Kathy Shaidle posts on the recent Clean Flicks court case
What if there was a company called Dirty Flicks that added nudity and swearing to movies like Because of Winn Dixie or whatever it was called, to make them more appealing to non-Christians?
Then how would you feel?
Oh, but that’s different.
You can’t explain why, can you?
Well I once wrote a parody post on the Secularizer that did just that.
Now as to her question there is a difference in degree between adding content and removing content, especially content that does not advance the plot and is inserted gratuitously. Though both methods could be used to truly change the film from what the artist intended.
Now I would be much more sympathetic to the argument about artistic control if they refused to license their movies to broadcast and cable stations where the content is edited for time and/or content. I also wonder if I am infringing their copyright if I hit fast forward or next chapter on my remote to skip past some gratuitous sex scene. Thankfully Catholics aren’t puritans and we don’t want to Ned Flanderize everything. It would be silly to watch Saving Private Ryan and hear soldiers saying during a firefight "golly gee wiz."
What Hollywood should be doing is giving people some options when playing back a DVD since they are such proponents of choice in the first place. As the DVD was first being introduced this one one of the original selling points that you could basically change the rating of a movie during playback. This never materialized since it would only highlight just how totally unnecessary most sex scenes are to the plot or artistic merit of the film. Well crafted movies with great direction, cinematography, plot, and acting are usually not called edgy, a label that seems to be most desired by some directors.