). All of your examples have people taking bits and pieces and creating something new, not altering the original product in very minor but substantial ways and then claiming that it is essentially the same work. It is your argument that I find very, very weak. You fail to distinguish between a substantially new work and a corrupted work with the same attribution. If someone wishes to pardoy, retinterpret, or otherwise look at the work anew and applies either their name or at least the "anonymous" attribution to it, I cannot complain about that. What I do have a right and responsibility to complain about and fight legally is someone taking my own work, changing it in a way that diametrically opposes my intent, and republishes it attributing it to me. All of the examples you cite may use an artist's work, but the end result is a new work with a new attribution. By your argument here it would be ethically acceptable and not at all a source of problems for someone to take a translation (let's say) that you have worked long and hard to make, substitute for every appearance of the word "God" the word "Satan" and then publish the work with your name on it. THAT is what I am objecting to.

What if a Hollywood film maker produces a work that deliberately denigrates Christianity and Catholicism in particular, say Chocolat and I alter the film by removing any of the scenes which show religion in a bad light. I have altered the artistic content of the film and attributed the message one could get from it to the maker of the film. This is, in essence, a lie, and thus morally unacceptable. As a practice it is unethical and repugant. Now let us say, that I make Choclat Redux in which I take a minor character from the film and retrace all the films events with a postive slant on religion. There is still some question of the right to use the characters in a work not in public domain, but I have done what you propose above, and in this case, the film must have a new or anonymous attribution. The new message is not the work of the old author and the issue is quite different.

You may feel free to allow people to use your work as you choose; that is entirely your concern. I will defend my own against all who would alter what I say and attribute it back to me. That is my right and my obligation as an artist.

shalom,

Steven

Oh no, you are absolutely right. Somehow I missed the whole "attribution" argument, so I had misunderstood you.

I don't think it applies to Clean Films, because they don't pretend it's the original work, do they? I mean, they just say that they've cleaned it up somewhat. Is there no notice on the film that they altered it, like the notice about reformatting to fit the TV screen? I would be surprised if not.

jack

Dear Jack,

No, it was a side issue to the question of what actually Clean Films did and whether it was Hollywood sanctioned or not. These arguments are probably irrelevant on two fronts--I suspect that were a film utterly offensive from start to finish Clean Films would not be wasting their time. I suspect that most of what they do is similar to the clean-up that occurs to make movies suitable to television, only perhaps with slightly stronger standards (perhaps like mind-sixities to seventies standards.) Also, I don't know if they change attribution or not, but with the minor nature of the changes, I suspect it isn't that much of an issue. MOreover, there must be some way that this is "approved" by the studio or director. I can't imagine Hollywood handing out a blanket license to alter their products willy-nilly.

No my thoughts were more along the lines of "what might happen if there were a film that treads a fine borderline." Perhaps Clean Films wouldn't waste its time on such things. But it was more along the line of "how much change is permissable or reasonable before the work becomes a new work and should not be charged to the same original artists.

shalom,

Steven

Hi,

[i]I suspect that were a film utterly offensive from start to finish Clean Films would not be wasting their time.[/i]

You're right. Check out these web pages from their site:

http://www.cleanfilms.com/viewmessage.phtml?help&id=37

http://www.cleanfilms.com/about_edited.phtml

Categories

Pages

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Steven Riddle published on March 9, 2005 12:35 PM.

Co-Redemptrix in the Seventeenth Century was the previous entry in this blog.

Hooray for Mel! is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

My Blogroll