[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD Editing
Don't overlook that theatrical releases routinely are edited from the
theatrical release - for airlines (no plane crashes), for network TV (sex,
7 dirty words), etc.
The difference between those edits and what CleanFlicks does, which is
critical, is that the former are done with the permission of the relevant
copyright holders (and moral rights holders, if one believes in the droit
morale concept); the latter aren't.
At 12:56 AM 9/22/2002 -0400, Jeremy Erwin wrote:
>On Saturday, September 21, 2002, at 10:57 PM, Joshua Stratton wrote:
>
>>>I remain convinced that such editing is (for lack of a more
>>>appropriate term) blasphemous.
>>>
>>>Here's a little snippet from Altman's commentary on the "Gosford Park"
>>>DVD that describes how the MPAA rating system distorts film---
>>
>>(fucking example clipped)
>>
>>Well, I must disagree. Provided that the original work remains available,
>>editing remains valuable. Firstly, just as an economic concern --
>>sometimes people are only interested in one particular aspect of some
>>content. Legal casebooks are heavily edited since there's a lot of
>>extraneous materia in them that would not help teach the particular isuse
>>the case was included for.
>>But also secondly, as a valid art form in its own right. It is not
>>unreasonable to say that The Phantom Edit was a somewhat different work
>>than The Phantom Menace. And we might learn something from comparing those
>>works, and frankly one might prefer one over the other. I'm sure that
>>there are people who liked the as-released forms of Brazil and Blade
>>Runner better than the directors' cuts. Play the different scenes from
>>Momento in a different order and it would have quite an impact on the
>>story, I think.
>>I've seen some movies where I routinely like to skip certain scenes
>>because I don't really care about them. Is that wrong?
>>Taken to an extreme, editing reminds me a lot of collage or sampling. The
>>selection of what works and even what parts of the same work, and what
>>order is itself expressive.
>>If it's clearly labeled as being different from the original, and doesn't
>>jeopardize the original, then I'm not all that worried about it.
>The main reason I brought up Gosford Park is that Altman believes that the
>"fucks" are gratuitous-- not objectionable, but simply gratuitous. They
>don't provide much insight into character-- and as for realism-- well,
>british society at the time didn't entertain a great lot of profanity.
>The're included to secure for the film a firm "R" rating...
>Yet to edit the film for Mormons would risk damaging the film. (For those
>of you who have not seen the film-- it's sort of Upstairs-Downstairs with
>a murder). In the script, the Red Herrings are repeatedly emphasized.
>Everything that's really important is said exactly once. So if one cuts
>out this impious reference to God, or that intimation of infidelity, or
>the sly references to incest-- the subtlety of the film, the genius of the
>film is destroyed.
>
>The CleanFlicks versions are labeled as edited-- and prominently so. But
>the majority of CleanFlicks renters are not interested in viewing the
>original cut. If they view the CleanFlicks version of Gosford Park, and
>think it a worthy effort, they might watch the censored film again-- with
>no idea why Isobel is interested in helping Freddie Nesbit "find a job".
>
>Perhaps reedits can be artforms in themselves. But it's difficult to
>justify them as substitutions for the original intent of directors. I
>called the trend blasphemous. Blasphemy isn't against the law, nor should
>it be. But I feel compulsion towards promoting it.
>
>Jeremy
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
James S. Tyre mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com
Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)
10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969
Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.net