THE LATEST IN DOUCHEBAGGERY: DANIEL DEAN THOMPSON

Jan 29, 2008
Playgirl Magazine

Back story: In response to conservative cries of inappropriate/pornographic content in movies, companies creating “clean” versions of movies provide folks with boring—I mean, more tasteful—versions of our favorite flicks; allowing “concerned moms and dads to take one more lazy step back from the parenting process.” This supposedly injects American culture with a little more decency.

Which brings us to the latest in douchebaggery, Daniel Dean Thompson. He’s the owner of Flix Club, a company in Utah selling clean versions of movies to people. He’s also the guy arrested last week for sexually abusing children. Can you say, irony?

Yeah, total bummer. Thompson, 31, and Issac Lifferth, 24, allegedly traded sex with a couple 14-year-old girls, who claimed to need money so they could move out of their homes. Thompson and Lifferth were booked at the Utah County jail on charges of sexual abuse and unlawful sexual activity.

Dirty dudes operating under the guise of decency for the sake of a more wholesome America are the worst.

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...

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.

VARSITY MAKING COMEBACK WITH CLEAN FLICKS

BY TAD WALCH / Feb 23, 2005
The Deseret Morning News

Venue to show only Hollywood hits that meet Y. standards

PROVO — Long lines for tickets were routine during the Varsity Theatre's heyday.

The Brigham Young University playhouse competed with Utah Valley theaters for moviegoers because of its fare — edited versions of R-rated movies such as "The Last of the Mohicans," "A Few Good Men" and "The Firm."

But the lines that snaked through the Wilkinson Student Center hours before tickets went on sale vanished in 1998 after movie studios and distribution companies pressured the theater to stop editing from the films what university officials and Varsity patrons considered objectionable content.

Hollywood hits are making a slow comeback at the Varsity this semester, but local theaters needn't feel threatened, and no one should expect watered-down versions of of R-rated epics like "Alexander," "Constantine" or even PG-13 smashes like "Million Dollar Baby."

"We received permission last fall from the administration to show movies again at the Varsity Theatre, but we will not accept any edited movies, we will not edit them ourselves and we must preview all the movies to make sure they meet BYU standards," said the man behind the renaissance, campus-involvement coordinator Ron Jones.

The theater has been mostly empty for the past seven years, first home to poorly attended movie classics and then to the university's International Cinema program.

Jones is rolling out "Dollar Night at the Varsity" slowly, with a single movie just one weekend a month. "Spider-Man 2" produced a sellout of the Varsity's 794 seats when it ran for three days in January. "The Village" drew solid crowds last weekend.

Students appear interested in an on-campus dollar theater, but the crowds will depend on the movie, said Rob Hickman, a junior from Washington, D.C. Hickman bought a ticket to "The Village" because he considers director M. Night Shyamalan a "modern Hitchcock."

Jones doesn't anticipate the return of long lines, but he does hope to recapture some of the magic of the old on-campus haunt.

He began his quest to resuscitate big events at the Varsity this winter, when it became a popular home for sneak previews of a genre that hardly existed in 1998 — the Mormon-oriented movie. The house was packed for free sneak peeks of "Saints and Soldiers," "The Work and the Glory," "Baptists at Our Barbecue" and "Sons of Provo."

Utah distributor Halestorm will screen its next release, "Suits on the Loose," at the Varsity next month.

Jones said the Varsity will continue to show one Hollywood hit a month, with "Napoleon Dynamite" in March and "Hidalgo" in April, and then move to two weekends a month next fall, when "National Treasure" and "The Incredibles" make their BYU debuts.

"We're looking for movies that don't need to be edited, and we're finding some," he said. "Our purpose is to provide clean entertainment for our students. Rather than trying to make money with our films, we want to provide students with inexpensive choices for on-campus entertainment."

Jones said a committee will rule out movies with objectionable sexual content, "continued use of the Lord's name in vain that is demeaning to religion," other inappropriate foul language or issues of homosexuality.

"That limits what we can show, but we've found some pretty good movies," he said. " 'The Village' is a very innocent story. It has no swearing. It has no sex. It's just a very interesting story with a lot of twists and turns."

BYU might be sticking to its standards, but it took two key philosophical shifts to clear the way for any mainstream movies to return to the Varsity.

First, the administration dropped a requirement that the theater be profitable, Jones said. The goal now is to use it to enhance campus life. Jones also persuaded several administrators to let him deal with Swank Motion Pictures Inc., the company that distributes movies to colleges and universities in the United States.

"The only way to do this is with the distribution company BYU had a problem with in the '90s," Jones said. "Some didn't want to work with them because they felt the company hadn't supported us" during the fight over editing.

A Swank executive did not respond to a Deseret Morning News request for comment.

FILM EDITING UNETHICAL

BY THE SIGNPOST EDITORIAL BOARD, April 23, 2008
Weber State University SignPost

Clean Flicks and video editing companies like it need to be stopped, and it is great Hollywood has finally taken legal action against companies that do so. This illegal film editing is this generation's version of book burning.

In the United States, people are guaranteed the freedom to create artistic visions of their choice and retain ownership of creations. Altering them violates the artist's creative rights.

People who want the videos edited do so because they do not want to expose themselves to offensive material. By closing their eyes to theatrical art, people are closing their eyes to life. Art and literature have always reflected history. Do these people really not want to know what is happening around them? Life is offensive, but how do people learn what is offensive and what they stand for, if they have no knowledge of it? How do parents teach their children values if they have no examples to contrast or question their values? Children are going to face these examples in life. What better way to prepare them for it than through knowledge?

Despite the moral issues involved with censorship, there are legal issues as well. Clean Flicks is violating copyright laws with its practices. To alter a piece of work, one must seek permission of the author, often paying a fee to do so. Clean Flicks failed to do this. They are trying to operate under what they believe is a loophole in the law that allows customers to make one copy of material for personal use. However, by altering these copies and providing rentals of altered movies, Clean Flicks has bent the rules.

People argue that films get edited for television or airplane viewing, so why can't Clean Flicks do the same? The difference is that broadcasters and airlines pay for the edits, and the edits are done and controlled by the film studios. This is the way it should be. By allowing editing enterprisers to randomly cut content out of films, studios comprise the film maker's artistic integrity.

If Clean Flicks prevails in the court case, what could that mean for the future of all literature? Will a Clean Books editing company sprout up, providing offensive free books? Will printers begin processing nudity free alterations of famous art? And do proponents for censorship really think that will make a difference on our society?

According to the February 2003 edition of "Playboy", some common film cuttings include: "the farting in 'Dr. Doolittle 2'; thirty seconds of sexual innuendo and swearing in 'Shrek'; two minutes of sexual discussion in 'Bridget Jones's Diary'; 139 f*#@* and 29 s%&#* in 'Good Will Hunting'; the genitalia and breasts of the concentration camp victims in 'Schindler's List.'" By removing these from the eyes and ears of viewers, censors are not extinguishing them from society.

It is historically proven that art reflects society, not the other way around. The atrocities of WW2 happened long before Stephen Spielberg attempted to recreate them on film. Profanities have always and will always spew from mouths, with playgrounds being the practice arena for trying out these new insults. People have been finding ways to discuss and participate in sex since the dawn of man. And no matter how much people try to remove farting from celluloid, boys are going to think it is hysterical. Parents need to be confident of the moral values they instill in their children. And, instead of fearing that film content is somehow going to strip their children of values, trust that perhaps their children may have learned enough to rise above it.

IT'S A TOUGH JOB, BUT SOMEBODY HAS TO DO IT

BY TRAVIS MORGAN / Nov 21, 2002
Brigham Young University’s Daily Universe

Nothing seems to soothe semester-end stress like a great scary movie. Unfortunately, every time I see a commercial for a perfectly disturbing film, it seems to be rated 'R for violence, content, language' or some other indiscretion. Come now, can't film producers create more disturbing and distressing films for my PG-13 eyes?

Enter Clean Flicks.

Here in Utah Valley, we have another alternative to satisfy our hankering for mind-numbing motion pictures. Suddenly, all those naughty words and unsettling scenes magically disappear with the snip of a pair of digital editing scissors. Clean Flicks president, John Dixon, reassured me that movies are not edited "so much that you can't figure out what's happened."

So, you can still watch all those popular satanic and troubling films without the swear words. But don't fret, the underlying messages of doom and gloom should remain fully intact.

With the holiday season soon approaching, scores of inappropriate movies should be hitting movie theaters any time now. I hear Eminem's new movie is sprinkled with enough colorful language to keep movie editors clipping for hours on end. But within a few short months, you should be able to watch his rise to rapper greatness without his pesky rapper tongue. You may need to find a good organist, however, because the film may end up as a 1920s-style silent movie.

I've always wondered who edits out all those naughty parts of the films. Can just anybody get into the movie-slicing business? I thought I would do some investigating to see if they are looking for any extra help. It turns out that Clean Flicks already has a very competent movie editing staff, based out of Payson, Utah County. And apparently, they already get offers from a few prospective smut-slashers. "Sometimes we get people who offer to edit from their homes for us, but we don't need that," Dixon told me.

I can almost hear the conversations of potential edit-from-home applicants: "I already told you, honey, I'm not watching rated-R movies in our living room, I'm editing rated-R movies. It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it."

The sacrifices people are willing to make for the good of the rest of us!

I thank you eager and dedicated stay-at-home movie editing hopefuls for offering your souls in exchange for my salvation. I will never watch the edited Exorcist again without thinking of your generosity on my behalf.

Image courtesy of Divine Comedy, BYU's award winning comedy troupe.

CLEAN FLICKS SUES TO KEEP EDITING MOVIES

BY JOSEPH HADFIELD / Sept 4, 2002
Brigham Young University’s Daily Universe

A Clean Flicks franchise is suing 16 renowned directors over the right to remove sex, profanity and violence from movies for rent or sale. But the action could turn against them.

The suit, filed Aug. 30 by a Colorado franchise of Clean Flicks, asks the courts to rule their editing practices do not violate copyright laws. But the president of the Utah-based company, John Dixon, said fighting filmmakers in court is not the best approach for the business. "Those guys are big, the best thing to do is to sit down and go over this with them," said John Dixon. "A lawsuit isn't the way to go."

Representatives from the Directors Guild of America said they are confident they will win in court. "Obviously, we think they are violating copyright law," said Andrew Levy, special assignments executive for the Guild. "They are taking an artistic work, the efforts of a lot of creative people, and changing it on their whims."

Clean Flicks is headquartered in Pleasant Grove and has 36 Utah stores. If the court rules against Clean Flicks, all franchises could be forced to stop editing films. "Our whole plan was to work with Hollywood on this," Dixon said.

The business has found regular customers at BYU, where student housing guidelines do not permit viewing of indecent material. "If they could see the kind of market we see," Dixon said. "The public wants edited movies, or even just clean movies."

One such customer is BYU senior Dave Baer, who has been a member of Clean Flicks for eight months. "Artistic freedom can go too far," said Baer, a 23-year old neurobiology major from Littleton, Colorado. "They are too caught up in their freedom rather than in making a better society."

One movie Clean Flicks edited and rents is Saving Private Ryan, a film depicting fighting in World War II. Levy said the removed parts are critical to the film. "The whole purpose is to show the horror of the Normandy landing," Levy said. "To sanitize it, is to me abhorrent."

The most surprising part of the lawsuit is that it names directors as defendants in the case, Levy said. "Directors do their films, get paid, but at the end of the day, the actual owner of the film is the studio," Levy said.

Dixon said he hopes to negotiate with studios to settle the issue, citing other instances where similar editing is currently allowed. "We want to say, 'Hey, you already do it for airlines, television and third world countries with strong religious beliefs,'" Dixon said.

When films are edited for airlines, Levy said, they are often done with the input of the director. "There is a difference between authorized editing and unauthorized editing," Levy said. "Whether the studios want to start marketing those airline videos is up to them."

VARSITY THEATER STRIKES BACK

BY KATHRYN GREEN / Oct 29, 2001
Brigham Young University's Daily Universe

The Varsity Theater will reopen--sort of. After half a semester devoid of midnight movies and the smell of popcorn in the Wilkinson Student Center, Student Leadership announced Monday it has come up with a solution to bring back movies to the 37-year-old campus icon. In an advertising campaign, the BYU Bookstore will screen one film a month on Friday and Saturday nights.

It's dubbed "Student Night at the Movies," and Student Leadership - which partnered with the Bookstore on the project - thinks it will rekindle campus life. "There's just a general feeling that something is missing at BYU without the Varsity," said Ron Jones, director of Student Leadership.

The BYU Bookstore will pay for the equipment and the Information Technology services to run the movies, Jones said. In return, the Varsity will feature Bookstore ads prior to movies and during intermission time, he said. Roger Reynolds, director of the BYU Bookstore, said the arrangement is only on a trial basis to see if it will promote the Bookstore. However, Reynolds said he personally would like to see the Varsity back in use.

"As an alumni of BYU, I grew up with the Varsity, and I'd like to see students enjoy it as much as I did," he said. The Bookstore will pay a fee for each night the movies are shown, Reynolds said.

As before, the Varsity will maintain BYU standards and promote Clean Flicks, Jones said. For example, the Varsity plans to show "Mulan" in January and "The Princess Diaries" in February, Jones said. However, movies are not going to be as abundant as they were in previous semesters, Jones said. Movies are only going to be shown on Friday and Saturday nights, and there will only be one movie each month.

The Varsity's movie format is also changing, Jones said. Instead of showing 35 mm films as in the past, Jones said VHS tapes would now be used. "It will be the same if not better quality in the show," Jones said.

The Varsity Theatre will kick off its comeback on Saturday with a free showing of "The Longest Day," a movie about D-Day. The show is to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the ROTC, Jones said.
Beginning Nov. 30, the theater will show "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas" in step with the approaching holiday season. Movies will cost $1 and popcorn and drinks will cost 50 cents, Jones said.

A REEL ENDING: CURTAIN CLOSES ON VARSITY

BY SETH LEWIS (Editor In Cheif) / Sept, 4 2001
Brigham Young University's Daily Universe

In the end, students voted on the Varsity Theatre's fate with their wallets, and the 37-year-old campus cornerstone lost. For all its nostalgia, mystique and long lines snaking through the Wilkinson Student Center, the theater will stop showing movies - yes, even the G-rated ones - beginning this semester.

When the theater quit screening edited films in 1998 because of potential legal trouble with production companies, ticket sales plunged, prompting school officials to rethink the theater's existence. "We wanted to let students tell us through the tickets, 'Do you still want this?'" said Carri Jenkins, Assistant to the President over University Communications.

Indeed, sagging interest in such films as "A Little Princess" and "Cinderella" doomed the Varsity, but Jenkins insists the school's decision was not solely dollar-dictated. Instead, she said, with the university increasingly squeezed for space, school officials thought the theater would be better suited for lectures, ward talent shows and comedy nights.

"Money is not the driving force here," Jenkins said. "It really is: How can we use this space best for our students?" Even more, the Varsity Theatre has outgrown its purpose as easy-access entertainment for students.

"At the time the Varsity Theatre was created, there were only a few movie houses in town," Jenkins said. "There were no movie rentals. It's a completely different world now than it was in 1964."

And with the proliferation of "dollar theaters" - such as Movies 8 in Provo - the Varsity lost its appeal as a cheap date. "There are so many choices in the valley for students and others to choose from," WSC director Jerry Bishop said.

Still, the Varsity remained wildly successful well into the 1990s filling one movie niche that never vanished: students' interest in edited R-rated films. In 1997, for instance, "Jerry Maguire" played to sold-out audiences for two weeks. Later that year, when the movie returned to the theater for the third time, students still waited in line for three hours for tickets. And lines for other rated-R flicks such as "Air Force One" routinely stretched outside the WSC.

But when Sony asked the university to stop screening its edited films, BYU balked. Sensing the potential for lawsuits, the school contacted production companies seeking formal contracts for editing films, Jenkins said.

Ultimately, nothing was finalized in writing. "Based on that," Jenkins said, "we didn't feel comfortable editing their movies." That was only part of BYU's anxiety.

Criticism had swirled for years about the moral juxtaposition of a school owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints showing films that often flouted church standards. "That was certainly something that had come up," Jenkins said. School officials then put the Varsity Theatre on a "trial period," Jenkins said, that would gauge student interest in clean classics and G-, PG- and PG-13-rated films.

The theater - which the university expects to pay for itself - failed to turn a profit, even after WSC administrators used focus groups and brought back popular films such as "The Princess Bride." "There is no question that the interest and attendance declined when the university made the decision to no longer show edited movies," Bishop said.

But the Varsity's viability is far from over. The theater will be booked days, nights and weekends, hosting all types of activities - and maybe even a class or two, Jenkins said. "It's not that it's going to be boarded up and shut down by any means," she said.

UTAH STORES ARE CLEANING UP BY EDITING SMUT FOR FILMS

BY BRADY SNYDER / Aug 2, 2001
The Deseret Morning News

Stop with the Utah County jokes already.

It seems the taste for sanitized versions of Hollywood films extends well beyond Happy Valley. Stores that rent edited PG-13- and R-rated videos are blooming in Davis County, St. George, Idaho, Arizona and -- perhaps the unlikeliest of places -- Las Vegas.

Editing scenes that include sex, violence and profanity from popular films has become such a promising venture that competition is cropping up. That doesn't surprise Ray Lines, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who began CleanFlicks Video Co-Op Club late last year.

"There's 120,000 Mormons that live in that community," Lines said of the Las Vegas success. "Not to mention the Christian community. This is not just a Mormon issue."

Since opening in Pleasant Grove, Lines has expanded to Orem and Provo. He also edits videos for franchise-type stores in Tooele, St. George, West Valley City, Las Vegas, Mesa, Ariz.; and Rexburg, Idaho.

And now a competitor has entered the field.

Earlier this month, Braxton Schenk, also a Mormon, opened Layton's Clean Cut Videos, which similarly rents edited videos to its members.

Like Lines, Schenk expects to expand mightily; he's looking into opening stores in Brigham City, North Ogden, Roy, Kaysville, Farmington and Bountiful.

"The neat thing about it is that we've rented to several families that aren't LDS at all. They have very similar beliefs in the way they don't want to watch some of that garbage that's out there," said Schenk, a Washington native. "I've been really impressed by the moral values of this area. Especially from the teenagers. We've had teenagers come in and talk their parents into buying a membership."

Amidst all the success, a backlash, or copyright lawsuit, from Hollywood studios has been absent.

Lines has been featured in a New York Times article and has appeared on NBC's Today Show. Still, despite the widespread publicity, no one has asked him to stop.

University of Utah film historian William Siska says that just because the editing is legal doesn't mean it's ethical.

"If the video stores were really guardians of morality, they would really toe the line as far as what fair business practices are," Siska said.

The stores are profiting off someone else's work, and, if not illegal, it's wrong, Siska said.

Lines and Schenk maintain they are legit since they pay retail price for every video, which, after editing, will be devoid of graphic violence, sex and profanity -- including taking the Lord's name in vain.

The pair maintain Hollywood studios benefit from their businesses since they sell R- and PG-13-rated videos that wouldn't otherwise be purchased.

Still, editing raises concerns about maintaining a filmmaker's artistic vision.

"I guess it depends on what film you're talking about," said Sharon Swenson, who teaches film history and theory at Brigham Young University.

Some films exist only to make money or entertain. Such pictures, Swenson says, would suffer little from editing.

"Now if it's art, then that's another story," she said.

But for now, without lawsuit or much complaint, the clean video stores flourish.

Schenk expects to have edited DVDs in two months, and Lines plans for 10 more Utah stores by the end of next year.

VARSITY THEATER STOPS EDITING

BY MARY LYNN BAHR / Aug 1, 1998
BYU Magazine

When the Wilkinson Center opened in 1964, some of the first films shown in the Varsity Theatre were Don't Go Near the Water (1957) and The Wackiest Ship In the Army (1961), starring Jack Lemmon. A recent policy change has brought films from that era back to the Varsity: During September and October, BYU students enjoyed such films as The African Queen (1951), Rebel Without a Cause (1955), and Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds (1963).

Classic films are back because the Varsity is no longer editing movies, and few current films meet BYU's standards.

A policy change had been considered for some time, but the process accelerated in January, when Sony Pictures requested that BYU stop editing its films. The university immediately complied, pulling all Sony films from the winter semester schedule.

BYU receives movies through an intermediary distributor who had always known that films were edited before students saw them. "They knew that we were doing it and raised no objection," says Jerry L. Bishop, director of the Wilkinson Student Center. But Sony's request prompted administrators to contact other movie companies directly, seeking formal approval for contin-ued editing.

"Discussions with suppliers of films and film companies made it clear that BYU would not be able to secure formal approval to continue editing films," says Carri P. Jenkins, director of media communications. When formal approval could not be obtained, the university announced it would stop editing films beginning Aug. 4.

According to the new guidelines for movie selection, the Varsity Theatre will not show "movies containing nudity and/or sexual scenes (including lewd innuendos)" or "movies containing excessive (numerous, long running, specific, or extremely graphic) scenes of violence." The Varsity Theatre Film Review Committee may "exercise discretion and good judgment" in approving movies that contain profanity. Respectful references to deity and infrequent uses of "hell" and "damn" are permissible, but "other swearing, vulgarity, or profanity are not acceptable." No editing will be permitted.

The new policy also applies to BYU-Hawaii and Ricks College. "When BYU adopted the policy that we would not edit, that became a policy for all three schools," says Jenkins.

Responses to the policy change vary. Many students had appreciated the chance to view edited, big-name films. "The Varsity Theatre was a good place to go to see movies that we normally wouldn't be able to see, and for that reason it was a very attractive proposition to a lot of people," says J. Grant Robinson, a sophomore from Alpine, Utah, planning to major in theatre.

Some students expressed relief about the end of the editing policy. Tasi Young, a sophomore pre-med student from Salt Lake City, explains, "Even though I liked to see the edited movies, it always sat weird with me that someone else had to watch them to edit them."

Since editing is no longer permitted, the theater must find appropriate films in other ways. Classic films are the best option, Bishop says, though appropriate newer films will also be shown.

Dean W. Duncan, instructor of theatre and media arts, believes there is plenty of precedent for a successful repertory film program. The Department of Theatre and Media Arts sponsors a classic cinema course, and its public showings of classic films have drawn sizeable audiences. Duncan and other faculty from theatre and media arts support the university's decision to discontinue editing. A well-designed offering of older films could make the Varsity Theatre an effective educational vehicle, helping students "become more intelligent, empowered viewers," Duncan says. "I hope that we can move from this kind of escapist, passive, popcorn-chomping mode of viewing to a more active, citizenly, Christian form."

Though it caters to BYU students, the Varsity Theatre receives no BYU funds. R-rated films have always attracted the largest audiences, and without them the theater may struggle financially. Bishop explains, "One of our niches before was the fact that we were offering movies that were edited, and that was something they couldn't get in the community." Bishop is uncertain about how the student audience will receive older films: "It will be a matter of promoting, marketing, inviting people to come and try some of the old movies."

The new policy has already prompted some changes in marketing. As a first step, the Varsity cut ticket prices from $1.50 to $1. Also, though the Varsity has typically shown one movie per week, two movies are scheduled for each week of fall semester. Other marketing plans include two-for-one nights, theme weeks, and weeks highlighting a particular star, such as James Dean or Jimmy Stewart. The star approach seemed to work during the first weeks of fall semester, when the Varsity showed Audrey Hepburn films. According to Bishop, sales for Breakfast at Tiffany's matched average ticket sales from last year, and students packed the theater for Wait until Dark.

Ticket sales have fluctuated since then, but administrators remain positive. Jenkins is optimistic about the change: "We're hoping there's room for a different theater experience."