IN THEORY:Sanitizing movies

“A federal judge in Denver has ruled that companies seeking cleaner versions of movies cannot censor them as they see fit for home viewing. The judge said the practice of sanitizing movies violates copyright laws. Advocates for the companies, such as CleanFlicks, say they should have the right to watch versions of the movies at home without fear of being offended, while the filmmakers say it’s an issue of artistic integrity. Do you agree with the judge’s decision and, if not, why not?”

“Frankly, my dear, I don’t really care.”

So would Rhett Butler have walked off into the fog, sparing us his profanity, if the censors of the day prevailed. David Selznick preferred to pay a $5,000 fine and preserve the “risque” line, since hailed as the greatest movie quotation of all time by the American Film Institute.

Though today the offending word could be instantly excised on movie copies, it seems to this legal layman that copyright grants the creator control over what is presented as his creation. If moralists or profiteers purchase a movie, only to delete scenes, replace dialogue and resell the bowdlerized version, are they not capitalizing on an artist’s originality without securing the creator’s permission?

Laws of intellectual property versus physical property aside, those who wish to safeguard themselves and their community against what they deem vulgar and suggestive enjoy every right to not view certain films. No artist should suffer his work to be hacked at by moral crusaders or market capitalists. If ears are offended by profanity, eyes affronted by nudity, and sensibilities injured by violence, a potential audience may exercise the right to not be assaulted by such images. If Sally’s fantasy while sitting across from Harry is judged to be degenerate, the movie should not be purchased (although I seem to recall that in her trance she uttered several references to God!).

An analogy from another art form: Should there be “Family Day” at the Galeria dell’Academia in Firenze during which Michelangelo’s David would be strategically covered by a fig leaf? I, too, am discomfited by the David but for a different reason. After all, why is this nice Jewish boy uncircumcised, more Greco-Roman than Hebrew? An art critic writes that the figure of David holds significance in Christianity as analogous to Christ (David is an ancestor of Jesus). This is arguably why David is rendered uncircumcised (and why Jesus is not circumcised in Renaissance art although circumcision is compulsory for all Jewish males). Since Church Fathers such as Erasmus considered circumcision disgraceful, David as a precursor to Christ was sculpted sans this “shame.”

A circumcised David would have been politically incorrect in the opening years of the 16th Century in Italy, especially in the wake of Savonarola’s casting of art works that violated church teaching into the bonfires of the vanities. Art historian Frederick Hartt writes that in a triumphant example of Second Republic prudery, the genitals of the David could not be exposed to Florentine eyes until provided with copper leaves, still in place as late as 1545.

I regret the historic falsity of an uncircumcised David, a violation of the flesh and blood Jewish warrior. His manhood should not be covered over by a foreskin. But should it be covered over completely to spare a viewer the horror of looking upon an anatomically correct human form? What would Michelangelo say as an artist about his creation to the scandalized sanitizers then and now?

RABBI MARK S. MILLER

Temple Bat Yahm

Newport Beach

Artistic expression should be protected whether in books, music or film. Those who object to an entire work or certain parts of it have the right to avoid it. But they should not be permitted to alter the art work without the artist’s express permission. This is especially true when it comes to a company that is profiting from the unapproved alterations.

The more I learn about filmmaking, the more impressed I am by the stature of this art form. The complexity of the elements involved, the collaboration required, the time, expense and scale of audience make this an extraordinary creative endeavor. A short documentary about director Krzysztof Kieslowski revealed that his team spent days finding a sugar cube that would dissolve in coffee in a certain number of seconds to create exactly the timing and mood he wanted for a scene with Juliette Binoche in “Blue” (the best film I have ever seen about grief). I recently learned from watching an interview with Sydney Pollack (in a bonus feature accompanying “The Interpreter”) how important ratio is. He and many directors object to the common practice of changing the viewing screen size because of the precision with which they framed each shot.

I prefer to see films that inform me, challenge me or are uplifting, as well as entertaining. People who want to censor media tend to be overly concerned about sex scenes, nudity and certain words. I like to know about as many resources as possible to give me ideas about which films to see and which to avoid. Even when guiding the viewing of children, this will not be best accomplished by permitting them to see “sanitized” versions of adult films.

From a Zen Buddhist point of view, our mental landscape is certainly affected by the ideas and images we take in and the manner in which we assimilate them. I believe that informed choices of what to view, followed by study and discussion of what has been seen, is the best way to be enriched by films.

REV. DR. DEBORAH BARRETT

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa

As I returned from my trip to Africa last week, I was glad that the movies playing on the screens were edited. Every seat had a screen, so no matter where a child was sitting, a series of screens were in clear view, including the one in front of the child. It seems hypocritical for producers and directors to agree that there are times when it is appropriate to limit sex, violence, language and themes, but that it can only happen when they agree to it or when the audience has no choice. It is not as if the companies are burning the original copies or even trying to eliminate the author’s original intent. All they are doing is making it safe for people to enjoy a movie without their moral sensibilities being attacked. Why is it that these directors feel without the sex, violence and strong language the artistic integrity of their movies is violated? Can’t their movies stand on plot lines, acting and photography? Is there so little substance in their films that without a few sex scenes and blood splattering on the wall the films will be seen for the shallow moneymakers that they are?

Once, while flying back from a long trip, I watched the movie “Rob Roy” on a plane. I was very impressed by the story and recommended it to some friends. They, too, had seen the movie, but not the edited version I had seen. Some of the more gruesome scenes, including a rape, had been eliminated from the version I had seen and made the movie something I wanted to recommend. My friends were shocked that I could recommend a movie that they found so disturbing. I had no idea. I think if Hollywood would allow some of these films to be edited, the actual story they are trying to tell might find a larger audience and greater appreciation.

So they need to decide if they want to be known for the stories they tell or the sex and violence they sell.

LEAD PASTOR RIC OLSEN

The Beacon

Anaheim