'Eyes' Shut for 65 seconds (Variety)
Rick Adams
lm_eyes_1.html
Sunday July 11 9:38 PM ET
MPAA Shuts 'Eyes' For 65 Seconds
By Todd McCarthy, Daily Variety Chief Film Critic
HOLLYWOOD (Variety) - ``Eyes Wide Shut'' will be seen by the American
public just as Stanley Kubrick finished it before his death in March --
with the exception of 65 seconds of sexual material that was required to
undergo a ``digital adjustment,'' according to the film's executive
producer, Jan Harlan.
In an extraordinary gesture immediately following the film's first
screening for some Los Angeles critics Thursday, Harlan, who was
Kubrick's brother-in-law, asked the group to stay for a few minutes
while he explained and showed the alterations the Motion Picture Assn of
America (MPAA) had demanded before it would issue an R rating.
The sequence in question is a large-scale orgy scene in which Tom
Cruise's caped and masked character walks from room to room through an
enormous mansion observing the depraved activities of the elite guests.
As seen by the critics during the film's screening, the sequence showed
various nude couples engaged in what could politely be described as
vigorous copulation, although always artfully arranged so as not to
reveal any genitalia -- in other words, standard softcore simulation.
Afterward, Harlan presented the sequence in the form that will be seen
by U.S. audiences, in which digitally created human figures -- caped and
hooded individuals, stationary nude women -- have been strategically
imposed in front of the actors so as to obscure the offending action;
it's the newfangled, digital version of the black bar historically used
by newspapers and magazines to blot out censorable elements of photos
they still wished to run.
No shots were actually eliminated or abbreviated, and you can still tell
what's going on, but viewers just can't see it so clearly; it's like
having tall men in hats sitting in front of you and still trying to get
a glimpse of what's onscreen.
Watching the two versions back-to-back provides a vivid insight into the
MPAA's do's and don'ts: nudity and pretend sex is OK, but visible
thrusting, and naked and active crotch-to-crotch contact is not, even if
nothing private is on view.
The difference in impact between the two versions is negligible, and
actually seeing what the MPAA considers NC-17-worthy makes the
organization's nit-picking seem absurd, especially given the gruesomely
graphic violence to which it routinely applies R ratings.
``Eyes Wide Shut'' opens domestically July 16.
--
Martin Koolhoven
> he explained and showed the alterations the Motion Picture Assn of
> America (MPAA) had demanded before it would issue an R rating.
Had demanded....
> No shots were actually eliminated or abbreviated, and you can still tell
> what's going on, but viewers just can't see it so clearly; it's like
> having tall men in hats sitting in front of you and still trying to get
> a glimpse of what's onscreen.
Damn it. Just as i thought.
I really hope Europe gets the normal version.
Martin Koolhoven
Remove the first 'n' in kool...@xs4all.nl to e-mail me.
tattooyou
version. The R rating in Ontario is exactly the same as NC-17, except it's
18.
America prides itself on freedom of speech - kind of ironic that they will
get the censored version.
Martin Koolhoven <kool...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:1duueja.1t7...@node10e13.a2000.nl...
Wolfds
>What really annoys me is that here in Canada, we will get the censored US
>version. The R rating in Ontario is exactly the same as NC-17, except it's
>18.
>America prides itself on freedom of speech - kind of ironic that they will
>get the censored version.
>
>
Not really. This was a decision to go with an R rating, not a censorship per
se. The government has not stepped in to prevent Kubrick's vision from being
shown, which is what the First Amendment of the US Constitution protects--not
private action.
Dave
RAYMBEN
have seen the R-rated version of the film, and the scene in question is
powerful as it is. If they had seen the censored version FIRST, and then shown
the uncensored version, I would bet that they would say, "Oh, well, it really
doesn't make that much difference." I could understand how if one saw the
censored version virst, then the digital figures would seem more pronounced and
noticeable. I'm telling you, it looked fine to me, and had I not known that
the scene was censored, I wouldn't have known it!
As you know, SK cut ACO from an X to an R. I never saw the X, and now no one
can. As I understand it, the cut didn't really make much difference in the
film.
Sure, I'd rather have the original EWS, but what can you do? Still, the film
is absolutely great no matter what...
--RB
Joseph Martin
>
> RAYMBEN <ray...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm telling you, it looked fine to me, and had I not known that
> > the scene was censored, I wouldn't have known it!
>
Scenes WERE cut. You can't tell me Kubrick didn't leave some footage on
the cutting room floor. Is that censorship? Admittedly, cutting scenes
because you want to and altering scenes because your contract requires
you to are a bit different, but not by much. Either way, I hardly think
it qualifies as censorship.
Josh
rick nelson
>
> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/re/story.html?s=v/nm/19990711/re/fi
> lm_eyes_1.html
>
> The difference in impact between the two versions is negligible, and
> actually seeing what the MPAA considers NC-17-worthy makes the
> organization's nit-picking seem absurd, especially given the gruesomely
> graphic violence to which it routinely applies R ratings.
Stop the madness! Ban the MPAA! Put it in a museum, where it belongs.
Support unrated independent films. If no one applies for a rating,
they'll have no relevance.
rick
T minus 4 and counting.
rick nelson
>
> America prides itself on freedom of speech - kind of ironic that they will
> get the censored version.
Oh, we have Freedom of Speech alright. We can be Nazis and march in
Idaho and Skokie; we can publish web pages that slander and suggest
violence towards our teachers while publishing their addresses and be
protected by the ACLU; we can piss on a Crucifix and call it art; we can
buy guns easier than we can get a driver's license, and carry them in
public; we can lay off thousands of workers and lease fleets of Lincolns
and Jaguars for corporate visitors (Northrop Grumman).
Oh yeah. We got freedom running out our asses.
Now, if we just had some toilet paper. Or is it bathroom paper? Huh,
Duchesse?
Re: Freedom:
"Yeah, but sayin' it and doin' it's two separate things."
Jack Nicholson from "Easy Rider"
rick nelson
Ok, we just got Martin cooled down. Don't go riling him all up again.
rick
Martin Koolhoven
> I'm telling you, it looked fine to me, and had I not known that
> the scene was censored, I wouldn't have known it!
Then again, if they would have cut out scenes, you wouldn't have either.
Martin Koolhoven
> Martin Koolhoven wrote:
> >
> > RAYMBEN <ray...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm telling you, it looked fine to me, and had I not known that
> > > the scene was censored, I wouldn't have known it!
> >
> > Then again, if they would have cut out scenes, you wouldn't have either.
>
> Scenes WERE cut. You can't tell me Kubrick didn't leave some footage on
> the cutting room floor.
You know what I meant.
Josh Martin
Then the government will come along and create their own rating system!
Brilliant scheme!
Josh
Wolfds
>Also who said anything about
>constitution, the issue was freedom of speech.
If you want to refer to freedom of speech in the United States, the place to
look is most definitely the Constitution, from where it derives.
>If someone with
>power prevents a movie goer from seeing the movie as it was intended
>that is censorship.
>
Accepting arguendo that SK intended to release a version strapped with the
NC-17, I still disagree. What WB is doing, by >>covering<< the sixty-five
seconds, is a business move (not that I'm all that happy that this is the way
it has to work). WB paid for the film and they fear for the returns on an
NC-17. I'm not going to get into a semantics debate, but it's qualitatively
different from censorship.
Dave
Osmo Ronkanen
Wolfds <wol...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Not really. This was a decision to go with an R rating, not a censorship per
>se. The government has not stepped in to prevent Kubrick's vision from being
>shown, which is what the First Amendment of the US Constitution protects--not
>private action.
Well I believe that it is the bottom line that counts. Whether there is
government action or not does not count. Also who said anything about
constitution, the issue was freedom of speech.
Just maybe the divisions to federal, state and individual action
devised in the 19th century do not work well when we are 500 days from
the 21st century. One needs to take a broader look. If someone with
power prevents a movie goer from seeing the movie as it was intended
that is censorship.
In fact somehow I am happier if the decisions are done by
democratically elected representatives of the people than some people
whom I cannot vote.
Osmo
Martin Koolhoven
> Then the government will come along and create their own rating system!
> Brilliant scheme!
I seriously doubt wether it would be any worse.
RAYMOND PETERSON
blockbuster. Follow this up with a vigorous letter-writing campaign to the
MPAA. There's stuff in movies and TV now you would have never seen 10, 15 years
ago. Success at the cash register has a way of making people loosen their moral
restrictions a little.
Josh Martin wrote:
> rick nelson wrote:
> >
> > Rick Adams wrote:
> > >
> > > http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/re/story.html?s=v/nm/19990711/re/fi
> > > lm_eyes_1.html
> > >
> > > The difference in impact between the two versions is negligible, and
> > > actually seeing what the MPAA considers NC-17-worthy makes the
> > > organization's nit-picking seem absurd, especially given the gruesomely
> > > graphic violence to which it routinely applies R ratings.
> >
> > Stop the madness! Ban the MPAA! Put it in a museum, where it belongs.
> > Support unrated independent films. If no one applies for a rating,
> > they'll have no relevance.
>
> Then the government will come along and create their own rating system!
> Brilliant scheme!
>
> Josh
rick nelson
>
> rick nelson wrote:
> >
> > Rick Adams wrote:
> > >
> > > http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/re/story.html?s=v/nm/19990711/re/fi
> > > lm_eyes_1.html
> > >
> > > The difference in impact between the two versions is negligible, and
> > > actually seeing what the MPAA considers NC-17-worthy makes the
> > > organization's nit-picking seem absurd, especially given the gruesomely
> > > graphic violence to which it routinely applies R ratings.
> >
> > Stop the madness! Ban the MPAA! Put it in a museum, where it belongs.
> > Support unrated independent films. If no one applies for a rating,
> > they'll have no relevance.
>
> Then the government will come along and create their own rating system!
> Brilliant scheme!
>
> Josh
Sorry, I guess my sarcasm wasn't apparent. I was responding in the same
rabid dog tone of outrage as the "censorists".
I *do* believe in supporting unrated indies though.
rick
T minus 2 and counting.
Wolfds
>Well, the government stepped in INDIRECTLY since the US ratings system is
>controlling
>what films may be released with an R-rating
The MPAA, whatever its flaws, is not an arm of the US government.
>It may not be a direct sencure, but it sure
>comes close.
>It's like saying to a distributor "I'll make you an offer you can't
>refuse".
I really disagree with all this outrage. Christ, you want to talk about
self-censorship, let's look at Lolita. How would SK have filmed it today?
Surely, the official version is not SK's vision as it would have been with a
>>free<< hand.
What about the twenty minutes >>censored<< (due to supposed audience--US?--
boredom) from 2001? If SK didn't have to worry about audience reaction, he
might have left 2001 alone. Instead, it was >>censored<<.
And, in truth, I'd much rather see the twenty missing minutes from 2001 than to
have the 65 seconds of EWS uncovered.
Wasn't the threesome sex scene in ACO sped up too? More censorship.
The fact is SK chose to make EWS inside the American studio system. To
describe what is happening as censorship is so much hyperbole it proves that
some people want something, anything, to complain about.
Why don't we wait to see how it plays before remonstrating?
Dave
Osmo Ronkanen
Wolfds <wol...@aol.com> wrote:
>ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi writes:
>
>>Also who said anything about
>>constitution, the issue was freedom of speech.
>
>look is most definitely the Constitution, from where it derives.
Freedom of speech is an universal concept and not in anyway limited to
the US constitution.
>
>>If someone with
>>power prevents a movie goer from seeing the movie as it was intended
>>that is censorship.
>>
>
>Accepting arguendo that SK intended to release a version strapped with the
>NC-17, I still disagree. What WB is doing, by >>covering<< the sixty-five
>seconds, is a business move (not that I'm all that happy that this is the way
>it has to work). WB paid for the film and they fear for the returns on an
>NC-17. I'm not going to get into a semantics debate, but it's qualitatively
>different from censorship.
>
If there was a deal on R rating then I'd not be that willing to call it
censorship. However, why was there such a deal? Maybe because NC-17
movies do not get shown on so many theaters thanks to various pressure
groups. This is censorship even though there is no government involved.
Osmo
Sean Bratnober
but I don't remember it coming close to what EWS had. Seemed like we saw way more
in this movie. Another funny thing about the MPAA. Seems like America's moral
consciousness is directly proportional to the amount of money spent on somehting.
It's like I read earlier in this thread; everyone keep going back and watching the
movie 20 times, make it a blockbuster a la Titanic and maybe the MPAA and
Hollywood will loosen up about al this crap. Money talks.