[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD Editing
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD Editing
- From: Joshua Stratton <cpt(at)gryphon.auspice.net>
- Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 01:09:22 -0400 (EDT)
- In-reply-to: <A2A3D6EC-CDE7-11D6-9BC7-003065F24232@ponymail.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
> 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...
Sure -- but couldn't this be solved even more easily, without the main
version of the film having to be altered, if the MPAA merely let him
increase the rating of the movie above what it was judged to be? IIRC,
anyone can simply choose to have an NC17 movie. Why not permit the same
thing for Rs, provided that it can at least qualify for an R naturally.
(not that the ratings are particularly significant, save for the
difficulty of advertising and showing an NC17 movie -- these aren't
> 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.
Then this is a problem that audience has. At least they're not simply
being denied the thing. And they aren't forcing the edits on others.
> 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.
Well, first it isn't a substitute. Merely an alternative. Secondly,
permitting it isn't the same as promoting it. I have no qualms with
permitting Nazi rallies in Skokie. I'm not so interested in participating.