After much controversy and debate, Harvey Weinstein, The King’s Speech’s executive producer/distributor, has succeeded in re-editing the internationally acclaimed drama to garner a PG-13 rating from the MPAA. This kindler, gentler version will hit theaters after the Oscars, replacing the R version. So if you want to see the film nominated for the Oscar – best get to the theaters now.

Last month Weinstein first announced his plan to re-cut The King’s Speech in order to get the more family-friendly rating of PG-13. He proposed that by cutting the curse words from the film, families could see it en masse–as they can in England where the rating allowed younger audiences to attend. When The King’s Speech’s director, Tom Hooper, was reached for comment on the proposed clean cut, he said he opposed re-editing the film for younger audiences saying:

“I don’t think it needs to be cut down. I think every 13-year-old knows [the words], I think every 8-year-old [does]. It’s the whole point of it. It’s not to be offensive. I think they said they were going to put the bleeps. [The film] is not violent. It’s full of humanity and wit. [It's] for people not with just a speech impediment, but who have got confidence [doubts]. Everyone who has a sense of inadequacy, which is practically everyone.”

Now for those of you who haven’t seen The King’s Speech, the scenes in question center on the protagonist discovering he is not hindered by his stutter when he curses – so when his speech stumbles, he spouts profanity. It’s actually a charming moment in the film, where the always-reserved King (Colin Firth) devolves into a hissing, spitting mad man for a moment. Yes, he curses profusely – but its context is not one of rage but relatable frustration – like when you stub your toe or get KO’d in Smash Brothers (Just me? Moving on…) Anyway, the idea of bleeping out the curse words seems an attack on the idea of re-editing the movie that earned Hooper his first Oscar nod. It’s a decidedly unfilmic move, but now that the movie is beginning re-cut for a PG-13 re-release –will Weinstein be “cutting the fuck out of the King’s Speech,” as Roger Ebert tweeted back in January, or will he be bleeping out four-letter words as if it’s already on TBS? No idea. All Variety has said of the release is that it will take place 90 days after the R-rated version is removed from theaters, and the marketing will make it clear this is a freshly edited version.

Unarguably, this revision is a flat-out cash grab, which seems absurd when the movie has already managed to earn worldwide acclaim and make over $200,000,000 worldwide – more than 13 times it’s budget. Will a family-friendly period piece centered on the British monarchy attract hordes of American families? I doubt it. But that’s not really the point. The reason this whole business is so offensive is that if The King’s Speech, which has earned both praise and a rousing box office, can be so openly changed despite the wishes of its heralded director – what’s next?

Last December Weinstein valiantly fought the MPAA to overturn Blue Valentine’s unwarranted NC-17 rating, and refused to re-cut that film. He was a hero to filmmakers and film fans, fighting the unjust rating system rather than kowtowing to it. Initially The King’s Speech was also part of this battle, but the Weinsteins silently withdrew this appeal, perhaps to better push for Blue Valentine. However, now Weinstein is happily marring one of his films to gain a wider audience. This certainly speaks to the two-faced nature of the wily Weinstein, who one moment is doggedly supporting a challenging filmmaker and the next is making public revisions to a film against the director’s wishes. This of course is the ugly side of the movie business, but it’s not something that should be overlooked or ignored. And while I am personally sick to death of filmmakers pulling punches to achieve a PG-13 rating, the possibility of the crude bleeps making their way into film is deeply disturbing. This kind of mutilating family-friendly movie editing should be reserved to television, where the crudest and most crass moments of films are retrofitted into absurdity. In the end, this is a truly troubling news item, and I’m earnestly hoping the re-release fails miserably.

What do you think about this proposed revision? Are you more likely to see The King’s Speech? If so – which version?