Hypocritical Hollywood? Former Cougar Video owner stunned by decision to re-release edited 'King's Speech' with PG-13 rating

UTAH COUNTY — "I can't believe it."

That's what Kirt Merrill said when he heard producers planned to edit "The King's Speech" and put it on the market in a PG-13 format. Five years ago, Hollywood studios threatened to sue Merrill, former owner of Cougar Video in Provo, for doing just that. As a result, his — and more than half a dozen other Utah video editing companies — shut down.

"That is absolutely hypocritical," he said.

The film, which took home an Academy Award for "Best Picture" Sunday, originally received an R rating for a scene in which Colin Firth, who plays King George VI, is pushed by his speech therapist to use profanity in order to overcome his stutter and says the F-word at least 15 times. Distributors' decision to re-release the movie with less profanity has reignited an old debate about whether or not editing a film compromises its artistic integrity.

A federal judge ruled in 2002 that editing profanity, sex and violence out of films caused "irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies." The decision, and subsequent threat of legal action, prompted the shutdown of more than a half a dozen video editing stores in Utah, including Cougar Video.

The Weinstein Company announced they wanted to make the film more "family-friendly," but the decision was largely economical. PG-13 films make 25 to 35 percent more money at the box office than R-rated films with similar content, according to a recent BYU study. "The King's Speech" has already made more than $115 million in the United States. With the rating change, the film is projected to earn millions more.

Director Tom Hooper, however, wasn't involved in the new editing process. Before the company announced plans to release a PG-13 version, he told Entertainment Weekly that "I wouldn't support cutting the film in any way."

Firth has been vehement about his opposition to the move.

"I think the film has its integrity as it stands… It serves a purpose," he said. "I'm not someone who's casual about that kind of language ... But in the context of the film, it couldn't be more edifying, more appropriate. It's not vicious or insulting. It's not in the context that might offend… I still haven't met the person who'd object to it."

In Merrill's opinion, the situation "is so ironic, it's almost offensive."