Edited for consumers

[stevetseitz]

The case of Pretentious Hollywood Directors vs. Cleanflicks/Clear Play edited movies.

I was watching a show on A.M.C. about people who want to buy edited versions of Hollywood movies and the whiny, pompous directors who object to people tampering with their "art".

First off, let's be clear. Not all people even look at movies as "art". Even cynical Hollywood is disingenuous about it's "product". They know very well that many of their movies are little more than formulaic, pre-packaged, celebrity ENTERTAINMENT vehicles driven by profit margins.

Personally, I look at film-making as "art". I watch try to watch films in their original aspect ratio and as the director intended. I also enjoy the extras we have come to take for granted on most DVD's like director's cuts, commentary, deleted scenes, etc. The process of making the film interests me in some cases more than the final product. I think I enjoy the documentary on the making of "The Abyss" more than the actual movie.

But let's be honest. What does the director really intend? What did the WRITER intend? What if he or she is unhappy with the treatment of HIS product by a director? Does the director make a film by simply stringing together every frame of film he has shot during the process of making a movie?

Of course not. The EDITOR gets his hands on the film far before the audience has a chance to judge the director. A great editor can turn a mediocre film into a great film with deft timing and pacing. Studios then show these early cuts to audiences and make changes based upon audience reaction. Making a film is a collaboration, even an "auteur" must admit this much. It's not as if some group of puritanical consumers is out there demanding that Steven Soderbergh not be able to make "Traffic" or Taylor Hackford not be able to make "Ray". It's a group of consumers out there who are willing to buy films with explicit sex, violence or objectionable material removed to make the movies more palatable to their families.

I find it hard to believe any director, no matter how dedicated to their craft, would begrudge a person who wanted to buy a version, any version, of their product, "art", what have you.

If they have objections to the artistic merit of the editing methods, I suggest they quit whining and start working with companies like "Cleanflicks" and "Clear Play"to create versions closer to their original version.

Maybe that is just too much work. If that's the case it isn't that important after all.

[trevor826]

Just a simple question, would you do the same to a novel or music after all both these mediums involve more than the original creator?

Films are rated to make them available for the appropriate audience, isn't that enough?

Where would you draw the line?

It is an interesting topic because although the majority of films are as you put it "little more than formulaic, pre-packaged, celebrity ENTERTAINMENT vehicles driven by profit margins." there is a section that is regarded as art. Despite the fact that a film requires a team to create it, I can understand a director objecting to having the finished product tampered with, I know I would.

Cheers Trev.