SCREEN-L Archives

April 1994


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
hargrove edward b <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 19 Apr 1994 04:03:43 -0500
text/plain (30 lines)
On Fri 15 April
> I am not among those that see choosing not to carry a video
> as 'censorship.' That's their choice. But tampering with
> videos, altering them to fit some misguided, moralistic
> and paternalistic corporate policy is indeed Censorship.
> I've been renting from them because of their selection,
> but I don't see how I can again, in good conscience,
> and they should know that.
> -- Derek Bouse
> (my thanks to the ever-reliable Mark Bunster for
> alerting me to the problem)
I certainly agree with writing Blockbuster letters on this matter.
For the record, I was informed by my friend Goeff who runs the local video
store (which carries only the unedited version of Man Bites Dog) that he
was offered a choice from the distributor to carry edited/unedited/both/
neither. Perhaps some work needs to be done investigating the link major
chains such as Blockbuster have with the distributors who offer these
edited films. What could be the influence or incentive?
Any thoughts on this?
- Edward B Hargrove, Univ. of IL @ Urbana-Champaign
  ([log in to unmask])