All this gutting and destroying of artistic creations to fit less-accepting market demographics must come to an end. It is nothing short of sickening to hear about a film’s director forced to cut a scene or a musician to edit a lyric because it may upset some people who can’t deal with reality.
Violations of expression span from the mere existence of the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), to the parental guidance stickers placed on music albums, to the under-17 crowd banned from R-rated movies.
Why is it that Quentin Tarantino had to render scenes of his film “Kill Bill” in black and white because they were deemed too graphic and realistic in color? No one was forcing the images on anyone. Realism should be celebrated, not censored, if that was the intended outcome.
Why is it that realistic animated violence, like in the new 3D film, “Beowulf”, is just fine, though the characters are drawn as similar to real life as possible? How is violence on fake images more acceptable than fake violence on real images?
People need to grow up and quit trying to live with their heads in the sand.
It’s fully understandable if parents wish their children to not be exposed to whatever the controversial material may be, but the rest of us should have to suffer for their inability to shield their offspring from the real world.
It is a grotesque violation of the freedoms granted in the First Amendment when the personal taste of a few is sought to be implemented into nationwide policy.
A fine example of this is the PMRC (Parents Music Resource Center), founded by Tipper Gore, former Vice President Al Gore’s wife. Back in 1985, she and a group of other rich, stuck-up wives went before the U.S. Senate and fought for the “Parental Advisory” stickers on CDs. Beyond that, record companies started producing edited material for the more sensitive listeners.
This is heresy in the eyes of any artist who has an ounce of respect for their craft.
Art is sacred. It is the representation of whatever it is the artist wishes to convey to the world and it is no one’s right to modify the vision. This applies to all forms of art, including performing, music, film, and visual.
It would be thought an unholy crime against nature if one were to attempt to put pants on Michelangelo’s David, so the same should apply to today’s future classics.
It is 100 percent acceptable to wholly despise any artist rendering of any form, but as the U.S. Supreme Court declared in the ruling of the case of Cohen v California (1971), “One man’s vulgarity is another man’s lyric.” Every generation sees the following one’s forms of expression as too provocative or too loud or offensive, but classics are born from the fires of discrimination if they are not forced to change to fit demand.
Elvis’ early days were marred with labels of outward sexuality in a time when it was considered obscene to gyrate one’s hips. Yet today, he is still one of the highest-earning artists each year.
Everyone in Europe did not meet Mozart with open arms, but he was not forced to alter his material because a selected few didn’t agree with it. Now his material is taught in music appreciation classes for college credit.
If we do not allow artists to speak their own, unadulterated voices, then we will be looking at a bleak, gray, lifeless future.