BY TAD WALCH / Feb 23, 2005The 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.
BY THE SIGNPOST EDITORIAL BOARD, April 23, 2008In 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.
Posts
All Comments
