Chinese censoring of Cloud Atlas is true truly a real problem.

The news broke yesterday that the Chinese government is censoring Cloud Atlas in advance of its Chinese theatrical exhibition.  That in itself is not a surprise, as the Chinese government has a history of censoring US films.  Usually its a case of material that is deemed insulting/inflammatory/etc. to the Chinese, such as the complete omission of Chow Yun Fat's murderous pirate in Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End.  Also reported is the fact that Skyfall will run in China with several edits and changes in subtitled dialogue, among other bits omitting a scene where a Chinese nationals are murdered (while Bond sits on his ass and does nothing about it) and changing dialogue involving Javier Bardem's history of being captured and tortured by the Chinese government. Ironically changing Severine from a former child sex slave to merely a member of the mob makes Bond slightly less dick-ish for setting her up for murder, but I digress.  Again, no big deal or at least nothing unusual.  Other countries have different standards of censorship and often change US films when they eventually arrive on respective shores (fun tip: click HERE and do a search for "Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles").  

07/16/99 - When the studios blew the best chance to legitimize the NC-17.

As seems to happen every year, bloggers, critics, and pundits are up-in-arms over an Oscar-bait film being awarded or threatened with an NC-17.  As usual, the film in question is a critically-acclaimed adult film with strong sexual content.  And once again, the many people arguing about this are missing the real problem.  Yes, it's annoying that ultra-violent horror films like Saw VII get R ratings while adult films with somewhat explicit sexual content get NC-17 ratings.  And yes it's annoying when somewhat more sensationalistic sexual content like that found in Black Swan gets an R while the apparently mature and allegedly thoughtful sexual content in Steve McQueen's Shame gets tagged with an NC-17.  But the problem is not with the rating, but with the enforcement of said rating.  Put simply, if major theater chains were willing to carry NC-17 pictures and mainstream media outlets would carry advertising for NC-17 pictures, then the debate over what film got what rating would be moot.  As it is, the problem with the NC-17 is not its seemingly arbitrary application (IE - far more likely for sex than for violence), but how it is viewed by the industry and the general moviegoers.

If we do it to plays and movies, why not books? Thoughts on the re-edited Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

It's a touchy subject, and it may even be a very slippery slope. But on the surface, the decision by New South to release a new edition of Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn without its 219 utterances of the word 'nigger' shouldn't be that shocking. We constantly alter our movies and plays for different audiences. Any high school who has put on Grease over the last thirty years has dealt with how to get around "Greased Lightning", with its references to creaming chicks and pussy-wagons (Christopher Walken had a witty skit based around just this issue on his last Saturday Night Live hosting gig in April 2008). We have no objection to countless movies being edited for television or edited for airplane viewing. The key concept is that no matter what is done to a film or a play for whatever reason, the original film and the play in its original form, remains available for mass consumption. We have always treated books as a somewhat holier art form than the performing arts, but what New South is doing is no different than watching Blazing Saddles on network television.