You don’t see why profanity should be avoided at all costs? Hey, try using it the next time you are interviewed for a job. Since I am the product of parents who never used obscene speech around me when I was growing up, I have an aversion to such language now that I am an adult. At my place of employment, I am constantly surrounded by people who can’t go for more than two sentences without the occasional “%$#&” spewing from their lips. I can’t do anything about the way my coworkers address one another, but I can certainly control what language I wish not to hear when I privately view my DVDs. With the aid of ClearPlay, I can watch “Crimson Tide” and other films just the way I like it. If you prefer to watch the directors’ versions with everything intact, go for it.

Despite my liberal viewpoint, maybe you’d be surprised that I hardly use any profanity at all. I was raised with a healthy dose of Merriam-Webster’s dictionary. I always have looked down on people (like you describe) who can’t utter a sentence without filth-flarin’-filth every other word. But not because I find it “filthy”, I just find it a sign of a weak mind with a poor vocabulary. I’m more likely to shout “a pox on your house! May the fleas of a thousand camels infect your armpits, you reprehensible cur!” at some driver who cuts me off in traffic than “asshole!” The former is more fun for me and it generates interesting looks. The latter just gets you into fights.

That said, there are some occasions where not only should profanity not be avoided at all costs, it should actually be encouraged. I’m a writer; words are important to me, and those so-called “seven dirty words” (two of which you can say on television these days) sometimes carry exactly the meaning necessary to complete a thought, and no other word will suffice. That’s what I dislike about the guys who curse every sentence; they devalue the forcefulness that the curse word should carry.

This also explains why the cursing in the movies is important to me. Perhaps the character in question is a street-wise tough guy type who droopped out in eighth grade and does have such a weak vocabulary that he must curse every other word. That makes a character for me – believable portrayal of reality.

Of course I’m not going to curse during a job interview. You meant that rhetorically, right? I’m more interested in this aversion you write about. How does one go about becoming emotionally disturbed about particular syllables uttered by fictional characters? Why does changing a vowel sound in “shot” or “folk” cause you to cringe? I’m serious; the idea of words being obscene fascinates me. I do understand social and cultural context of words – one doesn’t curse at job interviews because it is impolite in the professional context and there is an exchange between two strangers. But in the privacy of my own home where only I can hear, how can I take DVD cursing personally?

You say profanity adds reality to films? Do we really need that much reality? I mean, people sitting on the can adds reality. Cleaning up puke in a seedy bar adds reality. Do we want to see that much reality in a movie? I don’t.

It depends. Is the movie about the downfall of Elvis Presley? Seeing The King die puking on the can might be an important plot element. Regardless, it doesn’t matter whether I thought the movie needed that much reality — the director did. If he adds that reality to the film and I am grossed out or offended by it, maybe it wasn’t the right film for me. There was a warning right at the beginning that the movie was rated “PG-13” for “language, drug reference, and partial nudity”.

You continue to say ClearPlay is bad because it is a third-party that makes a profit from editing movies without the director’s consent. Please tell me, do you hold other businesses to that standard? To illustrate: what if you bought a suit from your local haberdashery. The coat fits properly, but the pants are a bit too long. Would it be unethical to pay an independent tailor to alter those pants without getting permission from the maker of that suit? I think not.

What if you purchased a Toyota. Would it go against good business practices to have a neighborhood body shop replace the car’s original engine with one that came from a Dodge without first notifying the manufacturer of your vehicle? You tell me.

You are confusing consumer goods with art. The purpose of a suit is to fit the wearer. The purpose of a car is to fit the transportation needs of the driver. The purpose of a movie is to fit the artistic vision of a director.

But again, if it’s your DVD, I have no problem with you muting the sound or fast-forwarding through the boobies, just I have no problem with you altering your suit or souping up your Toyota. What I would have a problem with is if there was a tailor who was taking Brooks Brothers’ suits, replacing the lining with purple-polka-dotted felt, and then selling them as “Official Brooks Brothers Suits”. Or a car dealer who was swapping Toyota engines with Dodge engines, and selling them as “Authentic Toyota Vehicles”. The Brooks and Toyota product lines carry the expectation of a certain level of quality and third-parties should not alter those products and expect to be able to sell them. Similarly, a Quentin Tarantino movie carries an expectation of curse words and bloody gore, and a ClearPlay rendition of “Kill Bill Vol. I & II” would not be a Quentin Tarantino movie. ClearPlay is in the business of hacking up a director’s work without a director’s authorization, and that’s as wrong as counterfeiting or piracy.

Self-imposed censorship seems like a futile attempt to deny reality? Come on Russ, we’re talking about simple entertainment here. The characters in most movies are not real. They’re paid actors pretending to be people who don’t even exist outside of a movie projector! Just because I use a machine to edit out movie content that does not appeal to me does not influence my perception of what reality is.

It influences your perception of what a director was trying to convey through his art. You are not watching the “Crimson Tide” that the director created. You are denying the reality of his art. And in a small way, that does influence your perception of reality.

After all is said and done, you need to face one harsh reality. Concerning ClearPlay’s “unauthorized” filtering of DVDs, you live in a world of “what should be”. I live in a world of “what is”. Regardless of how you or the movie industry feel, ClearPlay continues to function because the powers-that-be have not yet come to the conclusion that ClearPlay is doing anything wrong. Until that situation changes, opposing personal opinions on the matter will remain just that–opinions.

True. The powers-that-be are trying to raise FCC indecency fines from $35K to $500K because Janet Jackson’s bejeweled mocha mammary was threatening to cause the downfall of American civilization. I don’t disagree that it’s legal until it’s not. I’m arguing that it should be illegal. You’re right, it’s my opinion, and since I lack a black robe and a gavel, my opinion and $5 will get you a mocha latte at Starbucks. (Juxtaposition of Janet Jackson’s boobie and a chocolate-and-milk coffee drink fully intended.)

So while the jury is still out concerning the controversy of ndependent film editing, I will continue to invest my money in ClearPlay.

That’s fine with me; it ain’t illegal… yet. And there’s obviously a market for bowdlerized cinema. It should just require a director’s permission, that’s all. For example, when a TV network wants to show a studio film on TV, they have to get the director’s permission to hack it up (c.f., “Saving Private Ryan”, ABC was forced to show it uncut, per Spielberg’s wishes.) Certainly ClearPlay could negotiate a compromise where it doesn’t provide edits without director’s permission; you’d think there’d be enough directors looking to make a buck off of the quick-to-blush crowd
that ClearPlay could make it financially feasible.

Thanks for recommending “Napoleon Dynamite”, but I think I’ll pass on it. By the way, are you aware that ClearPlay has a filter for that film? 🙂

For the life of me I can’t imagine what would need to be filtered out of “Napoleon Dynamite”. It doesn’t have a single cuss-word or sex/drug/vain-reference-to-deity that could be filtered. You should reconsider; I watched it with my easy-to-blush mom and she agreed with me that it was one of the funniest movies she’d ever seen.

By the way, tell “e!” I said aloha. I reallllllly enjoyed talking to both of you.

Are the extra l’s a sign of sarcasm? I hope not, because I really have (no sarcasm) enjoyed this dialogue. I grew up arguing with my dad, just for the sake of argument. If he said the sky was blue, I’d say it was indigo, just for the sake of argument. I don’t expect to change your mind. I value your opinion, even if I think it’s wrong, because it’s an important opinion that is obviously shared by many. So thank you for the give-and-take; it helps me understand the world a little bit more. And it reminds me why I moved out of a red state and into a blue city.

Live long and prosper.

You know, Mr. Spock would not approve of ClearPlay. 😉 By the way, did you realize that the first interracial kiss on network television occurred between Kirk and Uhura on Star Trek in the episode “Bread & Circuses”? At the time, it was a very controversial scene, especially down South. I wonder if ClearPlay might have filtered it…

“Radical” Russ — “infinite diversity in infinite combinations” was one of the highest Vulcan ideals…