Hollywood to America: You Must Watch Our Smut
Posted on July 8, 2006
A recent appellate court ruling has decided that it is illegal for companies to pay Hollywood for movies and then sanitize them of gratuitous nudity, over-the-top profanity, and puerile violence. For years, Hollywood has found ways to insert into otherwise coherent storylines scenes of nudity, sex, profanity, and violence.
In what seems like a simple compromise, a company would pay for the video, sanitize the content for those who request that service, and then sell the video to the consumer. In these cases, Hollywood gets paid for the price of the movie.
That apparently is not enough.
It isn’t enough for Hollywood to get paid for their trash, consumers must watch the garbage in unedited form to make sure that viewers either have to manually fast-forward or otherwise endure pornography that is completely irrelevant to the storyline. Hollywood says that editing their films destroys the “creative intent” of movie producers.
Exactly what does a nude Kate Winslet add to the storyline of Titanic… well, besides masturbatory material?
Christians and other groups have responded to the trend of Hollywood being barely able to make a movie without some B-rate actress flashing the audience by setting up companies to siphon out the irrelevant content. Again, in cases where people buy these movies with the cleaned content, Hollywood gets paid full price. They make exactly as much as they would if someone bought the unedited film some place else.
There is simple economics involved. This is a free country, if people demand porn; they can get porn (despite the clear objectification of women and harm it does to society). However, if people want movies without the extraneous and non-plot enhancing nudity, violence, or profanity, that is something that presents a clear and present danger to our nation. In this case, we cannot allow supply to meet demand.
Here’s the interesting feature, by pursuing this line of litigation with firms like Clean Flicks, Hollywood is causing direct harm to their bottom line. Instead of allowing consumers to buy the films edited to their standards, it generates a conflict. Consumers are now faced with the choice to either buy the film that they object to as-is, or to not buy it at all. This litigation has made the voice of the American Family Association, Coral Ridge Ministries, and the like that much louder. Ever better, it gives a catalyst to help propel the nascent efforts of a Christian movie-making industry into a viable movement.
The ability to choose to terminate a pregnancy (or more accurately, murder their child) is celebrated. The ability to choose the gender of one’s sexual partner is hailed. The ability to choose to have sexual relations outside marriage (or adultery for that matter) is elevated to civil right. In all areas of American life, the right to choose whatever one wills is held up as the central and united ideal. That is, until someone chooses to express their Christian values in their economic activity. (Or for that matter, if they dare utter the name of Christ in anything that can be labeled a “public square”.)
Hollywood, in rejecting a compromise that allows everyone to benefit, has chosen to bring the culture war to the forefront and fired the opening volleys. They believe that their monopoly on American moviemaking gives them the right to dictate what society’s values should be. As a result, they’ve directly attacked one their streams of revenue.
Hollywood has the right to produce trashy films, or to attempt to integrate trashiness in films that can stand on their own without it. However, the consumer has the right not to buy such trash.
With the incredible success of films like The Passion of Christ, Lord of the Rings, and other family-friendly films one would think that the movie industry would see that there is an untapped market to be exploited. Instead, they’ve chosen against their financial interest and decided to alienate that market. In a free market, businesses that tell their customers that their values don’t matter tend to not do well in the long term. Time will tell how long it will be until another entity fills the void.
John Bambenek is a columnist for the Daily Illini and an academic professional at the University of Illinois. He blogs at Part-Time Pundit.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, News
Trackback URL
Comments
10 Responses to “Hollywood to America: You Must Watch Our Smut”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
I wouldn’t even call them movies anymore Job. They’re just soft-core porn mixed with snuff film appeal. Hollywood could break off and sink into the ocean for all I care. Let Canada have them.
“Exactly what does a nude Kate Winslet add to the storyline of Titanic… well, besides masturbatory material?”
I feel sorry for you.
A recent law was passed allowing this sort of activity, but not for rental films. Companies can enter this business only to make movies for the heads of households. Yes hollywood is powerful. Welcome to the power of property.
“It isn’t enough for Hollywood to get paid for their trash, consumers must watch the garbage…”
Wrong. No one forces a consumer to watch anything. If a consumer does not wish to see what is in a movie, there is nothing preventing him or her from watching something else… or going out for a nice walk.
“Ever better, it gives a catalyst to help propel the nascent efforts of a Christian movie-making industry into a viable movement.”
It will be viable if it produces a product consumers want. If not, the “Christian movie-making industry” will wither and die. If the kinds of movies Bambenek wants to see can survive in the marketplace, great! We’ve got ourselves another choice. If not, then the market will have spoken.
I’d certainly like someone to explain why the first solution a “Christian” thinks of in these situations is all to often the censoring or altering of other people’s works, rather than the creation of something original. One would almost suspect that the Bambeneks of the world don’t believe that the kinds of movies they want to see would be commercially viable.
If you hate Hollywood so much, boycott their films! If you object to sex, violence, and swearing – all of which are prevalent of our society and therefore certainly relevant in films that depict reality – don’t watch movies that contain them! I’m sure the studios won’t miss you. The choice is yours, and if filmmakers don’t want their works censored for your benefit, that’s their business. Watch those insipid Kirk Cameron flicks instead. Like Mr. Meatbrain said, if they find enough support to survive in the film industry, that’s great.
Also, while I’m here, let me ask you this: Was it really necessary to work in the phrase “murder their child” or a not-too-subtle jab at homosexuals in an opinion piece on Hollywood? Let’s stay on point.
First, the idea that Christians won’t buy Hollywood films is something I directly address in my piece, that’s not the point. It’s commentary on Hollywood putting principle above economics, that they are actually driving away customers at this lawsuit designed to “protect their interest”. People often say there is no culture war, it’s only the one “we” make. This is an incident to turn that around. To be honest, I’m not one of those evil Hollywood types. I think they have a different set of values and most of the stuff they produce is crap, but I’m not one of those who boycotts them outright (and I wouldn’t call choosing a competitor a boycott, per se. There’s nothing “boycott”-like about choosing a product you’d prefer anyway).
Lastly, I’m not so sure where you get the idea I’m taking a jab at homosexuals. Sure, I call it murdering a child, but that’s because that is precisely what abortion is, murder. You may disagree with that, but I’m not going to candy-coat the taking of human life to make it more appetizing for people.
“Lastly, I’m not so sure where you get the idea I’m taking a jab at homosexuals.”
Right here, second sentence: “The ability to choose to terminate a pregnancy (or more accurately, murder their child) is celebrated. The ability to choose the gender of one’s sexual partner is hailed. The ability to choose to have sexual relations outside marriage (or adultery for that matter) is elevated to civil right.”
You place the sentence regarding sexual preference immediately after the sentence about abortion, of which you obviously don’t approve. The parallel sentence structure implies a similar meaning. The jab at abortion carries over to sexual preference and then on to adultery.
I only bring up the murdering children bit because the mere mention of abortion distracts from an otherwise concise and well written piece on Hollywood. I’m not critcizing your views on abortion (that’s for another debate); I’m criticizing your rhetorical device.
That’s not a jab, you could argue I make a moral case against abortion, because I do. I make no such statement about homosexuality, I simply state that the right to choose the gender of one’s sexual partners is hailed. Any moral connotation you derive from that is your own creation.
The rhetorical device I was choosing was making a play on the “right to choose” so often bandied about in our society. We have the right to choose this or choose that, but then all the sudden some choices must not be allowed…
Mr. Bambenek, have you chosen to invest in any firms that are part of the “Christian movie-making industry”?
At what point did you get the idea that I’m a card carrying member of the AFA?
Whether Hollywood succeeds or fails, or the Christian-movie-making industry succeeds or fails is entirely irrelevant to my life. I don’t have time for movies, smut or no.
However, as an opinions journalist, I have opinions and generally it’s my job to comment on things, particularly when they are stupid. This qualifies.
Copyright infringment is the excuse. I always thought that was to stop others from taking part or all of a content and using it as their own. Now the court as decided it covers the terms of legitimate contracts.
I guess being a judge requires a suspension of disbelief.
Congress needs to redo the copyright laws to overturn the activist judges that have been warping their intent.