APOCAFLICKS

The skit Apocaflicks: The Curse of the Unedited Movies was originally performed by BYU's award-winning comedy troupe Divine Comedy at the Varsity Theatre in the fall of 2006. Divine Comedy, performs several times each semester on the campus of Brigham Young University. We've posted the script below in original format with production notes. Does the end of the world somehow revolve around movie editors, CleanFlicks? Read below to find out. The script was penned by Ryan Crocker with contributions from the Divine Comedy players.


APOCAFLICKS: THE CURSE OF THE UNEDITED MOVIES
By Ryan Croker

With Paul, Matt, Trevor, Jono, Lisa, Taylor, Brian, Ryan, Laurel, and Sarah.

We open with a short video showing newspaper clippings detailing the rise and fall of Cleanflicks. We see the some text explaining what happened, i.e.

On July 6, 2006, a federal judge in Denver presiding over a lawsuit between CleanFlicks and 16 Hollywood directors ruled that CleanFlicks' editing violates U.S. copyright laws. The judge ordered CleanFlicks to "stop producing, manufacturing, and creating" and renting edited movies, and to hand all inventory to movie studios within five days of the ruling.

"It is with great regret that we write to inform you that CleanFlicks is going out of business soon. As you may have heard or read, after three long years of legal struggles, a judge in Colorado has ruled that we cannot sell or rent edited DVDs anymore. While we thought very strongly about appealing the decision, the potential costs and risks to the company, its customers and shareholders was just too great. Accordingly, we have agreed to close our doors after a brief winding-up period.
...We want to offer our sincerest apologies for not being able to provide you with edited DVDs...We appreciate your support of our efforts to provide high-quality, family-friendly movies, and we will try to make this difficult process of closing our operations as painless as we can for all our loyal customers."
In the background, the words fade, except the word “painless” which turns to blood. In the background we hear screams and cries, and we eventually see a Cleanflicks store that looks as if it’s been burned out and destroyed. Finally, we see the words 28 Days After. The video ends and Matt stumbles on stage, wearing pajamas as if he’s just woken up.

Matt: Yawn. Oh, my! I feel like I’ve been sleeping forever!

Matt walks to Center Stage.

Matt: Why is it so dark in here? Trevor! Did you forget to pay the electric bill again?

Matt looks around.

Matt: Hello? Well, let’s see what we have in the fridge.

Matt mimes opening a fridge. Trevor makes a noise offstage.

Matt: Trevor?

Trevor shuffles onstage gnawing on a severed arm. His makeup is that of the LIVING DEAD!

Matt: Trevor? What are you eating?

Trevor: Grrrrr. Arrrghh. (Trevor spits out what he was eating on Matt)

Matt: Oh no, you did NOT just shoot that green *crap* at me!

Trevor: Fooooood.

Matt: What kind of monster are you!?

Trevor stops eating and looks at Matt. He tosses the arm offstage.

Trevor: Braaaiinnnsss!

Matt walks across the stage, Trevor shambles along behind him.

Suddenly Sarah appears from the other side of the stage, walking like a Zombie. And dressed like one too.

Sarah: Brains!

Matt: What is up with these Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!?

Trevor: Brains!

Both start walking toward Matt. Matt cowers girlishly in fear. Suddenly, Paul and Taylor rush in, Taylor brandishing a severed arm. Paul is dressed is a weird fur/leather ensemble.

Paul: Hey freaks!

Taylor holds up the arm like a stick.

Taylor: Here boy, here boy!

Trevor takes the bait and gets excited about the arm. Taylor throws it offstage. All three Zombies look after it.

Brian appears from offstage, holding the arm.

Brian: Did someone just throw a severed arm at me?

Everyone just looks at Brian.

Brian: Seriously. That’s gross.

Suddenly, Trevor lunges for Brian.

Trevor: Brains!

Trevor’s momentum carries both him and Brian offstage. Sarah follows.

Paul: Hey you! Let’s go!

Paul grabs Matt’s arm and leads him offstage. Taylor follows. Once they are gone, Trevor returns to the stage with the arm in his mouth. When he sees no one there, he lowers his head, chagrined, and walks offstage. Paul, Taylor, and Matt come from the other side.

Matt: Thanks for saving me, but what was going on back there? My roommate was going crazy and he had some crazy friends, which is really crazy because Trevor doesn’t have any friends!

Taylor: What do you mean, “What was going on back there”? Where have you been for the last month?

Matt: Asleep, mostly.

Paul: What! How can you have been asleep for a month?

Matt: Well, I had mono…

Taylor: Ah.

Matt: Well,….uh…So can you explain to me what’s going on?

Taylor: Sure. Tell me, do you like movies?

Matt: I like Air Bud and The Legend Of Bagger Vance!

Taylor: I’ll take that as a yes.

Paul: Are you familiar with Cleanflicks?

Matt: Absolutely. Without them, I wouldn’t know what to think!

Taylor: Okay. Well, last July the U.S. Supreme Court made a ruling declaring Cleanflicks illegal. They were forced to close down on August 30. Exactly 28 days ago…

Matt: Sadness! But what does it all mean?

Paul: Don’t you see! Without Cleanflicks around to edit people’s movies anymore, people just started watching anything and everything. No one knew the danger, all of that violence and profanity, it filled people with rage, they started running around biting folks, and spreading the insanity. It’s a madhouse, I tell you, a madhouse!

Paul falls on his knees, crying.

Matt: How horrible! But without Cleanflicks around to tell you what you can and can’t tolerate, how did you both survive?

Taylor: Everyone turned into a zombie. We’ve had to take refuge in the Provo Public Library.

Paul: It used to be the original BYU, you know.

Taylor: We don’t have time for interesting historical facts. Let’s get moving!

Time passes. Somehow. As time passes, Brian reappears on stage, chased by Trevor and Sarah, he runs around as they chase him and he runs offstage.
Lisa, Ryan, and Jono appear from offstage. Jono is dressed like Bruce Willis in Die Hard.

Ryan: Hey guys. I’m glad you’re back. I didn’t expect you until Thursday.

Taylor: Tomorrow?

Ryan: No… the day AFTER Tomorrow. But it’s good that you’re here now. We’ve resorted to burning books to stay warm. We can’t stay here much longer.

Jono: Oh, I’m so glad you’re safe. He hugs Taylor.

Taylor: Knock it off, Willis! She shoves Jono away. Everyone, this is Matt. We found him when we were patrolling King Henry.

Jono: Hi Matt! He hugs Taylor. She shoves him away again. Where you from?

Matt: In West Philadelphia, born and raised, on a playground, where I spent most of my days.

Jono: Well, my name is Willis. I’ve been sent from the future to stop the zombies and kill Brad Pitt!

Everyone looks at each other, confused.

Jono: And then I was trapped in an office building at Christmastime!

Ryan: Okay, moving on… I’m Ryan, I work at the local S-Mart. I just found this book called the Necronomicon. It has a fascinating article about zombies. It says that zombies can be killed by removing the head or destroying the brain. What could that possibly mean?

Matt: How did you all survive?

Taylor: I’ve spent the last couple months catching up on DVD’s of 24 and Lost. I didn’t have time to watch any rated R movies.

Laurel: Rated R Movies! AAAAAAAAAAA! We’re all going to die!

Ryan: Settle down.

Lisa: Speaking with a Russian accent. I am from Russia. There, we have no movie ratings. In Russia, movie rates you! Since I don’t know what a rated R movie is, I can’t be affected by it.

Matt: You mean people in other countries don’t follow the Motion Picture Association of America! You don’t let them determine your righteousness?!

Lisa: Yes. Thank goodness for oatmeal!

Matt: All of my illusions are crashing down around me!

Laurel: I was just hanging out in a graveyard with my brother. We were doing genealogy. (ala 6th Sense) I research dead people.

Jono: How often do you research them?

Laurel: All the time

Paul: And as for me, as I’m sure you’re curious, my name is Dan. And since I’m probably the last Dan left in the world, you can call me the Omega Dan.

Matt: How did you get here?

Paul: I was an astronaut from the distant past! I crashed here only to find that in the future, you’d destroyed it all, you maniacs! You blew it up! Dang you, dang you all to fetchin’ heck!

Paul falls to his knees, crying.

Matt: to the others If he’s an astronaut, where are his astronaut clothes?

Paul gathers himself and gets to his feet.

Paul: When I got here, I went skinny dipping in Utah Lake. Someone stole my clothes. So I had to make do with this leather get-up you see here.

Laurel: Skinny Dipping! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Laurel goes into hysterics. Jono slaps her. She slaps him back. Jono goes into hysterics.

Jono: AAAAAAAAA! Jono runs away.

Matt: Okaaaay. So what do we do now?

Taylor: Now, we survive. The world is overrun by flesh-eating monsters. There’s not much we can do. They’ve seen too many rated R movies. They’re not even human anymore, just like UVSC students. For now, let’s rest. Laurel, you, Willis, and the Omega Dan here take the first watch.

Time passes, Jono, Laurel, and Paul leave the stage. Everyone else sits down.

Ryan: This necronomicon says that we can destroy all the zombies, but I can’t make out what the book says. Klatu, Verata, Hall Ess Torm? I just don’t get it!

Just then, Jono, Laurel and Paul run in.

Laurel: Everyone! They’ve found us. I don’t know how, but they’ve found us! Run for it! AAAAAAAAAAAA!

The Two Zombies start walking across the stage. Everyone gets up and panics.

Ryan: Oh my gosh…(Trevor bites his hand off)

Matt: (punches Trevor, like Independence Day) Welcome to Provo!

Jono: I can do this. I can handle it. Let me handle it.

Matt: What?

Jono: No Matt! Don’t volunteer. I know you’re younger than me, but you have your whole life ahead of you! He turns to Taylor. I don’t want to close my eyes, I don’t want to fall asleep, ‘cause I’d miss you babe, and I don’t want to miss a thing.

Taylor: Willis, what are you doing? Let’s just run away. Can’t you see how slow and dimwitted they are?

By this time, the two Zombies are following each other around in a circle.

Jono: No! I can do this! Because I don’t want to miss a thing!

Taylor: Okaaaay…

Jono hurls himself at the bomb as everyone else runs away. Suddenly, the room goes dark, and on the screen, we see: EDITED FOR CONTENT. When the lights come back on, Jono and the Zombies are gone. Everyone else wanders onto the stage.

Matt: Wow! What an amazing getaway! That car chase was the best thing ever!

Lisa: In Russia, cars chase you!

Ryan: Too bad it was so gory, Laurel died, and I replaced my hand with a mixer. (holds up where his hand used to be, there is a mixer in its place)

Matt: So how did it get like this? Most people in the world don’t care about movie ratings.

Ryan: Once people got infected with all of the violence and profanity from unedited movies, they just went bezerk. At first it was just here in Utah County, but once one of the infected people bites you, you become just like them. Soon Utah was gone, and then the rest of the world.

Taylor: We do have a very aggressive Missionary program. rimshot

Matt: Is there anything we can do to cure them, to make all of this aggression go away?

Lisa: In Russia, aggression makes you go away!

Ryan: Lisa’s right, we can’t stay around here, there’s got to be somewhere where the scourge of unedited movies can’t be found.

Taylor: It’s too bad we can’t make our own movies. I’m, sure they’d be pure, wholesome and lacking in artistic qualities. Like “Church Ball” and “Charly”.

Ryan: I know! This word I’ve been trying to discipher! Halestorm! Halestorm studios. The zombies have something to do with that.

Taylor: Sounds like a plan, but Halestorm studios are way across town and we’re in enemy territory.

Matt: Dan, you’re an astronaut, right?

Paul: Yes, from the distant past!

Matt: Well, do you have any technology that could help?

Paul: Well, I was thinking that we could hole up in a shopping mall. Think of it, all the Cinnabon you could eat!

Ryan: No, don’t you have any astronaut powers or anything?

Paul: Okay, fine. I’m not an astronaut. I just came back from a Charleton Heston Festival. HestFest ’06. So much better than HestFest ’05. Seriously.

Matt: How does that help us?

Paul: I have these original Ten Commandment props. Holds up cardboard cutouts made to look like the ten commandments. And this can of soylent green. Now with 30% more people!

Taylor: That doesn’t help us at all. Let’s keep moving.

Matt, Taylor, Paul, Lisa, and Ryan run around the stage

Paul: Careful around the HFAC you guys, this place is crawling with the most vile, disgusting, horrendous creatures imaginable.

Matt: Cursed zombies?

Paul: Worse.

Ryan: Hey, you guys look, Vocal Point is putting on a concert.

Paul: No! The horror!

Lisa: In Russia, Point vocals you.

Taylor: Their songs of mindless optimism might cheer us up. Let’s listen.

Vocal Point comes on stage, it is Trevor, Jono, Sarah, Laurel

Trevor: (does crappy vocal percussion) Beat, box, beat, box, cymbal crash, etc.
Jono/Laurel: (does “In the Jungle”) A-wheem-a-wop, a wheem-a-wop
Sarah: (singing) In the Jungle, In the Jungle, the Lion Sleeps Tonight…

Matt: Man, Vocal Point isn’t good this year. I’ve heard tunnel singers better than this. Another rimshot

Taylor: Something’s wrong! This can’t be Vocal Point, there’s women in it!

The zombies suddenly throw off their robes and stand revealed as zombies.

Ryan: Zombies!

The zombies attack. Lisa is bitten by Trevor and dragged off the stage. Ryan is fighting with Jono, who he manages to fend off with his mixer/hand. Paul is tackled by Sarah. Matt and Taylor are poking Laurel with sticks.

Paul: Get your festering hands off me, you darn dirty zombie!

Paul throws Sarah off him and runs offstage. He appears seconds later with a gun, which he uses to kill Sarah. Seeing this, all the zombies scatter.

Taylor: Thanks, Omega Dan.

Paul: Thank the NRA!

Matt: Now that’s what I call a close encounter.

Taylor: And Lisa’s dead.

Paul: Meh.

Our intrepid survivors walk across the stage. Time passes, somehow. They find themselves at some ruins.

Matt: Where are we?

Taylor: This is, or was, the Halestorm Studios.

Paul: But how could it have been so damaged in such a short amount of time?

Matt: I think I have a clue. Look at these posters of the movies they were working on.

Matt steps forward, behind him we see a projection a ruined wall with movie posters behind him. Gladys Knight Rider, Quorum Leap, Saints on a Plane, Peyton Buhler’s Day Off, The Fast and the Furious: Provo Drift.

Ryan: How horrible! Gladys Knight Rider?

Matt: Quorum Leap?

Taylor: Saints on a Plane?

Paul: Peyton Buhler’s Day Off?

Matt: This one actually looks cool, The Fast and the Furious, Provo Drift.

Ryan: Are you insane? I bet you also listen to boy bands.

Matt: So?

Paul: What were they thinking?

Taylor: Guys, I think that this place was destroyed BEFORE the zombies started attacking.

Matt: But that would mean…

Paul: Don’t say it.

Ryan: That it was Mormon Cinema, and not Cleanflicks that was responsible for the zombies. People were so upset about the poor quality of movies that they had been producing that they became rage filled zombies.

Paul: You maniacs! You blew it up! Dang you, Mormon Cinema, dang you all to fetchin’ heck!

Matt: But if the zombie infection started here, that would mean…

Taylor: They’re here…

The zombies walk in. The music from Thriller starts playing and the zombies begin to dance.

Paul: Is there no one to deliver us? Let my people go!

Brian: Sorry I’m late. I came as soon as I felt like it.

Taylor: Who are you?

Brian: I’m the president of the USA! The BYUSA!

Ryan: What are you doing here? You planning to organize a dance or something?

Brian: We don’t tolerate sarcastic voices like that at BYU! Kill him!

Zombies kill Ryan

Brian: To me, zombie minions!

Paul: He controls the zombies!

Matt: Gasp!

Brian: The zombies needed a strong leader. They elected me. Now give me that gun!

Paul: You’ll take my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!

Brian: My pleasure. (uses can of Whoop-A and kills people)

Paul: Western Family can of Whoop-A is made of people. It’s people! (dies)

Brian: (to Matt and Taylor) You can’t possibly win. Look at my motivational skills! In less than an hour, zombies from here will join others from around the world, and they will be launching the largest undead attack in the history of mankind. Mankind. That word should have new meaning for all of us today. Because of all the zombies. We will be united in our common undead interests. We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish…without a fight! We're going to live on as undead! We're going to survive! Today we celebrate our Zombie Independence Day!

Matt: Oh, you have SO got to die!

Taylor: Is there no hope? Why must we be consigned to this state of endless woe?

Matt: (EFY song, but he doesn’t sing) Like stones in the river, we are tossed and turned, bruised until the edges are gone. (some of the zombies start dying)

Brian: (covering his ears) What are those horrible lyrics?

Taylor: Matt, that’s it! Horrible EFY songs kill zombies, why didn’t I think of that before?

Matt: Because it was already used in the ending to Mars Attacks. (singing) Remember the promise, remember who it’s from…

Trevor: Ah, my ears, my undead ears!

Sarah: Groaaaaannnn!

Laurel: Make them stop!

Brian: Doesn’t anybody have any missiles left?

Taylor: Sing, keep singing!

Matt: (sings like Little Mermaid)

The zombies all die. Matt and Taylor are left standing in a pile of corpses.

Taylor: Well, Matt, it looks like it’s just you and me in this brave, new world.

Matt: Taylor, there’s something I’ve been meaning to tell you.

Taylor: Oh, what’s that?

Matt: I’m not like other guys…(puts on one glove and sunglasses)

The music from Thriller starts playing again.

GOOSH!

End.

Props:

Matt: Pajamas

Taylor: Normal clothes

Paul: A fur/leather outfit reminiscent of the original Planet of the Apes. He also needs a toy shotgun, some fake ten commandments, and a can of Soylent Green.

Ryan: A fake hand, a Necronomicon (This is a book made from human skin with a scary face on it. Find a picture from Army of Darkness to see what it looks like.) I also need a small, battery powered mixer or something to that effect that I can use to replace my lost hand.

Jono: He is dressed like Bruce Willis in Die Hard. This means a “wifebeater” and bare feet.

Lisa: A fur Russian hat would be nice. Otherwise, normal clothes.

Laurel: Normal clothes.

Trevor: Zombie Makeup

Sarah: Zombie Makeup

Brian: A Suit

Other: Jono, Lisa and Laurel become zombies halfway through, so we’ll need some quick zombie makeup for them. We also need as many fake arms as we have, and a fake leg. (I’ve seen those somewhere). Matt has the Can of Whoop-A.

GOING, GOING, GONE

BY MICHAEL DOSSIER / July 28, 2006
The DVD Dossier

CleanFlicks, which lost a lawsuit brought by Hollywood directors and movie studios a few weeks ago - but vowed to continue to fight for its right to excise sex, violence and profanity from movies - is closing up shop.

As of today, those who go to the company's homepage are redirected to a "liquidation sale" page with an animated "Going Out of Business" banner informing visitors that this is your "last chance to buy your favorite edited movies" and to "hurry while supplies last."
The sale - restricted to former customers only - may come as a surprise to Judge Richard P. Matsch, who ordered the firm to hand over all inventory to the movie studios.

CLEAN FLICKS AND CLEAN FLIX

BY THE BARON OF DESERET / July 14, 2006
Opinion Piece

Once upon a time, back in February 2004, I started a weblog.

I knew that in addition to general LDS issues, I wanted to focus on movies--and to that end I created a special movie section on the site which, despite not being read by very many people has been a rewarding experience and has generally been updated consistently with two or three new articles every month. At the time, CleanFlix and other such movie cleaning services and technology were in their infancy, and I figured it would only be a matter of weeks before a comprehensive article on them would see the light of day on my new website.

Never happened... The CleanFlix blog article remained on the back-burner for the last two and a half years and has never materialized...mostly because in those two and a half years I've never once used CleanFlix, ClearPlay, or any movie editing service. Surprising, in a sense, because (a) we don't happen to watch R-rated movies, and (b) we live in Utah County where opportunities to rent edited videos are rampant. Seemed like the perfect alignment of stars to make us regular customers....

And yet, everytime I think, 'You know, it might be nice to check out "Lost in Translation" or "Sideways"' and drive by a CleanFlix, I just keep on driving, and have never really developed any serious interest in trying out edited movies. Since CleanFlix and the like have been hot discussion topics lately (see here also) I figured it's probably time I attempt to figure out why I'm not part of the edited movie craze when it seemed inevitable back in 2004.

The key issues from my perspective:

(1) Purism: As a movie purist, I want to see the real movie, not just some arbitrary subset of it. If the movie is supposed to be dark, ugly, and violent--then perhaps it should be seen in its dark, ugly, and violent fullness...or not seen at all. As a commenter in the M* thread remarked, editing movies away from their original intent is a little like buying a copy of Playboy with the pictures cut out just to read the articles. If you care about objectionable content (and I submit you should) it's probably more appropriate to just find some other movie to watch. There's plenty of clean(er) ones out there...

(2) Funding the Enemy: Buying an unedited DVD, and buying an edited DVD from a place that had to buy an unedited DVD first looks exactly the same on the movie studios' income reports. While this fact is a good argument why the studios shouldn't be complaining about edited video places as much as they have, it is also an argument why you might not want to buy edited videos in the first place. Like that pictureless copy of Playboy, you may feel morally superior for finding a way to get some value out of it without wading through the smut, but the purveyors of that smut got just as much of your money with which to line their pockets regardless. You still become one more name on the list of Playboy 'consumers' who keep them running.

If the goal is to encourage the production of better and cleaner entertainment, directly supporting the production of 'bad' forms of entertainment financially, even through a sanitizing middleman, seems to be the exact opposite of what you'd want to do...

(3) The Appearance of Evil: Suppose your bishop is having a casual conversation at a ward activity and says, "Oh, yeah--I read about that in an article in last month's Playboy..." What would your first reaction be? Does that bishop have the luxury of saying to himself: "Of course I only read the 'sanitized' version of Playboy. If everyone else ignorantly jumps to the conclusion that I read the unedited version without first finding out the facts, that's their problem..." But it's not just their problem... Appearances matter.

Many scoff at the idea of "the appearance of evil", and act as if you can take a can of Coors Light, dump it into the sink, fill it with orange juice, and then drink it in public all you like without any harm being done. ("Hey, if people ignorantly assume without finding out the truth, that's their problem...") Lack of credibility or the appearance of unworthiness can have many devastating effects on other people (and yourself), and knowing that people will jump to conclusions without all the evidence, wise people will actively avoid circumstances where they could be misunderstood. The 'truth' doesn't matter much when one or more members have already gone inactive out of disgust for the seeming low standards of their current bishop...

Likewise, if you're on a date and casually start quoting lines from "Sin City" or "Pulp Fiction"--do you have the luxury of assuming your companion won't assume you've just revealed something about your standards in entertainment? Protesting later that you had only seen the clean versions won't matter much if your potential boyfriend/girlfriend has already presumptively crossed you off of the partner suitability list in their head...

(This fact forces some people I know to speak defensively all the time--"I was watching the TV-edited version of "Braveheart" the other day...", "We rented an edited version of "Goodfellas" with all the profanity and violence removed and..." This may help avoid misunderstandings, but at the cost of sounding awkward and/or self-righteous instead.)

Basically, if you're going to maintain standards inwardly, it's frequently beneficial to make sure they are reflected outwardly as well, without attempting to be 'in' the R-rated world but not 'of' the R-rated world amongst people who might not be able to tell the difference...

(4) "Hey, they're just movies...": Both "The Baroness" and I like movies...but they're just a casual, unimportant form of entertainment.

Back in '99 (pre-CleanFlix), when I was at BYU and "The Matrix" came out, it quickly became the hot controversy around campus, with a lot of students who felt they probably shouldn't see it, but couldn't resist, simply because (a) it was supposed to be a 'light' R, and (b) it was the "It" movie of the year, which you just HAD to see if you were anyone. I never did see "The Matrix" (or its 2003 sequels) part because my standards had already been determined, and part because no movie is "must-see". Big name movies come and go every year and no movie--even "The Passion of the Christ" (also unseen by me)--is 'important' and 'life-changing' enough to be worth losing sleep over not seeing. We liked all three "Lord of the Rings" movies, but had we not seen them (as with our friends who don't watch PG-13 movies) it would be no more tragic than going through life not having read "Pride & Prejudice" or not having tasted Rocky Road ice cream. Movies just aren't that important...

This isn't to say CleanFlix and the like shouldn't exist--I think the movie studios' case against them lacks merit especially since (a) they still make the same amount of money and (b) they have little credibility from an 'artistic' standpoint since they edit movies for content on airplanes and TV all the time.

(Tangent: We saw the TV-edited version of an originally R-rated movie last year. After watching it, I glanced at some of the online articles about it, and discovered most of the discussion revolved around the full-frontal nude scene of the lead actress. This nude scene was not in the TV version of course, but more oddly, looking back, "The Baroness" and I couldn't figure out for the life of us where in the movie the scene would have been, as a nude scene from this actress's character had no relationship with anything that happened in the movie. This is significant only to show that oftentimes the R-rated material has no artistic value whatsoever, and is often completely superfluous to the underlying story...)

Due to the technicalities of copyright law, CleanFlix themselves may be in trouble, but ClearPlay seems to be completely legal, so regardless of the outcome of recent court cases there will always be some outlet for those who wish to partake of sanitized films. And yet, for all the reasons above, I don't think we'll be joining them. Edited films seem to present just as many concerns as solutions to the problem of finding clean entertainment, and for the time being it looks like my rendezvous with Scarlett Johansson and Virginia Madsen will just have to wait...

FEDERAL JUDGE BLEEPS DVD EDITING

BY DEBORAH NATHAN, ESQ. / July 13, 2006
Find Law: Legal News & Commentary

A federal judge has stopped the distribution of major motion picture DVDs that were edited by several companies to remove objectionable content, ruling that the sanitized versions infringe the copyrights held by several major movie studios and directors.

Judge Richard P. Matsch of the District of Colorado granted the motion for partial summary judgment made by such cinema luminaries as Steven Soderbergh, Robert Redford, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese and Sydney Pollack.

The directors and several movie studios were defendants in a 2002 lawsuit filed by Clean Flicks of Colorado, Family Flix USA, CleanFilms and Play It Clean Video.

The movie studios included Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., Time Warner Entertainment Co., Disney Enterprises Inc. and Dreamworks LLC.

The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that they were not infringing any party's copyrights by making edited versions of motion pictures.

The defendants counterclaimed, alleging copyright infringement, and then moved for partial summary judgment.

In response to the counterclaims, the plaintiffs argued that their actions did not constitute copyright infringement because they were making fair use of the copyrighted works.

The fair-use doctrine is an affirmative defense to allegations of copyright infringement. The doctrine allows use of copyrighted works for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research.

Courts balance four factors to determine if a particular use is fair: the purpose and character of the use, including whether it is of a commercial nature or for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion of the work used; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for the work.

As explained in Judge Matsch's opinion, Clean Flicks and Family Flix operated similarly by purchasing an original DVD of a movie. After downloading the DVD onto a computer, they edited the film by deleting sex, nudity, profanity and gory violence.

The companies either sold the edited movies directly or through distributors CleanFilms and Play It Clean.

Judge Matsch weighed the four factors and concluded that the scales tipped in favor of the directors and studios.

The plaintiffs conceded that they were using the DVDs for commercial gain. Second, Judge Matsch said the edits to the movies, although constituting a small percentage of the original films, did nothing to transform the creative expression of the movies.

He explained further that the non-transformative nature of the edited copies, coupled with the creative expressions of the movies, weigh heavily in favor of the studios and directors under the second factor, the nature of the copyrighted work.

The judge also rejected the plaintiffs' claim that their use of the movies had no adverse effect on the value of the copyrighted work to the studios, noting that the argument ignored the intrinsic value of the right to control the content of the copyrighted work.

The plaintiffs also raised a public policy argument, claiming they were criticizing the objectionable content in many movies and were providing more socially acceptable alternatives.

Judge Matsch said that argument was addressed to the wrong branch of government, because courts are not free to determine the social value of copyrighted works.

He observed that during the pendency of the case, Congress enacted the Family Movie Act of 2005, which allowed private households to edit movies if no fixed copy of the movie is created.

The judge said Congress had the opportunity to make the policy choice now urged by the plaintiffs and rejected it.

Agreeing that the plaintiffs were infringing the defendants' copyrights, Judge Matsch enjoined them from continuing to produce and distribute edited versions of the films.

The plaintiffs' attorney, David N. Schacter of Sherman & Howard in Denver, acknowledged that Judge Matsch's opinion was well-reasoned, but said, "I'm disappointed that the court took the decision-making role away from the jury."

COURT BLOCKS SALE OF SANITIZED DVDs

BY CYNTHIA LITTLETON / July 10, 2006
The Hollywood Reporter

A federal judge in Colorado has handed the industry a big win in its protracted legal battle against a handful of small companies in Utah, Arizona and Colorado that offer sanitized versions of theatrical releases on DVD.

The case encompasses two of Hollywood's biggest headaches these days: the culture wars and the disruptive influence of digital technologies.

Senior U.S. District Court Judge Richard Matsch came down squarely on the side of the DGA and the major studios in his ruling that the companies must immediately cease all production, sale and rentals of edited videos. The summary judgment issued Thursday requires the companies -- Utah-based CleanFlicks, CleanFilms and Play It Clean Video, Arizona-based Family Flix United States and the separate entity CleanFlicks of Colorado -- to turn over all existing copies of their edited movies to lawyers for the studios for destruction within five days of the ruling.

Utah-based CleanFlicks, which describes itself as the largest distributor of edited movies, through online sales and rentals and sales to video stores in Utah, Arizona and other states in the region, said it would continue its fight against the guild and the studios. CleanFlicks and the others make copies of official DVD releases and then edit them for sex, nudity, violence and profanity.

"We're disappointed," CleanFlicks chief executive Ray Lines told the The Associated Press. "This is a typical case of David vs. Goliath, but in this case, Hollywood rewrote the ending. We're going to continue to fight."

David Schachter, attorney for CleanFlicks of Colorado, said Sunday that it was unclear whether any of the video-editing companies would seek an emergency hearing this week to request a stay of the injunction pending an appeal. He said such a move was unlikely for CleanFlicks of Colorado, which operates a retail store in Colorado Springs, Colo. It was unclear Sunday whether the store was still open.

Representatives for Family Flix could not be reached for comment during the weekend. A posting on the Web site www.clean-edited-movies.com reported that the Family Flix had decided to shut its doors after five years as a result of the litigation, though the date of the posting was unclear. The site quoted Family Flix founders Richard and Sandra Teraci as making plans to establish their own production company.

CleanFlicks and the others maintained their edited DVDs were legal under fair use guidelines that allow for the use of copyrighted material in criticism, news reporting, parody and other circumstances. The slogan on the CleanFlicks Web site is "It's About Choice." An online listing for Family Flix's offerings on the Web site of the Mormon-based Meridian magazine noted that the content snipped out of its edited videos included all references to "homosexuality, perversion and co-habitation."

The mainstreaming of sophisticated digital editing technologies has fueled the cottage industry of movie sanitizers. CleanFlicks and others purchase an official DVD copy of a film on DVD for each edited version of the title they produce through the use of editing systems and software. The official release disc is included alongside the edited copy in every sale or rental transaction conducted. As such, the companies argued that they had the right on First Amendment and fair use grounds to offer consumers the alternative of an edited version for private viewing, so long as they maintained that "one-to-one" ratio to ensure that copyright holders got their due from the transactions. Matsch disagreed.

"Their business is illegitimate," the judge wrote in his 16-page ruling. "The right to control the content of the copyrighted work ... is the essence of the law of copyright."

The fight began in August 2002 with a pre-emptive legal filing by CleanFlicks against the DGA and 16 prominent directors after it got wind that the guild was preparing a legal case against the company. CleanFlicks sought a court ruling clarifying its right to market the videos on First Amendment grounds. The DGA and directors countersued the following month. After initially staying out of the fray, eight Hollywood studios joined with the directors and the guild in December 2002, filing claims of copyright infringement against CleanFlicks and other companies.

"Whether these films should be edited in a manner that would make them acceptable to more of the public playing on a DVD in a home environment is more than merely a matter of marketing; it is a question of what audience the copyright owner wants to reach," Matsch wrote. "This court is not free to determine the social value of copyrighted works. What is protected are the creator's rights to protect its creation in the form in which it was created."

The studios involved in the suit are MGM, Time Warner Inc., Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc., the The Walt Disney Company, DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc., Universal, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Paramount Pictures Corporation. The directors named in the initial August 2002 filing included Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, Steven Soderbergh, Michael Mann, Robert Altman, Curtis Hanson, Betty Thomas and DGA president Michael Apted.

Apted called Matsch's ruling a vindication for the guild and its members, especially with its clear support for rights of the work's original creator to protect how their film is presented.

"No matter how many disclaimers are put on the film, it still carries the director's name," Apted said. "So we have great passion about protecting our work, which is our signature and brand identification, against unauthorized editing."

Early on the legal sparring involved Salt Lake City-based ClearPlay, which offers video filtering software that allows for home viewing of cleaned-up versions of Hollywood titles.

ClearPlay offers software programs developed for specific titles that users can run on their computer or ClearPlay's proprietary DVD player along with an official copy of the DVD. With this technology, a nude shot of an actor can be altered to show a silhouette, or profanity can be bleeped out. Because ClearPlay's technology does not involve making an altered DVD copy, it has been shielded from the copyright infringement claims. The debate over movie content filtering activities made its way into Congress, which passed the 2005 Family Movie Act that protects ClearPlay and other software-based filtering companies. Matsch noted that Congress at that time had the opportunity to also carve out legal protections for CleanFlicks and its ilk, but chose not to.

The DGA said in its statement on the ruling it "remains concerned about this exception to copyright protection."

Matsch's opinion could wind up eliminating most of ClearPlay's competition, but company Bill Aho still criticized Matsch's reasoning.

"While it may be good for ClearPlay Inc., it's bad for parents," Aho said. "Moms and dads need all the help they can get to protect their kids, and these companies were providing a valuable service."

THE FILTH STAYS IN THE PICTURE

July 10, 2006
The Guardian

Hollywood last week won a protracted legal battle against companies which produce sanitised versions of its films on DVD when a US judge ordered those firms to turn over all existing copies to studio lawyers for destruction within five days of his ruling.

Senior district court judge Richard Matsch of Colorado ruled that editing movies to delete objectionable language, sex and violence was an "illegitimate business" that hurt Hollywood studios and directors who owned the movie rights.

The order affects the likes of Utah-based CleanFlicks, CleanFilms and Play It Clean Video, Arizona-based Family Flix USA and another CleanFlicks, from Colorado, all of whom have been editing films for violence, sex and bad language, in the face of the studios' wrath. The fight started in August 2002 when CleanFlicks of Utah filed a suit against the Directors Guild of America and 16 leading directors, seeking a court ruling clarifying its right to market the videos on First Amendment grounds. The DGA and directors countersued the following month. By December 2002, the case had snowballed when eight major studios filed suit against CleanFlicks and its peers for copyright infringement.

Utah's CleanFlicks, which says it is the largest distributor of edited movies, declared it would continue to fight studios for the right to produce edited movies.

It claims it should have the legal right to do so because it purchases one copy of a DVD for every edited movie it produces, and includes the original version with the new version when mailing packages to customers. David Schachter, attorney for CleanFlicks of Colorado, said yesterday that his client was unlikely to seek a stay on the injunction, but that it did not preclude others from choosing to do so. A posting on Family Flix's website reported that the company had decided to close its doors after five years as a result of the ruling. The company would routinely edit content for homosexuality, "perversion" and cohabitation - its version of Brokeback Mountain must have been a sight to see.

CLEARPLAY PRESS RELEASE (2006)

Salt Lake City, Utah—July 7, 2006

ClearPlay Responds to CleanFlicks Ruling—Disappointed by court ruling against its competition.

Even though it could clear the field of all competitors, ClearPlay would rather have the courts allow companies that edit DVD’s to continue operations. ClearPlay CEO Bill Aho expressed concern over yesterday’s summary judgment ruling from the District Court of Colorado, which favored Hollywood studios and ordered an immediate injunction against CleanFilms, CleanFlicks and other companies that edit and resell DVD’s. "While it may be good for ClearPlay Inc., it’s bad for parents," said Aho. "Moms and dads need all the help they can get to protect their kids, and these companies were providing a valuable service."

ClearPlay’s unique movie filtering technology was protected by Congress with The Family Movie Act of 2005, and was not affected by yesterday’s ruling. ClearPlay works as a feature in a DVD player to filter regular DVD’s from sex, violence and profanity. CleanFilms, CleanFlicks and others sell or rent edited copies of DVD’s, which the courts deemed a copyright violation.

Unless the courts grant a stay of injunction, ClearPlay will have the only product on the market that offers a legal filtered alternative for popular Hollywood movies. The company currently has filters for 2000 movies, with new titles available every week. ClearPlay is also licensing its movie product, as well as other leading-edge parental control technologies, to multiple markets in media and consumer electronics.

CLEANING UP THE MOVIES (PART 2)

BY KIETH MERRILL / April 16, 2006
Meridian Magazine

Hollywood loves money. Greenback blood is the sustaining life force of the good, the bad and the ugly. But even Hollywood is puzzled by people willing to pay TWICE as much for a movie all "cleaned up".

To be honest, so am I. But as discussed in Part 1, a remarkable number of conservative consumers sustain an equally surprising number of companies that "re-edit" customer's videos and DVDs. The buyer pays twice. Once to buy the movie. Twice to have the "bad stuff" taken out.

Some circumvent the double pay proposition with "membership rentals". It's a good service but the economics are essentially ths same. The consumer pays a premium, only it comes in the form of membership. There are lots of issues. The technical tap dances the re-editors go through may ultimately not be enough to rescue their controversial chorus line of copyright questions from the alligator-invested swamp where they are dancing - no wait, those smiling jagged jaws are Hollywood attorneys.

Some argue that Hollywood has missed the boat. The DVD technology that enables Hollywood to put "all that other stuff" on the disc also allows them to include alternative versions. They could - if they wanted - include a ratings reduced version so you could watch Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List , Patriot and even Training Day ( R-rated one and all) with your kids and mother-in-law, Laverkin. Hollywood could easily give you PG versions of their R-rated films. Remarkably they don't. Technically it is easy. Politically it is practically impossible.

"Impossible" for an industry as complex and cumbersome as Hollywood spells "o p p o r t u n I t y" for the unfettered and nimble entrepreneur. Two small companies have created a "clean up the movies" alternative to the "Re-editing" services.

As promised, I am talking about "DIGITAL FILTERING". DF is more complex and technically sophisticated than simple digital editing, the technique now used by most of the re-editing services . The current limitation is that it only works with DVD. These are not red flags of warning but banners of celebration. Digital Filtering offers significantly more control and ultimately promises a more enduring and cost-effective solution.

What? You say. Digital filtering only works with DVD?

If there is anyone out there who has not switched to DVD -- clinging somehow to the notion that VHS video cassettes will survive -- I would like to sell you my vast laser disc collection. Technology changes. Some change with it. Some people still shoot hi-8 video, own vinyl records and listen to the Beach Boys on 8-track tape players.

The truth is that DVDs are chasing video tape off the retail shelves. Circuit City has announced that it is dropping movie videos in VHS format. Frank Ahrens and Dina ElBoghdady writing in the Washington Post call it "the death knell for videotape and the VCR which has been the dominant form of home video entertainment for almost two decades." [Ahrens, Frank, ElBoghdady, Dina, Dvds Are Pushing Videotapes Off Retailers' Shelves, The Washington Post, June 21, 2002.]

Blockbuster is spending $365 million to replace 25% of videotape rental inventory with DVD movies and games. DVD rentals jumped 176% in one year at the nation's largest video rental store. Despite that 95 % of Americans have a VCR sitting on the top of their TV, they are headed for obsolescence. It is a slow death but inevitable extinction. When VCRs were introduced in 1978, they cost $800.00 Today you can buy a VRC for $60.00. [but only if you hurry and go somewhere besides Circuit City.]

The digital revolution in home entertainment is not a fad. DVD is here to stay - at least until the inevitable new technology comes along. According to Ahrens and ElBoghdady , "The slow extinction of VCRs could at least temporarily leave viewers with fewer entertainment options and wedge them between two warring titans - electronics makers and Hollywood studios,"

There is a war going on. In the midst of the battle, a few entrepreneurs move stealthily among titanic enemies taking technical and tactical advantage of what each seems willing to neglect-- a vast population of conservative consumers who would like to clean up the movies.

Those bright people with the technical talent to tap into the digital domain promise an amazing future of consumer control.

When you watch a movie, the last thing you care about is how in the heck those beautiful images and incredible sound got from that flimsy little disc called DVD [Digital Versatile Disc.] and onto your screen OR how they got on the DVD in the fist place.

Suffice it to say the movie, originally shot on 35 mm motion picture film -- unless it was Attack of the Clones -- was converted to digital code at a lab in Hollywood and compressed into something called MPEG 2 then burned onto a DVD - a million DVDs. Your computer or DVD player comes with software that can read - decode - the compressed digital information and translate it into moving pictures and dynamic sound. Understanding decoders and DVD drivers is important to understanding the process and control of quality.

TWO DIGITAL FILTERING SOLUTIONS

I contacted both companies that lay claim to Digital Filtering solutions. They are ClearPlay and Movie Mask.

Mr. Bil Aho, CEO of ClearPlay, and Mr. Breck Rice, Founder and COO, of Trilogy Studio. creator of Movie Mask, were both extremely cooperative, candid and explicit about their companies and commitments. It is important for you to remember that I have relied on their comments, information and opinions about their respective companies and products and about each other. I am not an investigative reporter, software engineer nor clairvoyant. What they said is what you get. My comments are the Elmer's glue.

I wanted to test drive both ClearPlay and MovieMask. ClearPlay is the only company offering digital filtering that has been up, active and operating for any period of time. MovieMask has announced release of its masking software this month.

CLEAR PLAY

I started with ClearPlay. My first impression was very positive. The ClearPlay site is clean, crisp and appealing. I was struck by a quote by Michael Medved - who happens to be one of my heroes.

"Movie fans who have been worried about excesses in violence, sexuality, and language can now enjoy their favorite films with a sense of security and satisfaction." Michael Medved.

I signed up for the 30-day free trial and paid for an additional 30 days in the spirit of fair play. To my dismay, I discovered that ClearPlay does not support Macintosh.

MOVIE MASK

I went immediately to Movie Mask. I downloaded the Beta-test version of Movie Mask with the special password supplied by Mr. Rice. Dang it ! The Beta-test version of Movie Mask does not support Mac either.

My instinct was to forget about writing Cleaning Up the Movies Part 2 and write about something much more right brained. [And by the way I promise, no more "techy" articles, OK?]

With out the ability to actually "test drive" the sites, I felt a bit disadvantaged. But then it occurred to me that you can test drive both sites and send your feedback to Meridian or the respective companies. ( www.moviemask.com, www.clearplay.com,]

At one level, both companies do the same thing. They offer digital filters via the Internet called respectively, "ClearPlay Guides" or "Movie Masks". As of this writing, each company offers a product that essentially skips or mutes objectionable images or ideas.

The big difference in the companies seems to be where it is going and what is possible. Movie Mask has a vision of a more complex and sophisticated technology that will allow, among other things, digital replacement of images. ClearPlay does not even contemplate going there, or, as Aho stated, "he does not believes that such technology will exist in the near future." According to Movie Mask they are only months away and already have Alpha prototypes.

Neither product works with stand-alone DVD players. ClearPlay informed me that they are optimistic that by the end of the year the product will come installed on at least one -- and maybe 2 -- DVD consoles from major manufacturers. "In time for Christmas, we hope," Bill Aho told me. ClearPlay has not yet announced the specifics of the deal, but let's hope it happens. It is a huge step.

If ClearPlay is successfully bundled with existing DVD players it moves digital filtering to the next logical level - from the personal computer to the set top box. The difference in the numbers of people who watch movies on computers - even computers hooked to their television - and the hordes that watch movies on dedicated DVD players is enormous.

Breck Rice informed me that Movie Mask is also in negotiation with manufacturers of stand alone console DVD players to install the Movie Mask decoder as part of -- or in place of -- the current drivers.

MARKET FOR CLEAN MOVIES

According to Bill Aho, "There is a mountain of data confirming the desire for "cleaned-up" movies. Everyone knows that G and PG movies do better at the box office. That Hollywood doesn't seem to "get this" is one of the great mysteries of entertainment.
Great care is taken and thoughtful effort made at ClearPlay to ensure that although a scene or word is removed, the continuity of the story is maintained, and the presentation retains its entertainment value. Many say the end result is similar to an airline or television presentation of the movie.
ClearPlay has created "Guides" for over 250 titles. The list of titles on the website is impressive and growing rapidly, if the list of popular "new releases" is any indicator. It is pretty much the list of the movies you want to see. "Of the new major releases we try to do anything of substance at the box office. There are some movies that can't be cleaned up such as Eyes Wide Shut or American Pie. On the other hand not many of our customers have any interest in movies about teenage sex."

"We really don't make a call on what is offensive or appropriate," said Aho. "That's a matter of discretion, values, taste and age. What we do is create Guides according to a ClearPlay standard. Right now, that involves removing all profanity, nudity and graphic violence. You can go to the ClearPlay website and get a feel for what the theatrical version of the movie is like, and how the experience will be when it is ClearPlayed.

We have collectively set our standards. In the end, one of our editors makes the judgment and the executives of the company review it. The film, Patriot, as example takes out the scene of the boy being shot, but we don't remove all the blood. When it comes to violence it is difficult to specifically articulate . It depends on the level of carnage. "Graphic" is the key word. Customers can go to the web site and get information regarding the edits before and after."

Aho acknowledged that, "the ClearPlay market tends to skew to people with family values and sensitivities across the Midwest, Intermountain States and Bible Belt." He said that ClearPlay "is national for the most part, in about every state", but was unwilling to give me any statistics regarding numbers of subscribers, hits or other "confidential" market information.

One of the great challenges for anyone attempting to "clean up the movies" is that tastes and sensitivities can be vastly different, even among otherwise homogenous conservative demographics. ClearPlay offers only one "guide" per film. People more offended by sex than violence or not offended by language do not have options. Still, Aho reports that "Customer satisfaction is very high. In discussing the "one ClearPlay Guide standard", Aho told me, "in the future there will be customized ClearPlay filters."

Access to ClearPlay Guides is via a membership which costs $99.00 a year ($59.00 for Meridian readers) or $10.00 per month. The membership offers unlimited downloads of Guides to the over 250 titles. The steps are easy. 1. Join ClearPlay. 2. Buy a DVD. 3. Go on line and download all the current moves [250 plus titles]. 4. Put the movie into the DVD player on your computer. 5. ClearPlay interface comes up. 6. Press play. 7. Watch the "cleaned up" movie.

The edits created by the digital filters - the ClearPlay Guides-- are limited to skip and mute. There is no replacement of images or words. When the guide calls for mute, the sound track goes silent. Aho emphasized that the editors made an effort to go for the solution that cleans up the scene with the least disruption to the flow of the story.

A challenge faced by ClearPlay is that their 3rd party decoders are not always frame accurate. That means for all the care taken by the editor, a command to mute or skip a few frames may in fact end up skipping more. The editor's instructions in the ClearPlay Guide is only able to put the edit "the region" not always on the precise frame.

Because ClearPlay doesn't run on Mac - and I am unwilling to taint my fingers on a windows machine - I have not personally tested Clear Play.

Aho told me that ClearPlay was working on a frame accurate decoder product of its own due with the next release. Both ClearPlay and Movie Mask agree that there is a need for better accuracy in the decoder software. The first release of Movie Mask includes its own proprietary decoder that is perfectly frame accurate according to Move Mask engineers.

THE VISION OF MOVIE MASK

Movie Mask is a product of Trilogy Studios. The company grew out of the gaming industry when the founding partner and chief computer programmer, David Clayton, decided to use his vast knowledge of digital imaging to do something positive - like cleaning up the movies.

Movie Mask has been in development two years and has come to market just this month. You can access and test drive Version I at www.moviemask.com

"Movie Mask has been slow coming to market," Breck Rice explained, "because of the very complex programming behind the product and the technical sophistication of the Director Software used to create the Movie Masks.

"Movie Mask Version 1.0, released July 4, 2002, is a skip and mute program very similar to the product that ClearPlay has on the market but with a couple of important differences.

"For one thing, "explains Rice, " Movie Mask has its own frame accurate decoder that is being released with the product now. This allows a more finely tuned edit. In the opening of Saving Private Ryan, for example, we have 32 edits. They are frame accurate. It is more complex, but in the end allows us to take out the gore without being subject to the sloppy work of the standard decoders that might whack out 3 unexpected seconds."

Subsequent releases of Movie Mask, Rice explained, will include replacement of images and words without noticeable interruption in the sound tracks. Virtual clothing, lip manipulation and other special effects will be added as the product is enhanced.

The vigorously discussed and popular demonstration of future capability includes the infamous scene from Titanic where actress, Kate Winslet, poses nude for her artist boy friend, Leonardo DiCaprio. Remarkably, the movie was given a PG-13 rating, but because of full upper body nudity the scene remains controversial. Removing the scene [Skip] arguably interferes with the progression of their relationship. Movie Mask promises the ability to cover Kate with a modest corset -- or a blue GAP shirt it you want -- and it is this that the demonstration illustrates. (To see this demonstration you can contact Movie Mask through their website.)

Movie Mask is only one of the products coming from Trilogy Studios. Movie Mask Director, the sophisticated software developed to create the masks [digital filters] that not only skips and mutes but covers, augments and replaces, promises to be, according to Rice, "a graphics tool that combines the best features of programs like Photoshop, Final Cut Pro and After Effects into a single, simple to use program. And it does it on the fly."

Aho claims that he seen the demonstration for Movie Mask and argues that the "technology is a long ways away."

"Not so", insists Rice. "We are very, very close."

"While ClearPlay has only one filter per movie, -- a kind of one standard fits all approach -- " explains Rice, "Movie Mask allows the consumer many more options . Viewers can drop violence but keep the language or visa versa. "It will be possible to "dial in" the movie you want at precisely your own standard and tastes," explains Rice.

Access to Movie Mask is via the web. A consumer goes on line (www.moviemask.com) and downloads trilogy studio proprietary software which includes decoders and DVD player drivers. All of the existing mask files are included. Movie Mask has 150 titles prepared to date and expect 500 by the end of the summer.

Rice emphasized that each movie title has multiple mask versions so consumers can customize the movie to their own tastes and standards. Consumer can actually adjust - so the language, sex and violence can all be at different levels. -

Movie Masks has created its own rating system. The "G, PG, PG-13 and R" ratings guides used by the MPAA are copyrighted and fiercely protected. Movie Mask ratings are based on age and include, M-8, M-12, M-16, M-19. M=movie mask. The numbers are appropriate age..

Trilogy is very supportive of what ClearPlay is doing according to Rice. " Trilogy Studio is in full support of ClearPlay's solution. We hope they are wildly successful because they are educating and building a market for consumer choice in media and entertainment. Because of our different technologies and expanded options we don't really consider ClearPlay a direct competitor but look upon them as an ally in the market place."

Trilogy Studio is still open to select strategic and financial partners. Company credibility surged ahead a year ago when CNN host Larry King and his wife, Shawn, joined the Board of Directors and became outspoken supporters in promotional videos. Beloved entertainer and child advocate, Marie Osmond, is also a member of Trilogy Board of Directors.

Looking ahead Rice said, "We know our initial target markets - we are creating an entertainment application for the DVD ROM followed by the 16 million Next Generation DVD players [X-Box, Play Station 2 etc.]. We know our mid range objective. We have been commissioned by two Movie Studio executives to get Movie Mask drivers and software embedded into consumer electronic hardware."

Next month, as part of its broad vision of digital entertainment Trilogy will launch the Digital Media Institute at the Larry H. Miller Entrepreneurial Center. This new institute involves several universities in and outside of the United States. Trilogy hopes to create "the Juilliard of Digital Media, " says Rice.

I confronted Trilogy - Movie Mask founder, David Clayton, with the criticism that Movie Mask demos are "pie in the sky" and that the technology is "no where near". He smiled to himself. There is no lack of confidence here. Clayton agreed to leave his computer long enough for an interview.

"The hard stuff is done," Clayton said. "The root is there and we know it works and now it is about expanding that base and throwing a lot more people at it. The important thing is that from the beginning we have been doing it right. Designing the architecture. Building the base. Securing the framework. We are a company of vision. We can see where all of this is going. We don't see another solution. We have not focused on the quick or simple fix. Skip and Mute are crude first steps compared to where we are headed. We have been building strong and solid stepping stones to bigger and better things. We are patterning our software and company to win a war and not just a little battle - we are here for the long haul"

ClearPlay is here now. They are good people, doing the right thing for the right reason. They have a good product and a great web site. They have an expanding list of "cleaned up" titles and a growing consumer base nation-wide. Check them out at www.clearplay.com.

Movie Mask is the new kid on the block offering rudimentary skip and mute like ClearPlay in their Version 1.0. But mostly they exude confidence and enthusiasm about the next generation of consumer control with Movie Mask options that range from virtual clothing to buying a copy of Julia Robert's dress on line while watching Runaway Bride. Check them out at www.moviemask.com

CLEANING UP THE MOVIES (PART 1)

BY KIETH MERRILL / April 15, 2006
Meridian Magazine

"It's a great movie!"
"But it's R-rated."
"Ya, but there are only a couple of bad scenes."

Sound familiar? Ever caught yourself reciting this dialogue? Ever been caught in a compromise between 102 minutes of really great cinema and 2 minutes of trash?

The list of otherwise excellent films polluted by a few minutes -and sometimes seconds—of unworthy images, actions, words and ideas is longer than you think. The notion that "there are no good movies anymore," simply isn't true. There are a remarkable number of good films, and a few great ones, rendered "no good" [or at least "inappropriate" by LDS standards] by a brief inclusion of sex, profanity and/or graphic violence.

Remarkably, these offensive moments are most often not essential to the story, the characters or the impact of the film.

Frank Capra, the wonderful director of A Wonderful Life, said, " Only the morally courageous are worthy of speaking to their fellow men for two hours in the dark." But social morality changes and "morally courageous" in our topsy-turvy world is too often twisted into "politically correct" and tainted by a perverted notion of "normal."

GIVING OUR SELVES TO THE WIZARDS BEHIND THE CURTAIN

When we go to a movie, we choose to spend two hours in the dark with the mind and morality of the "wizards behind the curtain." They manipulate our emotions and etch ideas in our sub-conscious. They consume us with the absorbing power of images and sounds to which we willingly connect our senses. We are wired to a little black box not always certain what's inside or whose hand is on the switch.

If we choose to see a movie in the theater, we see it the way that it was intended to be seen. The way the director wants us to see it. The way the producers and distributors believe it will earn the greatest profits. Their sensitivities are often different than our own.

If the movie contains scenes that offend us, our only line of defense is closing our eyes, covering our ears and humming loudly to ourselves. If you have ever been in a movie and actually seen a woman doing this, it was probably my wife. "Mothers," she explains, "do not need to go to movies to have emotional experiences. Our whole life is a vicarious roller coaster ride. Why buy a ticket for another?"

After raising and surviving 8 kids, Dagny has NO interest in paying money to be anxious, nervous, frightened, startled, emotionally engaged, vicariously empathetic or for goodness sakes offended.

As a voting member of the Motion Picture Academy, I watched 76 films last year. Dagny watched 5 of them with me. She covered her eyes and went HMMMMMM in only 2.

Dagny feels safer watching movies at home with her finger on fast-forward and the mute button near by. Home theater is changing the way we watch movies. Hollywood Video, Blockbuster and the mini-market around the corner have walls covered with video movies for rent. Large screen TV, surround sound, and elaborate home entertainment centers have made watching movies at home a major entertainment event.

A significant force driving the home movie market is a miraculous little four and a half inch disc, called DVD. Digital images, digital sound and all kinds of extra stuff make movies on DVD the best bargain of the new millennium. The "v" stands for "versatile". We have only begun to see the possibilities.

A GREAT BARGIN

Movies at home are a great bargain. Think about it. If they go out a family of six packs up for a night at the movies to see Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Mom and Dad pay $8.50. Kids pay $5.00. Babe in arms is free. You gotta have popcorn and drinks. [Dad was willing to smuggle cheap treats in under his coat. Mom said "no way". ] Mom loves butter. Dad is watching his cholesterol but likes a lot of salt. The kids have to share an extra large 'cause the refill is free. That's $24.25 for "the goodies" and $32.00 for the tickets. The Family Home Evening night with Harry Potter costs a whooping $56.25; not counting gas, inconvenience, and the fact Mom missed the best scene because she was out changing the baby.

At home the baby is asleep. The popcorn costs less than a buck. Dad gets salt. Mom gets butter. The kids each get their own bowl of popcorn. The drinks are made from powdered lemonade and you get all you want. Even if you spill you get another one.

The DVD rents from Hollywood Video for $4.30 for five days or you can buy it brand new at Amazon.com for $19.95. If you do six family movie nights a year and invest the $49.00 you save in a good hedge fund, by the time the 6 year old is ready for college, you've racked up $2,500 dollars - and all from watching the movie at home.

Among the movies I've made are a pile of IMAX films. For me bigger is better. I love watching movies on the big screen, stadium seats and immersion in digital sound. But when it comes to Hollywood movies a night in the theater comes at a PRICE and it comes with some RISK.

We've talked about the price. Let's talk about the risk.

Relying on ratings from MPAA may not always protect you from exposure to inappropriate language, images and ideas. PG-13 may be the most dangerous movie zone of all. On the other hand, some truly great films are rated R. What's a person to do?

Taking Hollywood movies home saves money but the risk of exposure to unwanted scenes remains. Not any more! We may never have to close our eyes and cover our ears and hum a loud church hymn again.

A REVOLUTION IN VIEWER CONTROL

A revolution in viewer control for home theaters and computer based DVD players has arrived. It surfed in on the wake of the same technology largely responsible for the surge in personal home entertainment options in the first place. Half a dozen young companies have bubbled up in the churning foam. They offer conservative consumers some fascinating options to remove nudity, sex, profanity and violence from Hollywood movies viewed at home or on personal computers.

The dialogue can be rewritten now.
"It's a great movie!"
"It's R-rated."
"There are only a couple of bad scenes."
"In that case I'll watch it in a "cleaned up" version.

"Cleaned-up" movies are available from several sources. The promotion of these products is straightforward but the process remains a mystery to most. The Mom who wants to watch a cleaned-up R-rated Brave Heart with her family with adolescent children doesn't really care how it happens. She doesn't care about companies, controversies or copyrights, but a look inside this business is fascinating.

Each of the various companies distinguish themselves in one way or another, but in the end there are two basic ways that Hollywood Movies are being "cleaned up." The business is too young to have generic nomenclature to describe the process, so I'll choose my own. I will identify the two basic approaches to "cleaning up the movies" thus: (1) DIGITAL FILTERING and (2) RE-EDITING.

DIGITAL FILTERING is a technically complex option with almost endless possibilities. It deserves its own page. I will explore this fascinating solution and the primary companies doing it - Clear Play and Movie Mask- in Part II of this 2-Part article. Digital Filtering offers remarkably sophisticated solutions to sanitizing content. I can promise you a fascinating read in Part II.

RE-EDITING is by far the most common technique used to "clean up" Hollywood movies. You may already be familiar with the companies doing it and the products they produce. The clever and explicit names of the companies offering "editing services" and access to re-edited films leave little doubt about purpose, products or perspective.

In preparing this article, I contacted the principles of most of the companies noted above. Most were cooperative, helpful and willing to provide background, personal motivations and perspectives on the industry and their role in it.

My intent is NOT to evaluate or compare services or products, but rather make you aware of the options available to you to take control of the way you watch Hollywood movies at home.

OPTIONS FOR CLEANING UP

[ A tremendous source of information is The Viewer Freedom Foundation. Founder. Merrill Hansen has set forth the mission statement; " We promote and enable the freedom of choice to avoid offensive content in videos. We build win-win-win solutions for the viewers, artists and production companies." For an excellent overview of the movement and links to all the players, I suggest you visit them on the web at http://viewerfreedom.org.]

While each re-editing company emphasizes their "unique differences" all of them have two things in common. 1) They were started by people who enjoy films but don't want to be exposed to "the garbag,e" and 2) In one way or another they edit out nudity, sex, violence and mute or cut out profanity, then make these "edited versions" of the movies available to their costumers.

Clean Flicks was started by Ray Line who began by editing movies for family and friends. "I enjoy movies but I got tired of sitting in theaters saying, if only they had left that one scene out." Ray has been on the front lines of the rising controversy over companies who take it upon themselves to re-edit Hollywood's sacred treasures. Ray has been invited to appear on the Today Show, Fox News and has been the target of Jay Leno's sardonic humor. Today Clean Flicks have 70 stores in 6 states. [10 wholly owned, 60 franchises]

Edit-My-Movies was created as an additional service of Jared Martin and Terry Hale whose company was already offering TV Guardian, TV Time Manager, Internet Filtering and Channel Blocker to provide families with all kinds of solutions for managing entertainment and media in the home. As the product line expanded, the name of the company was changed to Family Safe Media.

Family Fix is the brainchild of a husband and wife team, Terry and Sandra Teraci. "We were motivated to start this company when we just grew tired of the extra trash that the Hollywood producers write into the movies. After watching every Disney Movie, at least twice, we decided to do something."

The MPAA, which rates Hollywood motion pictures, claims that the film ratings come "from parents just like you." You only have to watch a couple of PG-13 movies to know that whoever decided it was appropriate for young teenagers is NOT a parent who shares our values and concerns.

My personal conversations with the men and women editing Hollywood films to make them family friendly are-on the other hand-what MPAA promises, "parents just like us." {Whether or not they are actually parents.] The conservative standards they use to "clean up" Hollywood movies are much more in line with Middle America than the nameless, faceless few living within 50 miles of Encino California who rate movies for MPAA.

Company to company, the business model varies only slightly. The customer buys a movie on VHS video or DVD. The customer sends the movie to the company. The company edits the customer's movie by taking out nudity, profanity, graphic violence and profanity.

THE DELICATE TAP DANCE

This rather cumbersome process is in place for practical reasons. By only editing movies owned by their customers, the companies argue that there is no violation of copyright. In their vigorous defense of this approach they make an interesting point. By requiring their customers to purchase films that they might not otherwise purchase, it adds revenue to Hollywood. (which may explain why Hollywood is unhappy but leaving them alone.) The added cost of editing is for service, not "a version or a copy" of the film so their delicate tap dance on the tight wire of copyright is fiscally sound if not technically accurate.

I say "delicate tap dance" because while the theory of the process seems defensible, in practice there are some practical short cuts. For starters, you don't have to buy your movie at Wall Mart or the local video store and send it to the re-edit company. You can buy your movie online from the company itself so the "ownership" is at that point a digital notation in cyberspace. But in the electronic world of information, the old adage that "possession is 9/10 of the law" is meaningless. This is no different from buying at Amazon.com so this convenience changes nothing and the theory is in tact. [If you like tangible commodities, you can also buy them at the store and have them shipped to where the editing takes place.]

So now the customer's VHS or DVD is at the company along with an order to "edit out the bad stuff." At this point, the actual process begins to slip away from the purity of theory. None of the companies actually edit the physical original video tape or DVD purchased by the consumer. It would be impossible for any of these companies to survive if in fact they disassembled the VHS tape, threaded it up on an editing system to cut and splice the videotape. Moreover, DVDs are digital and can only be edited when the digital information is dumped into a computer. In practice, the editing takes place electronically, but only once for every title, not discretely for each and every customer.

Before your or I ever order our "cleaned up" version of The Patriot, the company has already purchased it in DVD* , dumped it into a computer, and dropped the graphic violence. [* Not all of the companies have DVD available. When selecting a service be sure to check if DVD is your medium of choice as it is mine.]

THE REALM OF CONTROVERSY

We have now enter the realms of controversy. Let me state for the record that I believe in the right of consumers to have control over the content of entertainment exhibited in their home. These companies offer a positive solution. My goal here is to provide information, not pass judgment.

The editing of a Hollywood film requires that the DVD [or video] be digitized. DVDs are encrypted to prevent piracy. None of the people interviewed were willing to discuss the details of the technology they used to digitize the DVD. Those willing to discuss it at all assured me that, "We don't crack encryption, but have other ways of getting it into the digital domain."

Since I believe in the rights of consumers to see movies the way they want — and this is one of the ways that is possible - I am disinclined to become Sherlock Holmes on this issue.

With the movie inside the computer - usually a high-end Macintosh with Final Cut Pro 3 - the movie can be completely re-edited. But the only edits of interest are the ones that eliminate nudity, sex, profanity and graphic violence.

The result of the edit is a digital master of the movie - or edits - on hard drive. It is this "version" — a word none of the re-editing service companies like very much — that becomes the target of those who believe the process is a violation of copyright. This re-edited digital copy, opponents claim, creates "a derivative work" which is a pivotal concept of copyright law.

It is interesting to note of course that this "derivative work" - if that is what it is— is never sold "in stead of" an original copy of the movie. It is sold as a "replacement of" a movie already purchased. A copy of this digital master is returned to the costumer. What the customer actually receives is NOT a re-edit of the actual DVD or VHS purchased by them, but a re-edit of the same movie used to replace it.

"Replacement " is very interesting. If the movie purchased by the consumer is on VHS, the copy of the edited digital master is recorded onto and OVER the customer's original VHS tape.The original video, purchased by the consumer is returned to them on the same piece of video tape and in the same package, even though the movie has been erased and replaced by a copy of the edited digital master.

If the movie purchased by the consumer is on DVD it is not possible to erase and over-record. In this case the digital master is used to burn a new DVD-R, which is returned to the customer, together with the original DVD. Some of the companies disable the original DVD to diminish any claim that the process creates a pirated copy and deprives Hollywood of revenue.

There are variations on a theme. Play It Clean Company operates a membership co-op. When you become a member, you "co-own the videos with the company and share them with other owners." Some argue that this approach deprives Hollywood of rental income from their films. With only 6 stores the impact of Play It Clean product does not merit the focus of Hollywood legal eagles at $450 per hour. At least not yet.

Copyright is the big discussion. Revenue is the big issue. I know enough about copyright law and re-editing process to believe a case can be made for copyright infringement. That said, I agree with Richard Teraci, Family Flix, who said "As far as copyright issues, they have been in existence for over one hundred years, and we take them seriously. I think because editing movies is such a fairly new thing, there is no definitive case law to determine legality. I truly believe it's really a win-win situation. We purchase every movie that we edit, so we are creating a whole new market of buyers. It's a whole new area."

When the New York Times did a story on Clean Flicks in January, 2002, they interviewed MPAA president, Jack Valenti. He went on record to say that he didn't like what they were doing. Clean Flicks called Valenti and explained, "that this is a win-win. Every time we edit a movie the cash register goes "Ca'Jing". Every time we do a movie we have to buy a movie. We are making you more money because more Mormons are watching R-rated movies."

Valenti was silent for 3-months. Finally an attorney called from Washington "on behalf of Jack Valenti's attorney" to offer a formal response. "We don't like what you are doing. We feel it is a violation of copy right, but to be honest with you this is not a priority with the studios right now."

The bottom line may ultimately have nothing to do with copyright. It may only have to do with the bottom line. Movie making is a business. The art of Hollywood is making money. The fact that all of the companies with whom I discussed the revolution in viewer choice go to great length to insure that for every edited version of a Hollywood film made from their resident digital masters, a new copy of the film must be purchased by a consumer. Curiously, they do not participate in the profit of the purchase of the original movie. That revenue - and to a large extent new revenue - belongs to Hollywood.

The issue is a simple one. Even if there is a technical copyright infringement, how has Hollywood been disadvantaged? As long as the companies continue to demand that their customers buy a new copy of any film they wish to "clean up", Hollywood makes money. The moment any of them decide to sell their "cleaned up" versions on any other basis, they become media pirates and will end up in jail.

It stands to reason that people willing to commit themselves to "cleaning up" Hollywood movies are men and women of values, principle and integrity. That was certainly my conclusion as I listened to the strenuous efforts made to insure that nothing being done to deprive Hollywood of revenue. It may be self-serving and essential to survival, but I opt to believe that they have simply taken the higher ground.

Impressed with such fundamental integrity, I was surprised to discover that some of the smaller operations — not mentioned in this article — have allegedly been "ripping off" their larger competitors by making copies of the copies. One of the most successful of the editing companies told me, "The sad part is that most of the competitors are break-offs from our company and they basically have taken all of our movies and copied them. They buy one copy and dupe them and sell them in their own stores."

Industrial espionage aside, I have been impressed by the moral integrity I encountered in my interviews and conversations. The people I met in this curious new industry are motivated by a genuine desire to offer products that expand entertainment options without polluting personal lives. In most cases the founders remain in charge of editing choices. The choices are not easy.

Ray Line said, "PG-13 has as much sexual innuendo as R would ever have because it is based on comedy. It is very difficult to edit out because it changes the tone and story of the film. It is almost always more difficult to edit PG-13 for sexual content than an R. In an R movie sex and nudity is easy to get out."

Richard Teraci explained, "One of the most difficult edits was Erin Brockovich because of the amount of language used and the way she dressed. This movie is clearly on the border of what Family Flix edits. We obviously could not edit out her clothing attire with the low-cut, push-up bra scenes. She dropped the "F" bomb numerous times. That required more time to carefully cut-away the language but leave the story intact. The movie required over 100 edits. By comparison, The Patriot required minimal editing. There was virtually no language, no nudity, but a few graphic scenes."

For all of the clean-up-Hollywood crusaders, the moral thermometer is simple and consistent. No nudity. No sex. No graphic violence. No profanity.

The rising popularity of re-edited Hollywood movies, the increasing number of stores, and growing number of people willing to pay a premium for re-edited Hollywood movies suggest that "cleaned-up" movies are not a fade but an orphan child of the entertainment industry that must be taken seriously.