Now on DVD!: "Alan Smithee's The Passion of the Christ"
posted by CS | 12:12 PM 
I am somewhat torn in how to interpret the news that Mel Gibson's Icon Entertainment is suing Clean Flicks for what it terms copyright infringement. Clean Flicks edits popular releases for content, including:
Generally, I've taken an artistic purist's "all or nothing" approach, that is, if you can or will tolerate the content, then view the film; if you cannot or will not, then do not.
That said, I am greatly in favor of an open marketplace. If copyright holders are willing to enter into arrangements that permit the editing of films and their distribution, then there must be a demand for such films. The purist in me may balk at the thought of a director's vision being altered, but so long as the original is available, I have no practical problem with this. Of course, the possibility exists that a title might become more popular in its edited form than its original, but this has happened before. How many other pre-teen boys (like me) grew up watching myriad James Bond films on ABC television, edited for sex, language, violence, and time? Most of the Bond flicks I've never seen in their pure format.
Should Gibson lose the suit, he might request his name withdrawn as director. In that case, perhaps we will see the issuance of "Alan Smithee's the Passion of the Christ", starring George Spelvin as the hand with the hammer.
ProfanityI don't know enough about the company's arrangement with productions companies and copyright holders to comment on the allegations. However, I can comment on the notion of editing films for content.
This includes the B-words, H-word when not referring to the place, D-word, S-word, F-word, etc. It also includes references to deity (G-word and JC-words etc.), only when these words are used in a non-religious context.
Graphic Violence
This does not mean all violence, only the graphic depictions of decapitation, impalements, dismemberment, excessive blood, gore etc.
Nudity
This refers to male and female front and back nudity.
Sexual Content
This includes language which refers to sexual activity or has sexual connotation. It also includes visual content of a graphic or stimulating nature.
Generally, I've taken an artistic purist's "all or nothing" approach, that is, if you can or will tolerate the content, then view the film; if you cannot or will not, then do not.
That said, I am greatly in favor of an open marketplace. If copyright holders are willing to enter into arrangements that permit the editing of films and their distribution, then there must be a demand for such films. The purist in me may balk at the thought of a director's vision being altered, but so long as the original is available, I have no practical problem with this. Of course, the possibility exists that a title might become more popular in its edited form than its original, but this has happened before. How many other pre-teen boys (like me) grew up watching myriad James Bond films on ABC television, edited for sex, language, violence, and time? Most of the Bond flicks I've never seen in their pure format.
Should Gibson lose the suit, he might request his name withdrawn as director. In that case, perhaps we will see the issuance of "Alan Smithee's the Passion of the Christ", starring George Spelvin as the hand with the hammer.
1 Comments:
My gut reaction to Clean Flick's business is that it can't be protected under the "fair use" precept. Much better the strategies of ClearPlay and Trilogy Studios, which market DVD players with custom software that take the standard studio-issued version of a DVD and either skip or mask objectionable content. Since the latter methods do not involve bowdlerizing the original work, they seem perfectly defensible. The former is not; it intrudes directly on the copyright holders' (studios') rights to prepare derivative works for profit.
Post a Comment
<< Home