More back-and-forth with the fellow who commented on my ClearPlay DVD post:

Russ, although I did not agree with a number of your thoughts about ClearPlay, I did appreciate the way you supported your opinions, while refraining from using sarcasm and other belittling words to attack my opposing viewpoint. (See the blog “Monkey Diaries.”) Thank you.

You’re welcome. From your comments of appreciation, it sounds like you’ve stumbled upon some of the seedier sides of internet discourse, as I have. You try to have a rational conversation about differeing points-of-view and you’re attacked with SHOUTING AD HOMINEM slurs, sarcasm, and abused exclamation points!!!!!!!!!!!! Trust me, I’ve been there. I have always tried to treat these electronic conversations in a polite, evenhanded, considerate way, ever since I learned that I am not an infallible omniscient being. (Unless the person on the other end attacks me first, then I’m a rabid compositional pit bull with a poison pen and a large thesaurus.) It’s entirely possible that on some issues, I may be *gasp* wrong. But not this one. 😉

Because I am not an attorney, I don’t know if ClearPlay is in violation of law concerning the proper handling of movie content on DVD. However, I do know that until the courts issue a definite ruling on the matter, ClearPlay should be allowed to exist as any other legitimate business in our society of free enterprise.

You’ve got me there. The cases are still pending, with the major studios suing ClearPlay in federal court, alleging trademark infringement. Until it’s illegal, it’s legal, I suppose. That doesn’t mean I think it’s ethical however.

You say that if I don’t like swearing and nudity, then I should not watch movies that feature such material. Is that my only option? According to you, I do have one alternative. You suggest that I should watch a DVD and make notes to myself as to when the swearing and nudity happen. Then, when I watch it again with my family present, I can carefully mute or skip parts according to my notes. If I did as you suggest, this is what I would find in the film “A Perfect Storm”: one “f” word, twelve “s” words, 14 GD’s, two a-h*le, nine “a” words, eleven h*ll, two d*mn, and two SOB’s. Please tell me, Russ, do you think it’s possible for me to use my remote control and edit out this much vulgarity and still enjoy watching the film with my family? I think not. Why should I hassle with the remote when ClearPlay can take care of the editing for me automatically?

It is precisely because there is a third party involved in the editing process. If a director chooses to alter his art by removing swearing for a TV broadcast, fine. If you purchase his art and decide to watch only parts of it, fine.

Here’s what ClearPlay feels like to me: it’s like a museum full of Botticelli’s and Reubens’ paintings of nude women, and classical Greek sculptures like the topless Venus de Milo or Michelangelo’s nude David, but all the pieces are obscured by bikinis that have been velcro’ed on. Now it’s safe for you to take your family to the art museum without being offended by naked boobies and weiners.

So when I ask, “if you don’t like swearing and nudity, why do you want to see those films”, I think of that imaginary museum. If you know a museum has a statue of David, and you know you don’t want to see a penis, why go to the museum? There’s plenty of other sculptures and paintings out there without boobies and weiners.

Now, the counter-argument might be, “well, those are great films that don’t lose a bit of meaning without the nudity or swearing, and the bits that are filtered are negligible anyway.” Actually, you put it like this:

I find it difficult to accept that realism dictates that Steven Spielberg should make “Saving Private Ryan” with all the graphic violence and foul language that are featured in this film. He could have made his point without including such explicit and disturbing details. When I was a boy, my father told me about the horrors he experienced in WW II without frightening me with stories of dismembered bodies and the ravages of disease on the battlefield. Back in the 1960s, I saw a movie called “The Longest Day” that did not have to depend on million-dollar special effects to point out the misery of armed conflict. How times have changed! But fear not, ClearPlay will not touch “Saving Private Ryan”.

This is the crux of our disagreement. When an artist produces art, every single detail is something that affects the total experience of the art. If Michelangelo’s David is standing there with a velcro Speedo on, then it’s not the realistic appreciation of the nude male form that the artist intended. Sure, the rest of the sculpture is beautiful, and the few square inches that are covered are negligible, but the original vision of the sculptor is compromised. After all, Michelangelo hated Speedos. And I can’t understand why anyone would want to see David with a Speedo on.

Similarly, I disagree that removing the graphic realism and language from “Saving Private Ryan” doesn’t change it all that much. Sure, there were movies in the past that detailed the horrors of war without exploding cranial wounds and filthy language. But they didn’t quite illustrate the point in the same way. “Saving Private Ryan”, in my opinion, is more effective because it is more realistic. Soldiers really did curse. Bodies really did get grotesquely maimed. The point Spielberg was trying to make was the explicit and disturbing details of war.

Details matter, and to obscure the details changes the art, and changing the art without the artists’ input or permission seems very wrong to me. There’s also the concept of “suspension of disbelief”. When you watch a movie, you need to believe that the characters and situations are real. If I watch a Western and see the good guy shoot eleven bad guys with one six-shooter without reloading, I doubt the realism. The same holds for “Saving Private Ryan”; if I see a wounded soldier writhing in pain on the ground, then hearing him scream profanities is part of the realism.

If a parent buys a car seat for his very young child, should he be upset that the car seat company is making a profit from the sale of that seat? If I purchased security bars for my home, should I feel it is wrong that the security company made a profit off of my fear of a possible break-in of my residence? Of course not. ClearPlay is merely providing a service for those who enjoy movies without having to be exposed to conduct that is offensive. That service costs money. I don’t feel wrong paying for it.

I find it very telling that you allude to child safety seats that protect kids from the unavoidable risk of traffic injury, and to security bars for your home that protects your family from the unavoidable risk of violent break-in. You seem to see ClearPlay as some sort of safety device that protects your family from the unavoidable risk of dirty words and boobies in a DVD movie.

The problem is that watching filthy DVD movies is not an unavoidable risk. You don’t hear too many Amish complaining about the dirty words in movies. No one is forcing you to watch PG, PG-13, or R-rated Hollywood movies. It’s not a requirement of American citizenship. This seems to be a case of having your cake and eating it, too. You want to watch the same movies everyone else watches, but not see it the way the director intended. If Hollywood movies are secular filth aimed at a morally-degenerate audience, why do you want to see them? It sounds like a person with a lethal peanut allergy who desperately wants a Dairy Queen Peanut Buster Parfait, but, ooh, could you hold the peanuts, please?

Will Hollywood get the message to clean up its act if morally conscious viewers boycotted PG, PG-13, and R-rated movies? That’s simple; NO! According to your words, and I agree with them, the “family values” crowd is a far smaller share of the Hollywood consumer base than the “filth-lovin`” crowd. Hollywood caters to the masses; and the masses want movies peppered with excessive violence, graphic sex and profanity. Hollywood is going to make its money whether or not I use a filtering device. At least now I am protected from movie content that does not agree with my morals.

Again, “protected from”, as if you were being attacked against your will. You put the DVD in your player and pushed play. You saw the warning on the case that says “PG-13”, and below it the warning that reads “offensive language, crude humor, some nudity.”

OK, OK, enough. I know we’re just buttin’ heads here. So let me surprise you a bit: I’m somewhat on your side. Other than the fact that the directors aren’t in on the technology, I actually think it is pretty cool. I hinted at a rationale when I wrote the part about watching the DVD yourself and doing your own censoring over the naughty bits.

Two things I strongly believe: you can’t put the technology genie back in the bottle, and you’ve got to give the people what they want. Hollywood fighting ClearPlay is like the music industry fighting digital music sharing. Both are somewhat quasi-legal, but they both indicate a huge audience and a market that demands to be filled. Why not license ClearPlay to provide this service to the people who want it, so long as directors and studios have some oversight and get some kickback?

Why not take advantage of a potentially lucrative new market of people like you and my mom, who love movies but hate filth? And with DVD technology, it could be so simple. I watch DVD’s that have extra audio tracks for director commentary or foreign language dubbing — why not also have the extra “clean” audio track? I watch DVD’s that package “deleted scenes” mixed right into the original screenplay — why not produce an alternate edit that plays without the boobies and filth?

By suing the ClearPlay company, the movie industry is making the same mistake as the music industry suing peer-to-peer downloaders. They are suing their own customers and that’s never a good idea. I also anticipate that the courts will come down on ClearPlay’s side. After all, all they do is provide a database service that tells your DVD when to mute or skip a scene. It doesn’t affect the original DVD; I can take it out of your ClearPlayer and play it on my DVD player with all the boobies and filth. (I can even rewind and pause the boobies for further inspection!) You’re not changing the movie at all; you’re changing the way you watch it. If you had a pair of magic sunglasses that turned selectively-opaque as you gazed upon Michelangelo’s David, I’d have to find those sunglasses legal, too.

Oh no, have I just flip-flopped? No. I think ClearPlay providing filtering instructions against the wishes of a director is wrong. I don’t think the technology is wrong, nor is your use of that technology. My only problem is that it is done without the director’s permission or consent. And I think the directors would be smart (and richer) if they gave their consent.

Thank you for sharing your views with me. Tell your mom I said hello

Will do. Meanwhile, here’s a good USA Today article that rehashes what were talking about.

    ____________________________________________________________________

   |                                                                    

_  | "RADICAL" RUSS BELVILLE | Read More at http://radicalruss.net/blog/  

  | Portland, Oregon U.S.A. | Permission is granted for reprint of this      

  | © 2005 by Russ Belville | post, as long as this footer is included.