"The French Connection" censored and re-edited for "modern sensitivities"(twitter.com)
twitter.com
"The French Connection" censored and re-edited for "modern sensitivities"
https://twitter.com/TheFIREorg/status/1666457570171666432
105 comments
This reminds me of when we visited the Vatican. Our tour guide informed us that all the roman statues used to have penises, but one of the popes made it his mission to remove them all.
She said they would joke that there's probably some secret room in the Vatican with all the severed statue penises.
She said they would joke that there's probably some secret room in the Vatican with all the severed statue penises.
Probably all in the giftshop.
There was at one time a Roman slang term for underwear, which was the name of a cardinal who had all the genitalia painted over in some church or museum that the controlled.
I grew up during a time when the principal way to see older movies was on broadcast television. Not only chopped up for commercials, but, as I later learned, with many critical moments removed.
Years -- decades -- later, when I returned to some of these on disk or unedited streaming, I was surprised to discover how much I'd missed. Not just nuance, but entire cultural portrayals and statements that had been "washed away" by the banality of commercial television.
I was both pleased to discover these "new" (to me) pieces of interest and more thorough reflections of culture, and rather disappointed to observe how -- for me at least -- the cultural conversation had been quasi-lobotomized in the interests of some externally imposed lowest common denominator.
A part of public, commercial copyright should be that the covered work, as provided to and subsequently incorporated into the public culture and dialogue, cannot be removed from public access (if still for a "reasonable" fee).
There are TV shows I cannot meaningfully discuss with others who did not see the original broadcasts, because the music that played an essential and culturally relevant / connected role -- as important as the role of a principal character -- has been swapped out due to "rights" issues.
Sorry, nope. You contribute to such a cultural icon, and your contribution lives on in perpetuity. Let whatever contracts be negotiated within that context.
Sound trivial? We are talking about shows that would affect observable traffic -- on roads, in public establishments, etc. -- because "everybody" was home watching the show. (And who knows how much productivity was "lost" to water cooler conversation, the following morning?)
You don't get to just "disappear" culture...
Years -- decades -- later, when I returned to some of these on disk or unedited streaming, I was surprised to discover how much I'd missed. Not just nuance, but entire cultural portrayals and statements that had been "washed away" by the banality of commercial television.
I was both pleased to discover these "new" (to me) pieces of interest and more thorough reflections of culture, and rather disappointed to observe how -- for me at least -- the cultural conversation had been quasi-lobotomized in the interests of some externally imposed lowest common denominator.
A part of public, commercial copyright should be that the covered work, as provided to and subsequently incorporated into the public culture and dialogue, cannot be removed from public access (if still for a "reasonable" fee).
There are TV shows I cannot meaningfully discuss with others who did not see the original broadcasts, because the music that played an essential and culturally relevant / connected role -- as important as the role of a principal character -- has been swapped out due to "rights" issues.
Sorry, nope. You contribute to such a cultural icon, and your contribution lives on in perpetuity. Let whatever contracts be negotiated within that context.
Sound trivial? We are talking about shows that would affect observable traffic -- on roads, in public establishments, etc. -- because "everybody" was home watching the show. (And who knows how much productivity was "lost" to water cooler conversation, the following morning?)
You don't get to just "disappear" culture...
> There are TV shows I cannot meaningfully discuss with others who did not see the original broadcasts, because the music that played an essential and culturally relevant / connected role -- as important as the role of a principal character -- has been swapped out due to "rights" issues.
The only show I know of that suffered such a fate is Clone High. Any examples of other such shows?
The only show I know of that suffered such a fate is Clone High. Any examples of other such shows?
WKRP in Cincinnati
From Wikipedia:
> The show's use of Blondie's "Heart of Glass" was widely credited with helping the song become a major U.S. hit, and the band's record label Chrysalis Records presented the producers with a gold record award for the song's album Parallel Lines. The gold record can be seen hanging on the wall in the "bullpen" set in many episodes.
> The songs were often tied into episode plots, and some pieces of music were even used as running gags. For example, the doorbell at Jennifer's penthouse apartment played "Fly Me to the Moon" (which was later replaced by "Beautiful Dreamer" for copyright reasons).
> Wilson has commented that WKRP was videotaped rather than filmed because at the time, music-licensing fees were lower for videotaped programs, a loophole that was intended to accommodate variety shows. Music licensing deals that were cut at the time of production covered only a limited number of years, but when the show entered syndication shortly after its 1982 cancellation, most of the original music remained intact because the licensing deals were still active. After the licenses had expired, later syndicated versions of the show did not feature the music as first broadcast, with stock production music inserted in place of the original songs to avoid paying additional royalties. In some cases (such as during scenes with dialogue over background music), some of the characters' lines were dubbed by soundalike actors, a practice evident in all prints of the show issued since the early 1990s, including those used for its late-1990s run on Nick at Nite.
> The expense of procuring licenses for the original music delayed release of a DVD set for years.[44] When a Season 1 set was finally released, much of the music was again replaced and the soundalike vocal dubs were present. Some scenes were shortened or cut entirely, but some deleted scenes that had not been included in the original broadcast were added.
From Wikipedia:
> The show's use of Blondie's "Heart of Glass" was widely credited with helping the song become a major U.S. hit, and the band's record label Chrysalis Records presented the producers with a gold record award for the song's album Parallel Lines. The gold record can be seen hanging on the wall in the "bullpen" set in many episodes.
> The songs were often tied into episode plots, and some pieces of music were even used as running gags. For example, the doorbell at Jennifer's penthouse apartment played "Fly Me to the Moon" (which was later replaced by "Beautiful Dreamer" for copyright reasons).
> Wilson has commented that WKRP was videotaped rather than filmed because at the time, music-licensing fees were lower for videotaped programs, a loophole that was intended to accommodate variety shows. Music licensing deals that were cut at the time of production covered only a limited number of years, but when the show entered syndication shortly after its 1982 cancellation, most of the original music remained intact because the licensing deals were still active. After the licenses had expired, later syndicated versions of the show did not feature the music as first broadcast, with stock production music inserted in place of the original songs to avoid paying additional royalties. In some cases (such as during scenes with dialogue over background music), some of the characters' lines were dubbed by soundalike actors, a practice evident in all prints of the show issued since the early 1990s, including those used for its late-1990s run on Nick at Nite.
> The expense of procuring licenses for the original music delayed release of a DVD set for years.[44] When a Season 1 set was finally released, much of the music was again replaced and the soundalike vocal dubs were present. Some scenes were shortened or cut entirely, but some deleted scenes that had not been included in the original broadcast were added.
That is a fairly arbitrary restriction to impose on rights holders. You would have to justify that policy with a tangible public benefit. If I'm producing something for ephemeral entertainment purposes, I don't necessarily want to take on the cost of securing all rights for public performance of that product in perpetuity, and consumers are not necessarily willing to pay for it.
If it's not worth maintaining, then let the copyright go. Squatting on it seems to go against the purpose of copyright, and you get the worst of both worlds.
If I can still make money on an impaired version of the original, why should I be forced to let the copyright go?
It's worth asking before anyone loses their mind about this, who made this change and why? Licensors like Criterion can't and don't "re-edit" (if you can call removing 4 seconds re-editing). Others can and do pretty frequently.
It's decisions about market fit by executives, not a moral crusade (as we have seen, Hollywood execs aren't really the type for that). Sometimes the whole film is affected, as in Blade Runner, Brazil, Once Upon a Time in America, or Kingdom of Heaven. Those movies were "butchered" (to use the language of the histrionic Forbes article). Yet in Leon (The Professional) the director supposedly intended the titular character to sleep with his underage protege. I'm glad someone overrode the sacred "artist's intent" there, and I wish someone had done the same for George Lucas's ill-advised Star Wars editions.
Here someone probably looks at a report and says, OK here are the movies in our pile with more than 20 slurs in them. Let's try to get that number below 10 so we don't have to add a "the language in this film represents the time in which it was made..." warning, that turns a lot of people off.
These decisions get made to maximize shareholder value, and the original film is not lost (except in the case of Star Wars), it's just one of a dozen variant cuts — you think they show the same exact movie everywhere in the world? Ever been to China? Believe it or not art is flexible and resilient. A film can survive a temporary blip while some VPs try to minimize complaints from sensitive viewers. If you disagree with those viewers that is another issue in my opinion.
It's decisions about market fit by executives, not a moral crusade (as we have seen, Hollywood execs aren't really the type for that). Sometimes the whole film is affected, as in Blade Runner, Brazil, Once Upon a Time in America, or Kingdom of Heaven. Those movies were "butchered" (to use the language of the histrionic Forbes article). Yet in Leon (The Professional) the director supposedly intended the titular character to sleep with his underage protege. I'm glad someone overrode the sacred "artist's intent" there, and I wish someone had done the same for George Lucas's ill-advised Star Wars editions.
Here someone probably looks at a report and says, OK here are the movies in our pile with more than 20 slurs in them. Let's try to get that number below 10 so we don't have to add a "the language in this film represents the time in which it was made..." warning, that turns a lot of people off.
These decisions get made to maximize shareholder value, and the original film is not lost (except in the case of Star Wars), it's just one of a dozen variant cuts — you think they show the same exact movie everywhere in the world? Ever been to China? Believe it or not art is flexible and resilient. A film can survive a temporary blip while some VPs try to minimize complaints from sensitive viewers. If you disagree with those viewers that is another issue in my opinion.
You wrote--
> It's decisions about market fit by executives, not a moral crusade (as we have seen, Hollywood execs aren't really the type for that).
As a Criterion Channel subscriber, I take them at their word when they say in their mission statement [1]--
> No matter the medium... Criterion has maintained its pioneering commitment to presenting each film as its maker would want it seen...
Which leads me to ask, did the maker of The French Connection want those slurs removed from his film? (William Friedkin is, after all, still with us.) He certainly seems to have left those slurs in when he and his distributor released the film to audiences in the 70's.
Which makes me curious--just how tough were those previous audiences to be able to withstand the onslaught of slurs that today wilts the average modern viewer? Those moderns could probably use a bit of that stern stuff when looking at the past...
[1] https://www.criterion.com/about
> It's decisions about market fit by executives, not a moral crusade (as we have seen, Hollywood execs aren't really the type for that).
As a Criterion Channel subscriber, I take them at their word when they say in their mission statement [1]--
> No matter the medium... Criterion has maintained its pioneering commitment to presenting each film as its maker would want it seen...
Which leads me to ask, did the maker of The French Connection want those slurs removed from his film? (William Friedkin is, after all, still with us.) He certainly seems to have left those slurs in when he and his distributor released the film to audiences in the 70's.
Which makes me curious--just how tough were those previous audiences to be able to withstand the onslaught of slurs that today wilts the average modern viewer? Those moderns could probably use a bit of that stern stuff when looking at the past...
[1] https://www.criterion.com/about
> Which leads me to ask, did the maker of The French Connection want those slurs removed from his film?
Apparently, yes:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36229276
Apparently, yes:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36229276
> It's worth asking before anyone loses their mind about this, who made this change and why? [...] These decisions get made to maximize shareholder value
Sounds like a pretty goddamn good reason to lose my mind.
> the original film is not lost (except in the case of Star Wars)
This is Disney we're talking about. When they want to disappear a movie, they disappear a movie. You can pirate the old version, or buy extant DVDs, but I don't expect them to release a "French Connection Full Slur Version" Bluray or make it an option on streaming ("click here for the slurs version, you RACIST")
Sounds like a pretty goddamn good reason to lose my mind.
> the original film is not lost (except in the case of Star Wars)
This is Disney we're talking about. When they want to disappear a movie, they disappear a movie. You can pirate the old version, or buy extant DVDs, but I don't expect them to release a "French Connection Full Slur Version" Bluray or make it an option on streaming ("click here for the slurs version, you RACIST")
It seems it may have been Friedkin himself who requested this edit:
> response i got from criterion: “THE FRENCH CONNECTION is a 20th Century Fox film title that we have under license from Disney, its current owners. This is the only version that has ever been available to us for streaming. The question you raise has come up when we have played the film in the past, and according to our licensor, this is a “Director's Edit” of the film.”
https://old.reddit.com/r/criterion/comments/1422hx0/criterio...
It wouldn't be the first controversial change he's made to the movie. Here he is talking about color correction he did on the Bluray release:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6le-ginceM
Some reviews of that decision:
https://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1916/frenchconnection.html
https://bluray.highdefdigest.com/6665/french_connection_rema...
> response i got from criterion: “THE FRENCH CONNECTION is a 20th Century Fox film title that we have under license from Disney, its current owners. This is the only version that has ever been available to us for streaming. The question you raise has come up when we have played the film in the past, and according to our licensor, this is a “Director's Edit” of the film.”
https://old.reddit.com/r/criterion/comments/1422hx0/criterio...
It wouldn't be the first controversial change he's made to the movie. Here he is talking about color correction he did on the Bluray release:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6le-ginceM
Some reviews of that decision:
https://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1916/frenchconnection.html
https://bluray.highdefdigest.com/6665/french_connection_rema...
Should always be an option, and it should never be the only available cut. Why not give the option?
The art belongs, in a moral sense, to its makers and its audience as much as its owners when it enters common culture. Warts and all. We pay for it with the rent it owes from living inside our heads; all that free IP and raw capability that gets pumped into the fandom.
I had the same identical problems with Lucas when he "destroyed"[1] the original 1977 theatrical releases in favor of the "Special Edition" or whatever it was called.
[1] Which of course no one believes he did, they're still in Skywalker Ranch somewhere. Leaving "Harmy's De-Specialized Editions" to become the definitive release of that art.
The art belongs, in a moral sense, to its makers and its audience as much as its owners when it enters common culture. Warts and all. We pay for it with the rent it owes from living inside our heads; all that free IP and raw capability that gets pumped into the fandom.
I had the same identical problems with Lucas when he "destroyed"[1] the original 1977 theatrical releases in favor of the "Special Edition" or whatever it was called.
[1] Which of course no one believes he did, they're still in Skywalker Ranch somewhere. Leaving "Harmy's De-Specialized Editions" to become the definitive release of that art.
> [1] Which of course no one believes he did, they're still in Skywalker Ranch somewhere. Leaving "Harmy's De-Specialized Editions" to become the definitive release of that art.
4K77/80/83. Scanned at 4K resolution from 35mm prints, cleaned, and color restoration applied based on non-faded references. Even closer to the original experience than owning a 35mm copy (because it'll be badly faded and probably have quite a bit of damage). Much better than the official versions of the "originals" on DVD and blu-ray, which retain some later modifications, and which look much worse—for some reason they keep releasing them way too dark.
4K77/80/83. Scanned at 4K resolution from 35mm prints, cleaned, and color restoration applied based on non-faded references. Even closer to the original experience than owning a 35mm copy (because it'll be badly faded and probably have quite a bit of damage). Much better than the official versions of the "originals" on DVD and blu-ray, which retain some later modifications, and which look much worse—for some reason they keep releasing them way too dark.
I think .. in this specific example .. the crazy thing is that these words in that particular character's mouth is exactly how that kind of cop would talk in 1970.
So to me it's less about the social score censorship and more the whitewashing the character in an inauthentic way. Pretending they wouldn't say such things in 1970 when every NYC cop said the N word 10 times a week ...
There's basically identical language in The Godfather, The Taking of Pelham 123, The Shining, The Last Detail (100s more I'm sure)... serving the same "authenticity", staying true to the characters, the time and place, and the story being told.
Even in its ugliness.
So to me it's less about the social score censorship and more the whitewashing the character in an inauthentic way. Pretending they wouldn't say such things in 1970 when every NYC cop said the N word 10 times a week ...
There's basically identical language in The Godfather, The Taking of Pelham 123, The Shining, The Last Detail (100s more I'm sure)... serving the same "authenticity", staying true to the characters, the time and place, and the story being told.
Even in its ugliness.
Yeah it's really changing recorded history.
Seems it may only be happening on Apple TV and Criteron (per twitter). So people should cancel their subscription in protest over this.
I believe, one reason to pay, is to see un-edited versions.
I believe, one reason to pay, is to see un-edited versions.
Can you even cancel Apple TV inside an Apple One family bundle?
I've always found apple subscriptions to be easy to cancel
So if you have a family bundle, giving you 2TB of family photo storage, apple music, apple news etc, how do you cancel a component of the bundle while keeping the rest?
https://www.apple.com/apple-one/
https://www.apple.com/apple-one/
Settings -> Apple ID -> Subscriptions -> Apple One -> Choose Individual Services
[deleted]
There's a place for this, and I think it's fine as long as we're not replacing the originals.
I think many of us can probably come up with personal equivalents; I know after losing children many parents aren't able to watch movies where children die, and I've got similar feelings about personal trauma. As long as this isn't some orwellian government-driven replacement I don't think there's much to worry about, film can at times be far too pretentious about this kind of thing.
I think many of us can probably come up with personal equivalents; I know after losing children many parents aren't able to watch movies where children die, and I've got similar feelings about personal trauma. As long as this isn't some orwellian government-driven replacement I don't think there's much to worry about, film can at times be far too pretentious about this kind of thing.
> There's a place for this, and I think it's fine as long as we're not replacing the originals.
When the film is copyrighted (as The French Connection is for the next 45 years), it is effectively replacing the originals.
So far this change only seems to have been made to streamed copies. Physical copies are unaffected so far, but the next physical release may well be censored too, meaning the original out‐of‐print edition will only be legally available through deteriorating secondhand copies. Refer to theatrical Star Wars for another example of that kind of erasure (by the original creator, no less).
When the film is copyrighted (as The French Connection is for the next 45 years), it is effectively replacing the originals.
So far this change only seems to have been made to streamed copies. Physical copies are unaffected so far, but the next physical release may well be censored too, meaning the original out‐of‐print edition will only be legally available through deteriorating secondhand copies. Refer to theatrical Star Wars for another example of that kind of erasure (by the original creator, no less).
sounds like copyright is the problem then
This is replacing the originals. If you bought the original on iTunes and try to play it you’ll find your copy has been replaced with an edited version.
they edited "Charlie and the Chocolate factory". As the Umpa-Loompas where... something else. Of course that was done to the book before the movie was made.
https://www.roalddahlfans.com/dahls-work/books/charlie-and-t...
https://www.roalddahlfans.com/dahls-work/books/charlie-and-t...
Yes, Roald Dahl made that change, among others.
From the linked article, "Dahl’s publishers decided that 'to those growing up in a racially mixed society, the Oompa-Loompas were no longer acceptable as originally written.'" (emphasis added).
FWIW, the link mentions Cameron's "wide-ranging attack on the book" in 1973, but leaves out that people complained about the book's racism before then.
From West's "Roald Dahl" at https://archive.org/details/roalddahl00mark_0/page/70/mode/2... :
> The controversy started when Lois Kalb Bouchard and some other critics charged that the book was racist. In 1970 Bouchard published an article entitled “A New Look at Old Favorites: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory which was reprinted a few years later in a book called The Black American in Books for Children: Readings in Racism.
That 1972 reprint is available at https://archive.org/details/blackamericaninb0000macc/page/11... .
West continues:
> Bouchard did not accuse Dahl of “being deliberately racist,” but she argued that he perpetuated racist stereotypes through his portrayal of the Oompa-Loompas. She criticized these characters’ “childishness and dependency upon whites.”12 She also disliked the relationship between Wonka and the Oompa-Loompas. “As workers in the factory,” Bouchard wrote, “the Black characters are exploited. The owner clicks his fingers sharply when he wants a worker to appear. The Oompa-Loompas are made to test various kinds of candies, sometimes with unfortunate effects” (Bouchard, 113).
After the 1971 announcement about the movie, the NAACP threatened to boycott the movie. Dahl "found the NAACP to be unreasonable, telling Knopf editor Bob Bernstein he was unable to understand why the perceived his story as a ‘terrible dastardly anti-negro book,’ and described their attitude as ‘real Nazi stuff.’” - https://daily.jstor.org/roald-dahls-anti-black-racism/
The NAACP protest is why the Oompa-Loompas in the movie are orange - https://screenrant.com/gene-wilder-willy-wonka-and-the-choco... .
Only after Cameron's "wide-ranging attack" in 1973 did Dahl agree to change the book, in 1974, several years after the movie came out.
From West's "Roald Dahl" at https://archive.org/details/roalddahl00mark_0/page/70/mode/2... :
> The controversy started when Lois Kalb Bouchard and some other critics charged that the book was racist. In 1970 Bouchard published an article entitled “A New Look at Old Favorites: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory which was reprinted a few years later in a book called The Black American in Books for Children: Readings in Racism.
That 1972 reprint is available at https://archive.org/details/blackamericaninb0000macc/page/11... .
West continues:
> Bouchard did not accuse Dahl of “being deliberately racist,” but she argued that he perpetuated racist stereotypes through his portrayal of the Oompa-Loompas. She criticized these characters’ “childishness and dependency upon whites.”12 She also disliked the relationship between Wonka and the Oompa-Loompas. “As workers in the factory,” Bouchard wrote, “the Black characters are exploited. The owner clicks his fingers sharply when he wants a worker to appear. The Oompa-Loompas are made to test various kinds of candies, sometimes with unfortunate effects” (Bouchard, 113).
After the 1971 announcement about the movie, the NAACP threatened to boycott the movie. Dahl "found the NAACP to be unreasonable, telling Knopf editor Bob Bernstein he was unable to understand why the perceived his story as a ‘terrible dastardly anti-negro book,’ and described their attitude as ‘real Nazi stuff.’” - https://daily.jstor.org/roald-dahls-anti-black-racism/
The NAACP protest is why the Oompa-Loompas in the movie are orange - https://screenrant.com/gene-wilder-willy-wonka-and-the-choco... .
Only after Cameron's "wide-ranging attack" in 1973 did Dahl agree to change the book, in 1974, several years after the movie came out.
I guess I'm not of the age(?) where I can get outraged about people using their freedom of speech to cut/edit/mashup a movie however they want.
If the original version of a movie were still available and accessible, I wouldn't mind if its copyright holders created a new, bowdlerized, "palatable" version that was available along with the original. However, that's not what tends to happen. The heirs of old cultural products often make them unavailable in their original form, depriving modern audiences of the original work. This is a side effect of copyright law which I consider to be a detestable, culture-destroying bug.
I'm glad that no one can censor ancient works that are now under public domain. No one can force us to only read less-scandalous versions of Greek mythology or Shakespeare. But most works made over the last century are unfortunately held hostage to excessively long copyright terms, making them vulnerable to extinction when there is a cultural generational change and the new generation decides to disfigure them or wipe them out. In this way we lose access to cultural artifacts that show us what people thought at the time, for better or worse. Sometimes we even lose access to certain ideas that were better that current ones. Societal progress is not necessarily monotonic.
I'm not saying that I approve of all the values present in old works of art. But I nonetheless want to be able to see, hear, or read such works in their original, unvarnished form. I don't want condescending, contemporary censors to look down on me and assume I won't be able to tell what's problematic in old works or will absorb and embrace values that have turned out to be wrong.
I'm glad that no one can censor ancient works that are now under public domain. No one can force us to only read less-scandalous versions of Greek mythology or Shakespeare. But most works made over the last century are unfortunately held hostage to excessively long copyright terms, making them vulnerable to extinction when there is a cultural generational change and the new generation decides to disfigure them or wipe them out. In this way we lose access to cultural artifacts that show us what people thought at the time, for better or worse. Sometimes we even lose access to certain ideas that were better that current ones. Societal progress is not necessarily monotonic.
I'm not saying that I approve of all the values present in old works of art. But I nonetheless want to be able to see, hear, or read such works in their original, unvarnished form. I don't want condescending, contemporary censors to look down on me and assume I won't be able to tell what's problematic in old works or will absorb and embrace values that have turned out to be wrong.
100% agree on copyright. The way that interacts with edited works like this is really unfortunate.
This is censorship, not freedom of speech.
When Spielberg edited E.T. to replace guns with walkie-talkies, was that censorship? Or freedom of speech?
"Sensitivity readings" is hardly a recent concept. The Hardy Boy's were updated to remove the original depictions of racial stereotypes. Was that censorship? Or a desire to make more money?
The 1981 revised edition of "How to Win Friends and Influence People" were edited with edits for "modern sensibilities", including reducing sexist language [1]. Was that censorship?
When is the copyright owner and/or licensee morally obliged to not make legally allowed changes?
Only when the change can be seen as "politically correct"?
[1] For examples, "insurance man" was replaced with "insurance agent", and "leadership gravitates to the man who can talk" changed to "leadership gravitates to the person who can talk". It also dropped the section on marriage. ("Never get married until you have kissed the Blarney Stone. Praising a woman before marriage is a matter of inclination. But praising one after you marry her is a matter of necessity — and personal safety.")
"Sensitivity readings" is hardly a recent concept. The Hardy Boy's were updated to remove the original depictions of racial stereotypes. Was that censorship? Or a desire to make more money?
The 1981 revised edition of "How to Win Friends and Influence People" were edited with edits for "modern sensibilities", including reducing sexist language [1]. Was that censorship?
When is the copyright owner and/or licensee morally obliged to not make legally allowed changes?
Only when the change can be seen as "politically correct"?
[1] For examples, "insurance man" was replaced with "insurance agent", and "leadership gravitates to the man who can talk" changed to "leadership gravitates to the person who can talk". It also dropped the section on marriage. ("Never get married until you have kissed the Blarney Stone. Praising a woman before marriage is a matter of inclination. But praising one after you marry her is a matter of necessity — and personal safety.")
> When Spielberg edited E.T. to replace guns with walkie-talkies, was that censorship? Or freedom of speech?
Here’s how Spielberg himself describes it (https://allthingsfangirl.blogspot.com/2011/09/on-scene-raide...):
“Speaking for myself, you know, I tried [modifying a film] once and I lived to regret it. Not because of fan outrage, but simply because I was disappointed in myself. I was overly sensitive to some of the criticism ET got from parent groups when it was first released in '82 having to do with Eliot saying "Penis Breath" or the guns...and then there were certain brilliant, but rough around the edges close ups of ET that I always felt, if technology ever evolves to the point where I can do some facial enhancement for ET, I'd like to. So I did an ET pass for like the third release of the movie and it was okay for a while, but then I realized that what I had done was I had robbed the people who loved ET of their memories of ET. And I regretted that.”
Here’s how Spielberg himself describes it (https://allthingsfangirl.blogspot.com/2011/09/on-scene-raide...):
“Speaking for myself, you know, I tried [modifying a film] once and I lived to regret it. Not because of fan outrage, but simply because I was disappointed in myself. I was overly sensitive to some of the criticism ET got from parent groups when it was first released in '82 having to do with Eliot saying "Penis Breath" or the guns...and then there were certain brilliant, but rough around the edges close ups of ET that I always felt, if technology ever evolves to the point where I can do some facial enhancement for ET, I'd like to. So I did an ET pass for like the third release of the movie and it was okay for a while, but then I realized that what I had done was I had robbed the people who loved ET of their memories of ET. And I regretted that.”
But was it censorship? If not, why not?
Have you ever read the books "1984" or "Brave New World"?
If you're worried about overreach of government control, i.e. what these books are actually about, there's a nice thread about Edward Snowden also currently on the front page. Apple, Criterion Collection, etc., have relatively little control over our day to day lives.
I disagree that those books are only about government control. Censorship can come from anyone who controls the distribution of information, and these books are still relevant when talking about the consequences of censorship.
[deleted]
I'm not against editing and changing movies. There's lots of reasons one might want to do so, and I think audiences and artists should be able to engage and manipulate art as they want. But I do think the original should always be easily accessible. For example, a streaming service might offer "Blade Runner" and then have a drop-down menu to select the theatrical release or the director's cut. Imo, that's not a big ask. I run a Jellyfin server at home and it has this feature.
There are things that I consider problematic in old movies, but what if someone is curious about what was that era like, given that we have outgrown some blatant prejudices?
If I want to know what an era was like, I don't necessarily start with fiction. I would look at primary sources.
I think that at least in regard to culture, works of fiction are likely to be a more effective tour guides of what an era was like than nonfiction accounts of that culture.
At any rate, regardless of which you use as your tour guide (or even both), your picture will necessarily be incomplete. Hell, the people who actually live through an era don't even have a complete picture. That's just the nature of life.
Fiction can tell you about what and how people were thinking.
The concept of primary source is orthogonal to fact/fiction.
The concept of primary source is orthogonal to fact/fiction.
The strangest thing about our society is that we have absolutely no problem with dramatizations of killing and murder in movies.
Even to the point of having an entire genre of "Horror" movies with a general theme of murder defining the genre.
We properly view those scenes though as complete fiction.
Even to the point of having an entire genre of "Horror" movies with a general theme of murder defining the genre.
We properly view those scenes though as complete fiction.
Another thing I've noticed is Spotify's listing of many 'remastered' tracks. That's fine, except that they often no longer make the original track unavailable. The remastered tracks are much 'smoother' among other things, but to me sound very homogeneous, blending in with everything else and lacking character.
Remastered often equals compressed to the max. It means that soft passages become as loud as the loud passages. Read about it more by googling 'loudness war'.
Honestly wouldn't blame anyone who cares about media shown in it's correct aspect ratio, original and accurate subtitling and in correct uncut form as the original director, creative team decided and the actors acted out to say screw it and go back to torrents off a hard drive.
Rights holders have never been trustable in maintaining the best copy of media, and it's even worse now the pipes from the rights holders to us also have a say in what parts of it are shown or if to cut off 20% of the frame to appease people scared of black bars.
The only people who can be trusted are those archiving for passion of the media.
Rights holders have never been trustable in maintaining the best copy of media, and it's even worse now the pipes from the rights holders to us also have a say in what parts of it are shown or if to cut off 20% of the frame to appease people scared of black bars.
The only people who can be trusted are those archiving for passion of the media.
I'm totally fine with this. If Apple and Criterion want to re-edit the content they broadcast, that's their freedom of expression. If I want to see the original, I'll look elsewhere.
But it’s the distributor, Disney doing the editing. There isn’t somewhere else to look. The discs are out of print and if you bought it digitally it’s been retroactively changed to this new version…
Ahoy, matey. If you really must watch an old Disney movie the only ethical way to get one is to pirate it. Otherwise you would be supporting abusive copyright terms that prevent people to sharing something that has become part of their culture for generations. Having a few years of copyright is understandable since companies do need to be able to make money from their investments, but at most it should last one generation (20-30 years) making it 70 years is just obscene.
The situation is not that clear cut. From the linked article:
> This appearance of an unedited version of The French Connection on Disney+ casts doubt on the assumption by some that Disney - which now ‘owns’ the film following its purchase of 20th Century Fox - is to blame for the unannounced cut.
> This appearance of an unedited version of The French Connection on Disney+ casts doubt on the assumption by some that Disney - which now ‘owns’ the film following its purchase of 20th Century Fox - is to blame for the unannounced cut.
Exactly. They're running a business. If they think they can get higher viewership by modifying the original, whether by recutting or censoring, that's their choice. If I want to watch the original or the edited version, that's my choice. In this case, as TFA points out, it appears there was an accident in which edit was put on the service.
The pearl clutching in the comments here is ridiculous. It's as if these monkey-fighting commenters have never seen a Monday to Friday TV edit.
The pearl clutching in the comments here is ridiculous. It's as if these monkey-fighting commenters have never seen a Monday to Friday TV edit.
It’s not the edits that I mind. It’s that they’re made by the rightsholder, who has exclusive control over non‐physical copies, and likely will apply the change to future physical releases.
Say what you will about the sensibilities of the Bowlders, but they didn’t have control over anyone’s access to the original unedited Shakespeare. Ditto for VidAngel, and so on.
Say what you will about the sensibilities of the Bowlders, but they didn’t have control over anyone’s access to the original unedited Shakespeare. Ditto for VidAngel, and so on.
Except you often DON'T get the choice to watch the original. It's simply unavailable, so you'd better like the pureed pablum they're letting you consume.
You also usually don't get the choice to watch an edited version if you prefer it. That's life. Sometimes what you want is not easy to obtain.
If I want to see the original, I'll look elsewhere.
Except -- good luck finding it (and in a form easily accessible, e.g. streamable).
I get the fact that this is their right and at the end of the day, we can't put a gun to their head and make them not do this. Still, I don't need to pretend that I'm "fine" with it or that it isn't fundamentally stupid.
Except -- good luck finding it (and in a form easily accessible, e.g. streamable).
I get the fact that this is their right and at the end of the day, we can't put a gun to their head and make them not do this. Still, I don't need to pretend that I'm "fine" with it or that it isn't fundamentally stupid.
I see options to stream it on Amazon Prime, YouTube, Redbox (I think?), Vudu, and so on. Are these also all edited?
The wave of edits for "community standards" is just beginning. I'm talking about the near future, when it becomes the new norm.
Oh, and guess which version teachers/professors will be allowed to show in class -- on penalty of career death and public humiliation.
Oh, and guess which version teachers/professors will be allowed to show in class -- on penalty of career death and public humiliation.
I can agree with that in principle. The problem, though, is that all the mega corporations (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc.) seem to have a singular hive mind and follow each other on things like this. As soon as Netflix eliminated the "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" episode of Community, Hulu followed suit and did the same.
Example: https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2020/07/dd-netflix-and-hulu-...
All of this erodes your actual freedom to "look elsewhere" as the places you have to look become fewer and harder to find, and are sometimes actively shut out by other platforms like EBay and Amazon.
Example: https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2020/07/dd-netflix-and-hulu-...
All of this erodes your actual freedom to "look elsewhere" as the places you have to look become fewer and harder to find, and are sometimes actively shut out by other platforms like EBay and Amazon.
Even with a "if you don't like it don't buy it" attitude you still acknowledge that this should have clear labelling that this isn't the original product right?
Otherwise how can consumers know they won't like it before they buy it?
Otherwise how can consumers know they won't like it before they buy it?
Yes, I do think that is a valid complaint.
That's why we need "piracy". The "pirate" movement is the only reliable way to protect our cultural heritage against politics and copyright.
The actual link to Forbes, linked to from Twitter:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarcher/2023/06/06/apple-tv-...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarcher/2023/06/06/apple-tv-...
Does anyone have a summary of what was changed?
This is the source:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarcher/2023/06/06/apple-tv-...:
> In the version of the film being shown on the Criterion Channel and Apple TV, around four seconds of the film have been cut during a scene where Hackman heads out of the Narcotics Division office pursued by Scheider. The original scene, which starts at around 9mins and 42 seconds into the film, sees Scheider and Hackman’s characters having a conversation by the door during which two racial slurs are used. In the edited version, all but the last couple of ‘innocent’ exchanges of this conversation have been cut out - clearly to remove the slurs.
I just checked the unedited version. One of the slurs is one I'd never heard before for an Italian (had to look it up), and the other is the N-word.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarcher/2023/06/06/apple-tv-...:
> In the version of the film being shown on the Criterion Channel and Apple TV, around four seconds of the film have been cut during a scene where Hackman heads out of the Narcotics Division office pursued by Scheider. The original scene, which starts at around 9mins and 42 seconds into the film, sees Scheider and Hackman’s characters having a conversation by the door during which two racial slurs are used. In the edited version, all but the last couple of ‘innocent’ exchanges of this conversation have been cut out - clearly to remove the slurs.
I just checked the unedited version. One of the slurs is one I'd never heard before for an Italian (had to look it up), and the other is the N-word.
I wonder if they just trying to cut out slurs for the sake of cutting slurs, or if they do not want to portray cops as racist.
In the version of the film being shown on the Criterion Channel and Apple TV, around four seconds of the film have been cut during a scene where Hackman heads out of the Narcotics Division office pursued by Scheider. The original scene, which starts at around 9mins and 42 seconds into the film, sees Scheider and Hackman’s characters having a conversation by the door during which two racial slurs are used. In the edited version, all but the last couple of ‘innocent’ exchanges of this conversation have been cut out - clearly to remove the slurs.
The article, which could use some editing and cleanup as it is a bit repetitive, links to a much better source documenting the change.
https://hollywood-elsewhere.com/french-connection-refresher/
https://hollywood-elsewhere.com/french-connection-refresher/
It is useful to remember that copyright abolishment, that some people want, would imply that these sorts of edits would be open for anyone to do with total impunity. At least with status quo the owner of the work is required to authorize these changes, and the concept of artistic control still holds some legitimacy.
I don’t mind that someone somewhere chose to make such edits. I care that the edited version is (presumably) going to be the only version available on streaming platforms and (presumably) future physical releases.
It also implies that because no one owns the rights, the original versions can be distributed without legal hazard. Under the status quo, IP owners can simply remove cuts they no longer want from the market entirely (as George Lucas wanted to do with the OT.) Copyright also makes archiving media legally nearly impossible - forcing companies like the Internet Archive to respect takedown orders and robots.txt requests to remove media from public access, and putting them in constant legal peril. There are numerous examples of lost media that are only lost because of copyright laws.
It's no different than with free software. Yes, anyone can fork the original, but it's still up to the public to decide whether than fork succeeds or fails. Meanwhile George Lucas can just force "Greedo shot first" on us whether we like it or not.
It's no different than with free software. Yes, anyone can fork the original, but it's still up to the public to decide whether than fork succeeds or fails. Meanwhile George Lucas can just force "Greedo shot first" on us whether we like it or not.
Bit of a weird take. Are you experiencing a lot of problems with "fan edits" of books that are old enough to be in the public domain?
This is very CCP-like..."Modern Sensitivity" is just a cover for the cultish "social harmony" seen in China where you get blacklisted via social scores, wiped off raster files and maps, re-edited, and imprisoned to protect this contrived harmony. It's the secular version of Sharia Law.
Authoritarianism. And it's rampant everywhere.
IMO, this is fine. The original isn't gone, it's just been improved. The original artist's intent isn't sacrosanct. It arguably isn't even relevant. Certainly not to a for-profit media company that owns the rights. As someone who remembers watching Do The Right Thing on basic cable with all the curses dubbed with grade-school profanity, this isn't a new thing at all. It just makes it accessible to wider audience.
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
This isn't history. It isn't a record. It's fiction. Entertainment. Anything to make it more entertaining makes it better.
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is certainly entertaining, and I’m happy that some people enjoyed coming up with it and others enjoyed watching or reading it, but if it replaced Pride and Prejudice, the world would be worse off.
> it's just been improved
This is a debatable statement. Personally I want to see the original artist's intent, warts and all. It gives insight into the cultural sensitivities, or lack thereof, of an era before I was born.
This is a debatable statement. Personally I want to see the original artist's intent, warts and all. It gives insight into the cultural sensitivities, or lack thereof, of an era before I was born.
If you bought the original on iTunes you’ll find it actually has been replaced, after the fact, with this version.
> If you bought the original on iTunes you’ll find it actually has been replaced, after the fact, with this version.
"The Cloud" is the perfected version of the memory hole. If everything's streamed, they'll be nothing to compare the edited version to, and these kinds of edits are always done sneakily. The only thing that could tell you something is wrong is a gas-lit memory.
"The Cloud" is the perfected version of the memory hole. If everything's streamed, they'll be nothing to compare the edited version to, and these kinds of edits are always done sneakily. The only thing that could tell you something is wrong is a gas-lit memory.
There have already been cases of details being inserted into a stream and later changed or removed for advertising purposes. The Amazon Jack Reacher series was first released around tax time and temporarily had a CG billboard for TurboTax visible in one scene.
The original will be memoryholed. This is a nice spit in the face of everybody who worked on that movie.
We spit in the face of most movie makers. There's an entire industry based on face-spitting. We're under no obligation to them. A lot of forgotten films were brought out of obscurity by Mystery Science Theater/Rifftrax.
I think there are good arguments against redoing films like this, but this isn't one of them? If "we" actually cared about "people who make films," we'd be doing more to ensure their integrity, livelihood etc. No writers strikes, et al.
They're all dead, no one cares. It won't be long before no one will remember the movie at all. It's not blasphemy, it's just time.
1. It's a 70s movie, not everyone from the 70s is dead
2. Most people do care about respecting the dead. Otherwise there wouldn't be laws against desecrating graves
2. Most people do care about respecting the dead. Otherwise there wouldn't be laws against desecrating graves
a person isn't their art
The director is 87 and alive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Friedkin
It's not "just time". It's the nature of copyright in its current form as well as a certain set of cultural values embraced by those overly empowered by excessive copyright protection. And these things can be changed by society, if we will it. They're not universal constants.
I care even if the status of creators is undetermined. I wish all your media is thusly edited, please never leave your bubble
I too wish all my media is thusly edited, that's why it's licensed under creative commons.
You want to ensure you have no legacy? put it all in a vault and demand no one alters it.
You want to ensure you have no legacy? put it all in a vault and demand no one alters it.
This bleeds over into the making of The French Connection itself. The train/car chase was shot in traffic, not on a closed road; they almost maimed/killed others/themselves. It was incredibly reckless and "wrong" by modern standards. All of this is discussed in the full-length director commentary.