Hollywood Can Now Dictate What You Watch

Hollywood has fought forever against the government censuring or dictating what they could say, but the tables have turned and Hollywood can now dictate what we watch.

A sad commentary emerged from the Denver Federal Courts on July 7, 2005. In an Associated Press story entitled Court Rules Against Sanitizing Films, U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch said that

". . .editing movies to delete objectionable language, sex and violence is an "illegitimate business" that hurts Hollywood studios and directors who own the movie rights."

"Their (studios and directors) objective ... is to stop the infringement because of its irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies," the judge wrote. "There is a public interest in providing such protection." (Italics added)

I don’t know what planet this judge just arrived from, but he hasn’t been playing in my sandbox lately. Generally speaking, the public doesn’t care whether or not the “creative artistic expression” of film makers is injured or nurtured. They are only interested in the final outcome, and according to the decline in theater attendance over the past few years; the public is disappointed, if not nauseated, with the current trend of films.

The only people in this country concerned about piracy and intellectual protection are those who produce works worth pirating. The position of the Studios can not actually be about preserving the artistry of their work or the purity of their presentation. The fight really boils down to two points, ownership and Hollywood's hypocrisy.

Ownership
Several years ago there was a great deal of consternation among many of the directors of the early black and white films when Ted Turner began to colorize their films. The lighting and filming techniques differ so much from black and white to color, that many of the effects done specifically in the original films were ruined when change to color. Turner’s trump card in this situation was that he owned the films. This allowed him to modify them without permission and in spite of the objections of the creators. His objective was to make them more appealing to his current, color friendly audience and thereby reap a much larger revenue.

Ownership is the key to the editing done by CleanFlicks, Play It Clean Video and CleanFilms. To have access to any of the “sanitized films,” a person must purchase a membership and become a member of the co-op that actually purchases copies of the film. (This is the very same method used by Private Clubs to restrict membership and circumvented discrimination laws.) As an owner, you have the right to modify the film any way you choose, because it is yours. You can rent or purchase these films from the organization, depending on your preference.

I personally have been a member of two different co-ops, and as a result have chosen to view several dozen sanitized R-rated films. Were it not for this program, I would not have watched or purchased any of these movies and the writers, directors and producers would not have earned the royalties they received. I even own a copy of the first generation of edited videos of Titanic.

The point that the film makers are ignoring is that once they offer their work for sale, the film or DVD no longer belongs to them. It is true that they own the intellectual property and it is wrong for someone else to profit from their work without the creator receiving compensation, but if I buy the Mono Lisa and spray paint a mustache and horns on her, no one has a legal position to prevent me.

Hypocrisy
The final point to be made is the hypocrisy of the plaintiffs. A quick example to illustrate:

James Cameron is one of the most successful and popular writers/directors/producers of our time. He is a creative, skilled and talented individual. He has directed and/or produced over a dozen theatrical releases, of which all but 2 or 3 have been R-rated. The R-rated films include: True Lies, Terminator2, Aliens, The Terminator, Piranha II, Strange Days & Point Break. Titanic was PG-13, but I don't know why.

Cameron was the initial victim of the sanitizing movement when Titanic became the first film to be edited and shown at the Towne Cinema, a small dollar theater in American Fork, Utah in 1998. Shortly there after, Sunrise Video, also in American Fork, began to edit and sell copies of the video. These were not bootlegged, but legitimately purchased copies that were edited and sold as edited copies. Neither Cameron nor 20^th Century Fox lost a dime, but actually made a lot more money than they would otherwise have done. In spite of this, Cameron was very vocal in his condemnation of the practice and nearly cried over the artistic damage done to his movie. Keep in mind that the only things deleted were the naked poses of Kate Winslet. Nothing was changed, only deleted.

According to my brief understanding of the law in these matters, the plaintiffs must show damage or a loss from the action of the defendents. There was no monetary loss, but increased revenue because of these acts. Their product was not damaged, because it was my video tape that was edited, not their master tapes. The fact that I can't see part of the film now is no different than if I looked away or fast forwarded through the objectionable portion.

It appears as though Judge Richard P. Matsch's ruling was not based on the law, but on his own personal beliefs. Bad form for a federal judge.

And now for the hypocracy. If Cameron was sincere about the purity of his films and dedicated to the dream that every person in the world had a right to see his vision as pristine as he created it, why did he allow nearly all of his R-rated films to be sanitized by the television networks and shown in their edited versions on national TV?

When all is said and done, it appears that art yields up its purity to greed and hypocrisy.

An Unconvincing Truth, or Never Let The Truth Get In The Way Of A Good Story

For years we have been entertained by movies that were “based on a true story,” or “inspired by real events.” An in-depth analysis usually reveals that other than the title and a couple of main characters, the original story and the finished movie share very little. Dramatic elements, suspense, intrigue and some sex are usually added to make the production more appealing to a larger audience. While the show may be very successful as a movie in terms of income, informed patrons are heard to mutter as they leave, “that director never lets the truth get in the way of a good story.”

As more and more discussion about Hollywood Al’s movie, “An Unconvincing Truth,” (Oh, I’m sorry,) “An Inconvenient Truth,” reaches the public, the hard facts that are presented there are beginning to thaw faster than the polar ice cap.

(We will skip over the trite retorts given to skeptics that if they don’t believe, they are obviously stupid and move on to some more concrete evidence.)

The Associated Press (AP) released an article on June 27 entitled:

Scientists OK Gore's movie for accuracy
By Seth Borenstein, AP Science Writer

Some of the quotes include:

The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The former vice president's movie — replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets — mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. . .”

“. . . But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right."

Although the AP gave Gore high marks, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works released a statement the same day chastising the AP for lack of full disclosure and pointed out some troubling relationships with those supporting the Gore film.

AP Incorrectly Claims Dcientists Praise Gore's Movie

June 27, 2006

The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.

AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.

The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm

The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken “Hockey Stick.” (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697 )

Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.

Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore:

Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore’s film:

"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

"The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." – Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:

“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal

Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.

“…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:

“…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.

Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.

"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.

Contact: MARC MORANO (marc_morano@epw.senate.gov) 202-224-5762, MATT DEMPSEY (matthew_dempsey@epw.senate.gov) 202-224-9797