Studios, Boxer Battle Over Film Labels : Entertainment: She co-sponsors a bill requiring detailed disclaimers on altered versions of movies. Industry spokesman urges companies not to donate money to her.

The motion picture industry is up in arms over California Sen. Barbara Boxer’s decision to side with directors and writers in a battle over film labeling that has split the movie industry.

Boxer and Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Assn. of America, engaged in a near-shouting match on the phone last month over the issue, which focuses on disclaimers for films that are materially altered for other markets after their commercial release.

It pits the creative side of the business--directors, writers and cinematographers--against the major studios, which own the films and depend on the secondary markets for much of their profit.

By signing on as a co-sponsor of legislation that would force movie makers to tack detailed disclaimers onto altered films, Boxer, a Democrat, has infuriated the big Hollywood studios--and they’ve threatened to retaliate.

“The battle lines are drawn,” Valenti wrote in a memo to the chief executives of his member companies last month. “Today I had a vigorous conversation with Sen. Barbara Boxer. Unhappily, the senator has now decided to cast her lot with the Directors Guild and their insistence on disparaging labels on every movie aired on TV, home video, airlines, etc.”

The proposed legislation would require labels that specify the amount of time edited out of films and the types of technical alterations performed to make the film suitable for other formats. Also, the names of the director, screenwriter or cinematographer would be listed if they were upset by the changes, as would the reasons for their objections.

The studios say such labeling would have the effect of denigrating their films and would discourage viewing.

To make the point abundantly clear, Valenti urged the studio heads to punish Boxer by withholding political contributions.

“Sen. Boxer is likely to contact many of you in the weeks and months ahead. I request that when she does you might politely bring up the subject of a cause which is important to us and how she stands on that issue.”

During the two election cycles since 1992, Boxer has received $26,000 from movie industry political action committees. But that figure does not include thousands of dollars in contributions from individuals--presumably many prominent Hollywood producers and studio heads--that may now be in jeopardy.

Boxer’s office said Thursday that the senator has received not a single phone call or letter on the legislation since the Valenti conversation, which she termed “a spirited conversation between friends.”

She views the bill as a consumer-protection issue that fits logically into her legislative track record.

“Throughout my congressional career I have always been a strong supporter of consumers’ right to know. Therefore, it should be no surprise that I believe that viewers have a right to know that the movie they are watching has been altered.”

While the memo’s release brought the long-simmering issue to a sudden boil, bills in both houses of Congress have little chance of seeing action--let alone passage--in the remaining months of the hectic 104th Congress.

*

“It is very heavily opposed by the dominant political opinion in Los Angeles,” said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), sponsor of the House bill, “and it’s a hard thing to move something out of the House against the film industry’s general vision.”

Frank also concedes that his bill seeks to protect aesthetic sensibilities in a multibillion-dollar industry that slavishly worships the bottom line.

“For most people this is a somewhat abstract and intellectual position, versus a more serious financial one. In terms of political weight that’s damaging.”

The bill now lies dormant in the courts and intellectual property subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Carlos J. Moorhead (R-Glendale), who opposes the measure in its present form. Four other Southern Californians sit on the 15-member subcommittee, Republican Reps. Elton Gallegly of Simi Valley and Sonny Bono of Palm Springs, who oppose the bill, and Democrats Howard L. Berman of Panorama City and Xavier Becerra of Los Angeles, who remain uncommitted.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Boxer’s Democratic colleague, has not taken a final position on the virtually identical Senate bill, introduced by Sen. Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.).

Moorhead held a field hearing this summer in Pasadena on the House bill, known as the Film Disclosure Act, but no further action is scheduled in Washington. Simpson’s bill--the Film Labeling Act--has only been introduced and awaits a subcommittee assignment.

The issue is a ticklish one for California Democrats, who have natural constituencies in both warring camps of the movie business. Most would prefer that the two sides work out a compromise that avoids a difficult vote. But that seems unlikely because the two sides are so dug in on their positions.

And with Republicans in control of both houses, congressional staffers and industry sources are puzzled why Boxer would take such a hard stance on a sensitive issue in the absence of any political necessity to do so.

“It’s boggling,” said an industry insider. “The bill is going nowhere in the deregulatory environment [on Capitol Hill]. It’s probably a dead issue.”

The dispute centers on what happens to a commercial film after it is altered or manipulated for other formats--television, cable, videocassette, airline and others.

The studios--and their investors--need the ancillary markets to lead a film to the hoped-for promised land of profitability. To adapt to the other formats, the films may by colorized, edited, shown at a imperceptibly faster or slower rate to fit into a TV programming schedule, or “panned and scanned” (fitting the horizontal theater image into a rectangular TV screen).

After battling with directors, writers and cinematographers over what kind of labeling should be used to alert viewers to such changes, the Motion Picture Assn. of America announced in October, 1993, a voluntary labeling program that explains--albeit briefly--what has befallen the original version. (For example: “This film has been modified from its original version. It has been formatted to fit your TV, and edited for content and to run in the time allotted.”)

But directors and writers want far more detailed information about the alterations included in the label, as well as the names of filmmakers who object to the changes. The House and Senate bills would require the studios to make such information known to the consumer.

“When a viewer reads that MPAA label informing him that the movie he is about to watch has been ‘edited for content,’ does that mean 30 seconds or 30 minutes have been removed from the original work?” the Directors Guild asked at the time. The labels also give no inkling about how the director and writer feel about the changes, the Guild says.

Here is an example from the House bill of the more detailed labels under consideration:

*

“This film is not the version originally released. 6 mins. and 22 secs. have been cut. The director, John Brown, and screenwriter, Allison Smith, object because this alteration changes the narrative and/or characterization. It has also been panned and scanned. The director and cinematographer, Andrew Jones, object because this alteration removes visual information and changes the composition of the images. It has also been electronically speeded up. The director objects because this alteration changes the pace of the performances.”

The industry says a federally mandated labeling system is unnecessary because of the voluntary system now in place. More important, a complicated, sharply critical disclaimer would be off-putting to consumers.

“The voluntary label that is in use today informs the consumer without disparaging the film,” said Jeffrey P. Eves, president of the Video Software Dealers Assn. while testifying at Moorhead’s hearing in Pasadena. “They know that the experience of watching a movie in their living room is different than watching it in a darkened theater. Consumers do not need a warning label to tell them that.”