<div class="header-image"></div> <table class="table-header"> <thead> <tr> <th colspan="2"></th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>2024-06-12</td> <td style="text-align: right;"><a href="About.md" class="internal-link">About</a></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> # Digital Fig Leaves and the New Left-Wing Conservatism  Toward the end of the 90s everyone was still renting individual movies for 3 or 4 dollars a night, usually on VHS videocassettes. We still had CRT televisions, with a 4:3 aspect ratio. The movies on those cassettes had *just* started to be released in their native aspect ratios, and most people were a little confused by the black bars this introduced to their TVs when watching. It was then that directors' cuts also started being released. The first one that I saw was James Cameron's cut of Aliens. It added, I think, 20 minutes of film. These restored scenes were cut, sometimes because of time (to bring the movie to under 2 hours in length), or because a censorship board said the scenes needed to be cut in order to avoid an X rating, or an R rating as the case may be. It's a bit funny now, *especially* with scenes that were cut for time. 3 hour movies are quite normal these days. Whenever faced with the choice of a theatrical cut or the director's cut when renting, or especially buying, a movie, I would *always* choose the director's cut. In my mind *that* was how the movie was intended to be watched. I certainly didn't want a group of humourless pearl-clutchers deciding *for me* which scenes were too violent or sexy for my delicate sensibilities. I'm a grown adult and can make my own decisions. These days, now that physical media is becoming more and more rare, a new form of digital censorship is beginning to happen. In the 70s and very early 80s, people were much more open, and far less prudish, than they are today. Nudity was really not much of a big deal, and a little nudity could easily sneak into a PG movie. I guess the sensors at that time didn't mind a bunch of giggling kids in the theatre. But today, movies are being altered on streaming services in order to placate the delicate sensibilities of young adults who can't stand the human form. Splash, now being streamed on Disney+, is a perfect example: ^splash  There's a few scenes like this in the movie. This example was passed around more than others. It hearkens back to the Catholic church and their 16^th century [Fig-leaf Campaign](https://news.artnet.com/art-world-archives/fig-leaf-campaign-2435557). I mean what is this, really, but a digital version of Catholic bishops hiding phalluses with painted and plaster fig-leaves? And while there are copies of the original movie out there, of course, how long will you actually be able to purchase one? Before answering, let's now think about Star Wars. The last *original* version of the Star Wars trilogy was available for rent or purchase in the 90s on VHS. After that the only available versions have been the enhanced versions. I haven't seen the originals since the 90s. They were never released In a digital format, and my VHS copies were left at a friend's house over 30 years ago. This is itself a bit of twisted irony, as George Lucas (along with several other prominent filmmakers) actually appeared in front of *Congress* to [speak out against the colourisation of old black and white films](https://www.slashfilm.com/517352/george-lucas-speaks-altering-films-1988/). Back in the 90s, none of this was a problem, as original versions of movies were easy to procure. There was plenty of demand, with enough people collecting movies for stores to stock all versions and still be profitable. The problem today is that people no longer collect physical media. Purchasing movies is still a thing (sort of), but because the copy of the movie you "own" is on a server somewhere, it can be changed at any time. So if you watched the version of Splash that is shown on the right in the above image, and "bought" it like that, at any time your purchase could be changed to the one on the left. Many movies are being changed now to fit the sensibilities of a younger, more sensitive, audience. This in itself wouldn't be an issue, if it was still possible to see the original, as intended. The end result of the colourisations of black and white movies, for example, was that the original b&w movies were still preserved and sold alongside the recoloured versions. But with the death of physical media, the originals will be lost to time, as the original Star Wars movies were. There will always be people who collect physical media and will share copies online. I can't help but feel that these alterations are going to fuel another surge of pirating media, similar to what happened in the mid '00s.  *This was a bit of propaganda played in movie theatres and was an unskippable track on many DVDs.* The question is this: If you wouldn't buy the altered version and the version of the film you wanted to purchase is unavailable, is it really theft? If you purchase a movie from a streaming service and the service alters what you purchase, or removes it from their library entirely, because of licensing issues or what have you, is it really piracy? I used to make the argument that stealing is taking something from someone else. If someone has a DVD and I take that physical disc from him without permission, that's theft: He had something that I took, and now he no longer has that thing. However, if he provides me with a *copy* of that DVD and keeps the original, I'm not stealing. He still has everything he started with, and besides, *he* offered to share it with *me*. The law, however, has moved on pretty far from that little bit of logistical gymnastics. Generally speaking though, there isn't any persecution to individuals who are sharing some songs or movies online any more, the targets mainly being storage and torrent sites at this point. But piracy isn't as rampant as it was 20 years ago, and these search and seizures just don't happen as frequently. My old argument aside, I think there *is* now an argument to be made that if someone shares a version of media that no longer exists and is not for sale, can it really be considered theft? The argument used by the MPAA and RIAA was that sharing media in this way was taking money away from the music and movie industries. But if I was never going to buy the censored product they offered in the first place, who's being hurt by sharing what was previously unavailable? It's an interesting question, especially if my interest is only in procuring a piece of media in its original format. It's important that these films be preserved in their original presentations, and made available for all to see. We need to remember that adults can make their own choices as to what to watch, and what version they prefer. I'm not arguing against these modern, kid-friendly alterations being made, but I should have the choice to show my children the version I saw in the theatre if that's what I want. We don't live in the 16^th century, where only one copy of the statue of David will ever exist. We can have the original, and we can have a copy built with the fig-leaf in place. Surely more choice is a good thing, right?