When an artist creates something that is widely embraced and accepted as a part of the larger cultural fabric, I think they do have a greater responsibility outside just themselves and their creation.

What if Michelangelo or Andy Warhol's dying wish were to have all of their artwork destroyed? Do we comply and destroy everything because the artist can do whatever they want?

It's an interesting dilemma.

Yes. Remember the recent Banksy painting that self shredded right after it sold? Artists own their art, regardless of what it means to other people.

I don't know, given the demographics of this forum (mostly dudes in their 40s and 50s) I would imagine the French Connection is pretty popular. Am I wrong? I remember the 2-disc 5 star collection DVD being a big deal when it was released. And there was definitely a lot of chatter when the original blu-ray with the messed up color timing came out. I've definitely watched it 4 or 5 times in the last 20 years.

As an aside, I couldn't help but think of this thread the other night as I watched the original Bad News Bears, a PG film with far more N-bombs than the French Connection. And in that movie it was kids saying it, not racist cops.

I disagree. It's their art and the public doesn't get to own it (but again, the public is also not forced to watch it).

Fine with me - they did the work, they should be able to do whatever they want with it. If a performer doesn't want the audience to record their performance with their phones because they want the experience to exist just in that room for those people at that moment, never to be seen again, that's completely their right. If someone wants to put out an album for a year and then take it out of print, never to be heard as an official release again, that's their right to do so. If someone wants to build an ice sculpture and let it melt, only allowing a few people to see it, that's totally fine.

I think people (especially fandoms) have far too much of an expectation that a creator "owes" them something. They don't. Artists should be allowed to distribute (and stop distributing) their art as they see fit. We as consumers can choose to engage with it or not. So I can think that George Lucas changing Star Wars is ridiculous (and I do think that) but it's his to change. And I can choose to not buy the "Special Super Duper The Stormtroopers Have Walkie-Talkies Now Edition".

As far as I'm concerned, artists set all of the terms for their creations. So if Friedkin wants to change The French Connection, that's fine. I can then choose whether or not I want to watch/buy it.

That may apply when a piece of art is created by a singular artist, but film is probably the most collaborative medium of them all. I know we all lionize auteurs, but a lot of people worked together to make the French Connection what it was.

And Friedkin doesn't own the French Connection. In the case of George Lucas, he literally owned the Star Wars movies. We could argue whether or not he had the artistic right to change them, but he mostly certainly had the legal right. I can't imagine Friedkin has any legal right to edit the French Connection without Disney's approval, but I assume they were more than willing to accommodate him given the nature of the edits.

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think anyone involved with making the movie who's still alive cares about the n word being edited out.

Fair enough but every artist has been inspired by another artist since their early childhood. If every artist chose to destroy their works for selfish reasons, what would be around to inspire the next generation of artists?

Everyone has a differing opinion of art but I would think much of the reason for creating art is to leave something behind which could inspire and educate many generations after you die.

Is this film not able to inspire young film makers with the n world removed? Was that the lynchpin holding the film together?

Wow. You have been in contact with the hundreds of people who worked on this film? Impressive!

I get that the word is horrendous but so are rape, murder and torture, can we edit/ban all of the films, TV shows, novels, music, video games, comic books and stage plays that portray those acts? Let's take it one step further and paint over all cave paintings and drawings that have depicted violence since the dawn of man.

That's a pretty baseless supposition, but also not really the point. My point is that Friedkin shouldn't necessarily be able to do whatever he wants to the movie 50 years down the line just by virtue of being the director. And the reality is, he doesn't. Disney ultimately has the final say. They could have told him to screw off, but as I mentioned before, I'm sure they were more than willing to make these specific changes.

I agree it's upsetting that a scene can be edited decades after the fact. It's a precedent I don't like at all.
But let's not lose sight of the fact that all the complaints, in this thread and elsewhere, about this being a sanitation job by Woke Disney were apparently 100% wrong. I don't like that directors can retroactively permanently change their films, but that is entirely a different beast than having a corporation due to in the interest of public relations.

you think hundreds of people that worked on a film released 50+ years ago are still alive?

I have zero idea who is still alive that worked on the film. But your statement was pretty silly. You have zero idea what anyone who worked on the film thought then or now, regardless of whether they were alive or not.

I think that assuming a random lighting or costume designer not caring about the n word being removed 52 years after release is reasonable. Who would care, in your opinion? If not the director, what position in the creation process all these years later would read about this edit and be mad? You really think some 85+ year old is sitting back right now and thinking their work was ruined by this?

Yes and no. Like I mentioned earlier, unless Friedkin has some sort of ironclad contractual final cut in perpetuity, ultimately Disney is in control of the movie. It may not have been their idea, but they were willing to go along with it. And my guess is that the nature of the edits made them happy to do so. What possible leverage could Friedkin have otherwise had? And for the record, this is not me going on some anti-Disney rant or anything, just stating what I believe to be the truth given what we think we know.
​​​​

Maybe the editor who won the Oscar for his work on the French Connection? But he conveniently died a couple of years before this edit was allegedly made.

And let's not forget we went through this very same thing a decade or so ago when Friedkin radically changed the color timing. The cinematographer called b.s. and they eventually went back and fixed it. Friedkin has since claimed that it was all a mix-up and he never intended to change anything, but that was pretty much a "my Twitter was hacked" level excuse.

I don't think that's the job of an artist unless they want it to be.

I'm sure some artists want to do just that and would continue to do so. I also think some artists are fine with their work never being seen outside of their home. The point being there is an infinite number of ways that artists choose to express themselves, so having some kind of "rule" that once art is in the world the artist no longer controls it seems way too restrictive to me.

And again, fandoms that claim ownership of things others have actually done the work to create have always rubbed me the wrong way.

I don't there's such a thing as "filmmaking ethics", but if there were, this would be an interesting topic : Who is the studio beholden to -- the filmmaker or the filmgoing public? Disney pledged to be a good caretaker for the expansive Fox library and to not sanitize it once they acquired it, but they also (I assume) want to be a filmmaker-friendly studio. So what should they do when those two interests are in conflict? I don't like this outcome, but honestly, I don't know the answer.

Friedkin was a good craftsman-for-hire who turned out a solid police thriller that gained a large, paying audience and impressed enough film critics to pave the way for numerous awards including the Oscar for Best Picture. He's not an artist, at least not by my standards (whatever those are). He should not be allowed to edit something he worked on 50 years after the fact, especially since he doesn't own the copyright. Frankly, I'm not sure any filmmaker should be allowed that unless they own the copyright and wrote, produced and directed the thing. Not even Orson Welles could claim that. The studio which owns the film has the right to release a so-called "director's cut" should they so choose to devote the resources to create one, which has often happened long after the director has passed on. Universal released a Blu-ray of Welles's TOUCH OF EVIL (1958) containing three different versions so no changes or edits were forced on any of the movie's fans.

Of course, the studios are not in a position to complain since they so often allowed the wholesale editing of their films for television, including the outright butchery TV stations committed when they cut down movies to fit a two-hour network time slot (with at least 20 min. of that time devoted to commercials). There was enough outcry over this in the early days of the networks' "Saturday Night at the Movies" broadcasts that they began to expand the time slot and/or divide the movie into two parts to show on consecutive nights. But they still were allowed to edit out problematic content. The studios could have put stipulations in the licensing agreements that the films shown would never be cut for time reasons and any edits for content would have to be approved by the studio, with input from the filmmakers. But the studios were too greedy for network licensing fees and didn't want anything to get in the way. Thus we got pay cable.

Most people haven’t thought of it. I assume most of you guys are film buffs. I feel The French Connection is up there with the timeless films I think about and will revisit my whole life.

Not sure why there's an uproar then. If most here are film buffs and love this film - then it's probably already in your collection.. uncensored. So it shouldn't be a big deal.

It's not about the French Connection per se. It's the principle and the precedent. It probably won't lead to large swaths of movies being wiped from the history books, but it kind of validates the fears a lot of us have about all this stuff being in the cloud and at the mercy of the rights holders.

If someone was a current fan, they should have the movie on disc. All the movies I love I own. Let them change shit. I have the movie and memories.

I have a DVD. Rather than just rebuying the Blu Ray, I bought an HDX digital copy to upgrade.