Parc Entertainment - A Video Production Company - Birmingham, AL

Cinematical reports that the double-feature release Grindhouse, directed by Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez, opened over the weekend with disappointing box office returns. For those of you who haven’t heard about this film, it’s actually two features in one - Death Proof and Planet Terror. Terantino and Rodriguez wanted to pay honor to the sleazy theatres of the 1970s, known as a Grindhouse, where double features were the norm. However, it seems that audiences today are less willing to sit through two features, lasting a total of 3 1/2 hours.

In fact, Harvey Weinstein, blamed the length of the film as the main reason why people stayed away on opening weekend. I find this very interesting. My dad often tells me about the double features he watched as a child, where patrons paid admission for one film, and were treated with two. It seems that in today’s world of high ticket prices, the public would be eager to get their money’s worth by watching two features for the price of one. However, such isn’t the case. What’s to blame for America’s short attention span? Is it because double features have long since been a thing of the past and people aren’t used to them anymore? Could it be that we have two new generations who have been weaned on technology all geared to make chores quicker and easier? Could it also be the increased popularity of internet video, where running times have been significantly decreased to a mere 5 to 10 minutes?

If Weinstein does split Grindhouse into separate films because the public say it’s too long, how much longer will it be before the term “feature film” applies to movies only 30 minutes in length? Would you still pay $8.50 per ticket to see a 30 minute film?

Talking about Alfred Hitchcock made me think of yet another Hollywood remake - Dial M for Murder. A few years ago it was remade as A Perfect Murder with Michael Douglas and Gwenyth Paltrow. Here’s an interesting fact about Dial M for Murder: Hitchcock’s original plan was to release the film in 3-D, since it was all the rave back then. However, before the film was complete the 3-D fad died away. It eventually had a standard release.

Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

Story by Gordon McDonell

Screenplay by Thornton Wilder & Sally Benson & Alma Reville

Shadow of a Doubt is a suspense thriller about Charlie, a serial killer who comes to small town America to hide out with his unsuspecting family. However, his young niece begins to uncover her uncle’s dark secret and Charlie must do what is necessary to keep her quiet.

This film is in my collection of Hitchcock classics, but I was truly disappointed with the movie overall. What frustrates me further is the fact that my DVD set does not contain the better Hitchcock films like North by Northwest, Birds, or Dial M for Murder. I can’t understand why Shadow of a Doubt was Hitch’s favorite film.

The cinematography is dramatic and well-crafted, but the major shortcoming of this film is the script. The story is slow, predictable and unsuspenseful. The dialogue is way too expository and unrealistic. Characters engage in “Shakespearian”-style monologues, spouting off their frustrations, hopes, and philosophies on life.  The acting is too melodramatic. The plot is full of holes and the music is way too obtrusive. And then, out of nowhere, a love story emerges between Charlie’s niece and the detective who is hunting him down, although the couple has only known one another for a day or two.

The positive qualities of the film (cinematography, Joseph Cotton’s performance as Uncle Charlie, and the relationship between Charlie and his niece) were completely overshadowed by the weak storyline and on-the-nose dialogue. I’m not sure why this is considered a Hitchcock classic. If you’re a Hitchcock fan, it might be wise to avoid this one and watch some of his other films that truly live up to the great auteur’s reputation.

Bottom Line: 1 out of 5 stars

Currently there are a number of video companies operating across the country, dedicated to providing families with clean, wholesome entertainment. However, these video companies are not producing their own movies or television shows. Rather, they are taking existing movies, editing out objectionable content, and either selling or renting them to the public.

Recently this practice has gained more and more attention due to a legal battle between Clean Flicks and the Director’s Guild of America. I do not have a problem with Clean Flicks’ intentions. I think it is admirable that this company is trying to provide families with content that is suitable for younger viewers. When I was younger, my dad would mute out objectionable words and fast-forward through objectionable content, but he would never re-edit the entire film and then sell it for profit.

What’s at the heart of this issue is the legality of their practice. Can a company like Clean Flicks take copyrighted material, change it without permission from the producers or directors, then sell it or rent it for profit?

In my opinion, companies like Clean Flicks shouldn’t edit films and rent and/or sell them for profit without permission from producers or directors. This not only violates copyright law, but also violates the artistic integrity of the filmmakers. Companies like Clean Flicks provide the public with these edited films, but the films still have the director’s and producer’s name attached, when they did not authorize the re-cut. Directors already have a contractual obligation to re-edit their films for network television broadcast.

Also, certain films were never intended to be viewed by a young audience. Many films contain adult themes and situations that simply aren’t appropriate for younger viewers. For example, although Saving Private Ryan is a realistic, historical look at World War II, it was never intended for children.

Bottom Line: Respect copyright law and the artistic integrity of the auteurs. If you feel the need to make a movie more suitable for your children, do it within the confines of your home, but you should never try to take that edited version and sell it to the public.

If you want to read more about this case, simply type “Clean Flicks” into any search engine. You can also look at the article found at http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20020903.html