Q&A with Jan Harlan
Simon Spiegel
Switzerland, did a Screening of ACO on Thursday in the presence of Jan
Harlan, Kubrick's brother in law and executive producer of all his films
since Barry Lyndon. Harlan came all the way from London to bring us a
brandew print of ACO. The quality was absolutely stunning.
Jan Harlan is a very charming and modest man whose life seems to be
completey devoted to SK. While being in Zürich he gave a lecture at the
University and after our screening he did a little Q&A. I also had the
chance to have dinner with him and talk a lot about Kubrick and his films.
Some rumors set aside by Harlan:
- SK has never intended to fil "The Perfume" by Süskind. I read this at
several places, but according to Harlan it is definitely not true.
- The ending of Spielberg's A.I. was as SK had written it. Spielberg's
main change was the softening of the character of Gigolo Joe. According
to Harlan SK's version wouldn't have been possible anyway (MPAA rating
and all).
- Concerning EWS: After Kubrick died Harlan personally negiotiated with
the MPAA and they objected to the "accumulation of full frontal female
nudity" (what an expression!). So the problem was not the scene in
itself but the duration of how long naked women are show. According to
Harlan this wouldn't have been a problem if SK had still lived. Quote:
"He only needed to cut back to Cruise several times. One afternoon on
the Avid and issue would have been solved." But for Harlan it was
unthinkable to change anything about SK's cut, so he came up with the
black shadows. A bad solution IMO.
Right now, Harlan is working on DVD extras for the new edition of the
Stanley Kubrick Collection. Warners is negotiating with MGM to get their
films as well and have a more complete collection. Among the new extras
we will see unused art design etchings and drawings for 2001, much more
material shot for Harlan's documentary and some of Kubrick's early
shorts (I'm not really sure if they will release all, "Day of the Fight"
will definitely be on the DVD). We *wont* see "Fear and Desire". Harlan
has no intention to ever release this, in his opinion this would be
against SK's will.
Harlan is also preparing a book about Kubrick's Napoleon project.
Kubrick had a huge collection of contemporary drawings, prints etc.
which he wanted to use for the film. They are all scanned and part of a
big database with keywords and everything. The book will be published
together with a CD containg some/all (I don't know) of this database. So
we will be able to search through this database.
And last but not least, Harlan is preparing a big exhibition on Kubrick
which will first be shown in Frankfurt and then go (among others) to
Zürich and London.
cheers
simon
--
Simon Spiegel
Miles Long
"Simon Spiegel" <si...@removethis.simifilm.ch> wrote in message
news:3ecf2330$0$1045$5402...@news.sunrise.ch...
> Right now, Harlan is working on DVD extras for the new edition of the
> Stanley Kubrick Collection.
Un-fucking-believable! A THIRD DVD set?
Nope, they won't get my money again. Next time I expect to buy these things
will be the HD-DVD versions.
Simon Spiegel
Miles Long wrote:
I said to Harlan: "Oh no, I already own it, but I'm sure I will buy it
again just for the extras."- "I guess that's WB's idea." :)
--
Simon Spiegel
Simon Spiegel
Lord Bullingdon wrote:
> What about that silly Dr. Know, with Robin Williams' voice? Spielberg
> also didn't use CGI on David's face, as Kubrick planned, probably
> because it would be too expensive...
We didn't talk long about A.I. Since I realised quickly that Harlan was
happy with Spielberg's result. I hated the movie (or better: its last
third) and it was obvious that we would have ended up arguing. And since
he was our guest and a really nice person I didn't want to get into
that. The only thing he said about David was that Kubrick was afraid
that a real kid could grow too much during the long production. They
spent quite some time and money to have artifical boys build which
looked, according to Harlan, ridiculous. He mentioned that Kubrick was
considering CGI for David, but I don't think anything was decided at
that moment.
>>- Concerning EWS: After Kubrick died Harlan personally negiotiated with
>>the MPAA and they objected to the "accumulation of full frontal female
>>nudity" (what an expression!).
>
>
> :) Accumulation is a funny way to describe it..The important thing to
> them is for how long you see the nudity, not the way it is presented.
That's the words the MPAA used, and Harlan quoted them word by word
since he thought too that it was quite funny. A little OT: he also said
that the MPAA has a lot of rules about female nudity but not one line
about male nudity...
>>Harlan is also preparing a book about Kubrick's Napoleon project.
>>Kubrick had a huge collection of contemporary drawings, prints etc.
>>which he wanted to use for the film. They are all scanned and part of a
>>big database with keywords and everything. The book will be published
>>together with a CD containg some/all (I don't know) of this database. So
>>we will be able to search through this database.
>
>
> Did you ask him if there are any producers/directors interested in
> filming it? Right now hollywood is very interested in big epics and
> "historical" movies, after the huge success of Gladiator. There are
> two projects on Alexander The Great, for example. Maybe someone will
> be interested in Napoleon too!
I didn't ask him that but since he didn't mention it I don't think that
anything is going on right now, at least nothing he would talk about in
public.
--
Simon Spiegel
Thornhill
there the same objections when other sorts of alternatives popped-up,
eg, Grammophone records being replaced by LPs, or, LPs being replaced
by tape and CDs?, video being replaced by DVDs, etc,
"this-year's-model," etc?).
As for the ending of "A.I.," that's quite fine news, especially as
that film has, particularly at AMK, largely taken the "pretender to
the throne" 'throne' (which is rather more like a toilet seat).
Thanks for all the juicy tidbits.
Thornhill
would there be the Simon Spiegel <si...@removethis.simifilm.ch> wrote in message news:<3ecf2330$0$1045$5402...@news.sunrise.ch>...
Jan
> unthinkable to change anything about SK's cut, so he came up with the
> black shadows. A bad solution IMO.
Yes, it's bad but what's the alternative? At least this way the
original version exists (no Leon is coming to my place burning my HK
DVD :-) )
> We *wont* see "Fear and Desire". Harlan
> has no intention to ever release this, in his opinion this would be
> against SK's will.
That's fine but (as I never seem to get tired of pointing out) a clean
print and a clean video transfer *should* be made for deposition at a
research library and with restricted access (or no access) until some
fixed future date, say 2050 or something. Doing anything else is
cultural vandalism. The general idea behind all this is that artists
do not command their work's fate for all time. This is well
established in all arts except film although the recording industry
suffers from a similar blind spot to some extent.
Jan Bielawski
TansalQ
> The Filmstelle (www.filmstelle.ch), one of the oldest student cinemas in
> Switzerland, did a Screening of ACO on Thursday in the presence of Jan
> Harlan, Kubrick's brother in law and executive producer of all his films
> since Barry Lyndon. Harlan came all the way from London to bring us a
> brandew print of ACO. The quality was absolutely stunning.
>
> Jan Harlan is a very charming and modest man whose life seems to be
> completey devoted to SK. While being in Zürich he gave a lecture at the
> University and after our screening he did a little Q&A. I also had the
> chance to have dinner with him and talk a lot about Kubrick and his films.
What a wonderful opportunity. What language was the discussion conducted in?
> Some rumors set aside by Harlan:
> - SK has never intended to fil "The Perfume" by Süskind. I read this at
> several places, but according to Harlan it is definitely not true.
> - The ending of Spielberg's A.I. was as SK had written it. Spielberg's
> main change was the softening of the character of Gigolo Joe. According
> to Harlan SK's version wouldn't have been possible anyway (MPAA rating
> and all).
It would have been interesting to have seen Gigolo Joe as this darker
character, but I rather like Spielberg's solution as it is.
> - Concerning EWS: After Kubrick died Harlan personally negiotiated with
> the MPAA and they objected to the "accumulation of full frontal female
> nudity" (what an expression!). So the problem was not the scene in
> itself but the duration of how long naked women are show. According to
> Harlan this wouldn't have been a problem if SK had still lived. Quote:
> "He only needed to cut back to Cruise several times. One afternoon on
> the Avid and issue would have been solved." But for Harlan it was
> unthinkable to change anything about SK's cut, so he came up with the
> black shadows. A bad solution IMO.
I think it was the best solution under the circumstances. I would be more
opposed to any fiddling with the editing in this case than with the rather
tastefully done addition of the cloaked figures. Thematically, it even fits
into the scheme of the film and the scenes in the mansion.
> Right now, Harlan is working on DVD extras for the new edition of the
> Stanley Kubrick Collection. Warners is negotiating with MGM to get their
> films as well and have a more complete collection. Among the new extras
> we will see unused art design etchings and drawings for 2001, much more
> material shot for Harlan's documentary and some of Kubrick's early
> shorts (I'm not really sure if they will release all, "Day of the Fight"
> will definitely be on the DVD). We *wont* see "Fear and Desire". Harlan
> has no intention to ever release this, in his opinion this would be
> against SK's will.
I respect that SK didn't want this film released. However, I'm weary of
this idea of releasing a third complete collection. To me, the first set
was a despicable marketing grab for bucks, rushed to coincide with EWS.
Shame on Warner. The second set revealed a considerable improvement to the
audio and video of the films, which are of course the essential bits to the
DVDs. This justified its purchase for me. To justify a third purchase,
this new set would have to make a considerable statement for itself as an
improvement over the last set. They can't do anything more to the audio or
video. They might decide to release some of the films cropped to 16:9 and
anamorphically enhanced. But the thing that would sway me is if there were
extensive commentaries on most of the films or interviews or documentaries
of substantial worth. Knick-knack extras wouldn't convince me of the
purchase, such as storyboards or behind the scenes photos or what have you.
Tansal
TansalQ
> We didn't talk long about A.I. Since I realised quickly that Harlan was
> happy with Spielberg's result. I hated the movie (or better: its last
> third) and it was obvious that we would have ended up arguing. And since
> he was our guest and a really nice person I didn't want to get into
> that. The only thing he said about David was that Kubrick was afraid
> that a real kid could grow too much during the long production. They
> spent quite some time and money to have artifical boys build which
> looked, according to Harlan, ridiculous. He mentioned that Kubrick was
> considering CGI for David, but I don't think anything was decided at
> that moment.
I am happy with Spielberg's result, too. I wonder if SK were still alive
today, that the film would still remain in preproduction and that he won't
have been able to decide on the best method for David. CGI still needs time
to make it work believably, though Gollum was impressively done, I don't
think that technology would work as well for a character meant to look like
a real human boy. The artificial boys reportedly didn't work well in this
regard either. They'd have to use a real boy if they intended to make the
movie in the next decade. And then they'd have to find a way to shoot it
fast enough to minimize the aging of the actor. I think Spielberg found the
best solution to that, working very fast with a very capable actor who was
still young enough for the part at the time that shooting began. I can
hardly imagine any other boy actor in that role.
Tansal
TansalQ
> That's fine but (as I never seem to get tired of pointing out) a clean
> print and a clean video transfer *should* be made for deposition at a
> research library and with restricted access (or no access) until some
> fixed future date, say 2050 or something. Doing anything else is
> cultural vandalism. The general idea behind all this is that artists
> do not command their work's fate for all time. This is well
> established in all arts except film although the recording industry
> suffers from a similar blind spot to some extent.
That's true. Music and Movies seem most affected by this stance. I think
it has to do with their relative youth. We're witnessing, with the advances
in technology and the internet, a decay in the music industries iron grasp
of controlling their product in every way they can. Supposing the industry
is doomed and collapses, the worst that will happen is that things will
still be better than they were in the years before the invention of the
gramophone - that is, artists will work live much as they did over a hundred
years ago when recording was virtually nonexistent, but they will also have
today's technology to produce their own product and find novel ways of
distribution, the internet being perhaps the easiest way besides selling on
tour. It puts more power in the hands of the artists, less in the power of
the industry that has made its fortunes exploiting artists. We have seen
some great things over time as a result of the industry, but I'm not as
opposed to change as some people are and so I don't mourn its death.
Movies will last quite a bit longer in this regard, I believe. They're very
complex things compared to all the other arts. But over time, all of these
works of art should enter the public domain for use as the public deems
appropriate - basically, whatever they please themselves to do. We've seen
some remarkable and different adaptations of Shakespeare over the years, and
why shouldn't we be able to do this with everything else.
At the very least, you are correct that Fear And Desire ought to be
subjected to the same level of restoration that saw the other films of
Kubrick's oeuvre. After that, when or how they decide to release it is up
to the estate. But at least the film will have been saved. Even SK himself
didn't destroy it completely. He just removed it from distribution as best
he could.
Tansal
Lev28
main change was the softening of the character of Gigolo Joe. According
to Harlan SK's version wouldn't have been possible anyway (MPAA rating
hmmm...seems like Jan Harlan has recently learnt the word "impossible"....
<< Concerning EWS: After Kubrick died Harlan personally negiotiated with
the MPAA and they objected to the "accumulation of full frontal female
nudity" (what an expression!). So the problem was not the scene in
itself but the duration of how long naked women are show. According to
Harlan this wouldn't have been a problem if SK had still lived. Quote:
"He only needed to cut back to Cruise several times. One afternoon on
the Avid and issue would have been solved." But for Harlan it was
unthinkable to change anything about SK's cut, so he came up with the
black shadows. A bad solution IMO.
Right now, Harlan is working on DVD extras for the new edition of the
Stanley Kubrick Collection. Warners is negotiating with MGM to get their
films as well and have a more complete collection. Among the new extras
we will see unused art design etchings and drawings for 2001, much more
material shot for Harlan's documentary and some of Kubrick's early
shorts (I'm not really sure if they will release all, "Day of the Fight"
will definitely be on the DVD). We *wont* see "Fear and Desire". Harlan
has no intention to ever release this, in his opinion this would be
against SK's will. >><BR><BR>
Anyone feel as uncomfortable with all this as I do?
Philip Sondericker
cthor...@worldnet.att.net wrote on 5/24/03 11:37 AM:
> Great news! (as for the unhappy purchasers of the earlier set, were
> there the same objections when other sorts of alternatives popped-up,
> eg, Grammophone records being replaced by LPs, or, LPs being replaced
> by tape and CDs?, video being replaced by DVDs, etc,
> "this-year's-model," etc?).
LPs lasted for decades. VHS videos likewise were around for many years. This
is not new technology we're talking about. This is simply a case of
reissuing the same product several times, each time with a little bit
"extra" added to it. It's become fairly standard practice, and yes, it's a
scam.
Matthew Dickinson
> > - The ending of Spielberg's A.I. was as SK had written it. Spielberg's
> > main change was the softening of the character of Gigolo Joe. According
> > to Harlan SK's version wouldn't have been possible anyway (MPAA rating
> > and all).
>
> What about that silly Dr. Know, with Robin Williams' voice? Spielberg
> also didn't use CGI on David's face, as Kubrick planned, probably
> because it would be too expensive...
Kubrick probably wouldn't have used Robin Williams, but I doubt this
scene was all that different in Kubrick's version, except it might
have been a little more pathetic. The very point is for Dr. Know to be
silly and worthless and for David not to be able to understand this
(in this respect it's a lot like the "helpful" AI bots many commercial
websites employ to answer FAQ and the like). David is bent on
believing in every blue fairy he can find regardless of how many times
his illusion is destroyed. Just like mankind.
Matthew
Matthew Dickinson
Thanks for the news, very interesting. Did he say anything at all
about releasing AI or Aryan Papers screenplays? Or anything else about
AI (such as what exactly about the ending of AI was as Kubrick had
written it)?
Matthew
Gordon Dahlquist
> << The ending of Spielberg's A.I. was as SK had written it. Spielberg's
> main change was the softening of the character of Gigolo Joe. According
> to Harlan SK's version wouldn't have been possible anyway (MPAA rating
> and all). >><BR><BR>
>
> hmmm...seems like Jan Harlan has recently learnt the word "impossible"....
whereas we get to learn "crock of shit" ...
> << Concerning EWS: After Kubrick died Harlan personally negiotiated with
> the MPAA and they objected to the "accumulation of full frontal female
> nudity" (what an expression!). So the problem was not the scene in
> itself but the duration of how long naked women are show. According to
> Harlan this wouldn't have been a problem if SK had still lived. Quote:
> "He only needed to cut back to Cruise several times. One afternoon on
> the Avid and issue would have been solved." But for Harlan it was
> unthinkable to change anything about SK's cut, so he came up with the
> black shadows. A bad solution IMO.
>
> Right now, Harlan is working on DVD extras for the new edition of the
> Stanley Kubrick Collection. Warners is negotiating with MGM to get their
> films as well and have a more complete collection. Among the new extras
> we will see unused art design etchings and drawings for 2001, much more
> material shot for Harlan's documentary and some of Kubrick's early
> shorts (I'm not really sure if they will release all, "Day of the Fight"
> will definitely be on the DVD). We *wont* see "Fear and Desire". Harlan
> has no intention to ever release this, in his opinion this would be
> against SK's will. >><BR><BR>
>
> Anyone feel as uncomfortable with all this as I do?
yep.
Gordon Dahlquist
no, matt. the problem with ai is 1) someone else filmed kubrick's
unifinished screenply and 2) someone else filmed kubrick's unfinished
screenplay. what I mean is 1) the instinct and sensibility behing the
project is not the same one that has conceived and galvanized the project
and 2) for no major film of kubrick's - at least since lolita - did the
screenplay as written not undergo serious and constant revision - by
kubrick - during filming, and then again during post-production. saying
ai is anything like "what kubrick would have done" because they filmed him
(unfinished) screenplay and were "as faithful as possible" to his
production notes should tell anyone with a shred of knowledge about
kubrick's methods that, at best, they've cobbled together half of what he
would have had for the finished film. and of course few people know that
better than jan harlan, no matter what crap he spouts about spielberg's
film.
Josh
I second that.
The last third of the film, the part that everyone takes shots at, is actually
my favorite part of it. I've always thought it was a bogus comment that the
ending was all Spielberg and that he was ruining Kubrick's ending. If they'd
actually taken the time to read some of the source material, they'd see that
the ending wasn't Spielberg's idea. The movie is supposed to be a futuristic
adult fairy tale - why shouldn't it have a fairy tale ending?
Josh
Me (cool stuff) http://members.aol.com/vertigoman/me
CDR Trading:
http://members.aol.com/vertigoman/me/bootlist.html
Thornhill
> in article ded391d8.03052...@posting.google.com, Thornhill at
> cthor...@worldnet.att.net wrote on 5/24/03 11:37 AM:
>
> > Great news! (as for the unhappy purchasers of the earlier set, were
> > there the same objections when other sorts of alternatives popped-up,
> > eg, Grammophone records being replaced by LPs, or, LPs being replaced
> > by tape and CDs?, video being replaced by DVDs, etc,
> > "this-year's-model," etc?).
>
> LPs lasted for decades. VHS videos likewise were around for many years. This
> is not new technology we're talking about.
Hence my, "other sorts of alternatives..."
>This is simply a case of
> reissuing the same product several times, each time with a little bit
> "extra" added to it. It's become fairly standard practice, and yes, it's a
> scam.
Yes, it's a bit cut-throat, and if SK had lived, there surely wouldn't
have been such a rush to the gold room, and 3 times over. A special
rebate incentive for owners of each previous set when purchasing the
newest? But, there's a precident we're unlikely to see.
Thornhill
TansalQ
> TansalQ <tan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<BAF54C52.1EBC0%
>>
>> CGI still needs time
>> to make it work believably, though Gollum was impressively done, I don't
>> think that technology would work as well for a character meant to look like
>> a real human boy. The artificial boys reportedly didn't work well in this
>> regard either. They'd have to use a real boy if they intended to make the
>> movie in the next decade.
>
> I don't know, maybe it would be possible. Kubrick was famous for
> making films which used technology in a way no one had done before.
> 2001 was decades ahead of its time. It still looks incredibly good
> today, even better than most sci-fi movies.
>
> Have you seen the "Mental Health" clip by Chris Cunningham? I think
> that it proves that it IS possible to work with human faces, with good
> results. It was made three years ago...
>
> http://www.director-file.com/cunningham/531.html
>
> (download the mpg version, the resolution is quite good)
>
> L.B.
>
> P.S. If I remember correctly, it was Cunningham who made the
> prototypes of robots for Kubrick!
This is interesting, but it still requires the use of a human actor, which
in the case of the rapidly aging child would still be a source of problems.
Tansal
P.S. That looks too creepy for parents to adopt and feel natural about.
TansalQ
>> I am happy with Spielberg's result, too.
>
> I second that.
>
> The last third of the film, the part that everyone takes shots at, is actually
> my favorite part of it. I've always thought it was a bogus comment that the
> ending was all Spielberg and that he was ruining Kubrick's ending. If they'd
> actually taken the time to read some of the source material, they'd see that
> the ending wasn't Spielberg's idea. The movie is supposed to be a futuristic
> adult fairy tale - why shouldn't it have a fairy tale ending?
The idea that the last third was Spielberg's and not Kubrick's has been
discredited by now. I've ready plenty to suggest that this last third was
as outlined by Kubrick. The only thing where I've heard - from only one
source which may or may not be reliable - is that the ending in Kubrick's
version was slightly but significantly different. It goes like this:
After spending a day with the synthetic Monica, David watches as she fades
away at the end of the day, leaving him alone for eternity. The End.
I'm not sure that Kubrick would have ended up using this ending, and this
certainly goes against every bone in Spielberg's body, which is why if this
ending existed in the first place, he didn't use it. But the ending of A.I.
works for me as is.
Tansal
P.S. I don't think being a Kubrick fan should keep anyone from being a
Spielberg fan if he/she wants to. But it seems like a lot of people in this
group have a visceral dislike of anything Spielberg. I like quite a few of
his movies. I think he's made compelling work since Saving Private Ryan.
All of his films since then, including Ryan, have interested me.
TansalQ
I think this is a useful interpretation. If I'm not mistaken, A.O. Scott's
terrific review of the film expanded on this point.
Tansal
Philip Sondericker
> Yes, it's a bit cut-throat, and if SK had lived, there surely wouldn't
> have been such a rush to the gold room, and 3 times over. A special
> rebate incentive for owners of each previous set when purchasing the
> newest? But, there's a precident we're unlikely to see.
>
> Thornhill
I'll go this far in defending the studios--fan hunger for new material is so
insatiable that even a money-grubbing studio can be forgiven for not always
anticipating it.
Padraig L Henry
><< The ending of Spielberg's A.I. was as SK had written it. Spielberg's
>main change was the softening of the character of Gigolo Joe. According
>to Harlan SK's version wouldn't have been possible anyway (MPAA rating
>and all). >><BR><BR>
>
>hmmm...seems like Jan Harlan has recently learnt the word "impossible"....
Yes, Harlan is advancing the - now entirely understandable -
leveraged view that Spielberg's realised "version" was superior to
Kubrick's planned realisation. But shure what would Kubrick know
anyway? After all, he couldn't even come up with a version, according
to Harlan, that would "have been possible anyway."
But "we" know what's best for these "awkward", unrealistic artists,
don't we? Shure, why don't they just let Spielberg re-make 2001 while
they're at it; I'm sure he could come up with a better, more
acceptable and softened-down version for today's mass audience. Wasn't
SK's version oh-so impossible, anyway?
>
><< Concerning EWS: After Kubrick died Harlan personally negiotiated with
>the MPAA and they objected to the "accumulation of full frontal female
>nudity" (what an expression!). So the problem was not the scene in
>itself but the duration of how long naked women are show. According to
>Harlan this wouldn't have been a problem if SK had still lived. Quote:
>"He only needed to cut back to Cruise several times. One afternoon on
>the Avid and issue would have been solved." But for Harlan it was
>unthinkable to change anything about SK's cut, so he came up with the
>black shadows. A bad solution IMO.
>
>Right now, Harlan is working on DVD extras for the new edition of the
>Stanley Kubrick Collection. Warners is negotiating with MGM to get their
>films as well and have a more complete collection. Among the new extras
>we will see unused art design etchings and drawings for 2001, much more
>material shot for Harlan's documentary and some of Kubrick's early
>shorts (I'm not really sure if they will release all, "Day of the Fight"
>will definitely be on the DVD). We *wont* see "Fear and Desire". Harlan
>has no intention to ever release this, in his opinion this would be
>against SK's will. >><BR><BR>
>
>Anyone feel as uncomfortable with all this as I do?
Of course its "uncomfortable", as you say. They had no problem quickly
re-releasing ACO in Britain, against Kubrick's wishes, just a year
after his death. But shure that's easily rationalised, right?
Padraig
M4RV1N
writes:
>The Filmstelle (www.filmstelle.ch), one of the oldest student cinemas in
>Switzerland, did a Screening of ACO on Thursday in the presence of Jan
>Harlan, Kubrick's brother in law and executive producer of all his films
>since Barry Lyndon. Harlan came all the way from London to bring us a
>brandnew print of ACO. The quality was absolutely stunning.
>Jan Harlan is a very charming and modest man whose life seems to be
>completey devoted to SK. While being in Zürich he gave a lecture at the
>University and after our screening he did a little Q&A. I also had the
>chance to have dinner with him and talk a lot about Kubrick and his films.
>Some rumors set aside by Harlan:
>- SK has never intended to fil "The Perfume" by Süskind. I read this at
>several places, but according to Harlan it is definitely not true.
Interesting. Looks like the FAQ will have to be adjusted, but I wish I could
recall where the info about "Purfume" came from in the first place.
>- The ending of Spielberg's A.I. was as SK had written it.
This is false. This needs to be said calmly and clearly, and the message needs
to reach Jan Harlan, so that he understands it.
There are multiple sources which indicate unambiguously that parts of
Spielberg's screenplay, and most especially the ending, are totally at odds
with Kubrick's intentions with the story. The notion that humans are "special"
in the way that Spielberg developed and wrote it, is a total denial of
Kubrick's actual intent with the work, which was to make us think of A I as
worthy of our respect (not fear/prejudice) and to ultimately regard them as our
children. It would be accurate to characterize Spielberg's ending as a
sabatoge of these ideas.
Having said that, overall, I think it's a very good science fiction film, and
vastly better than most of what supposedly passes for being science fiction.
>Spielberg's
>main change was the softening of the character of Gigolo Joe.
It's correct that he made this change (it was mentioned by Dennis Muren and
others), but it pales in comparison to the change of Spielberg's ending as
discussed above.
>- Concerning EWS: After Kubrick died Harlan personally negiotiated with
>the MPAA and they objected to the "accumulation of full frontal female
>nudity" (what an expression!). So the problem was not the scene in
>itself but the duration of how long naked women are show. According to
>Harlan this wouldn't have been a problem if SK had still lived. Quote:
>"He only needed to cut back to Cruise several times. One afternoon on
>the Avid and issue would have been solved." But for Harlan it was
>unthinkable to change anything about SK's cut, so he came up with the
>black shadows. A bad solution IMO.
>
>Right now, Harlan is working on DVD extras for the new edition of the
>Stanley Kubrick Collection. Warners is negotiating with MGM to get their
>films as well and have a more complete collection. Among the new extras
>we will see unused art design etchings and drawings for 2001, much more
>material shot for Harlan's documentary and some of Kubrick's early
>shorts (I'm not really sure if they will release all, "Day of the Fight"
>will definitely be on the DVD). We *wont* see "Fear and Desire". Harlan
>has no intention to ever release this, in his opinion this would be
>against SK's will.
That is appropriate. It was really a "student film"; that he had the moxy to
get released. I do think it should be available at libraries or film schools,
but not as an item for sale representing SK's work.
>Harlan is also preparing a book about Kubrick's Napoleon project.
>Kubrick had a huge collection of contemporary drawings, prints etc.
>which he wanted to use for the film. They are all scanned and part of a
>big database with keywords and everything. The book will be published
>together with a CD containg some/all (I don't know) of this database. So
>we will be able to search through this database.
That is amazing news. It will be fascinating to see what imagery or detail was
used in BL.
>And last but not least, Harlan is preparing a big exhibition on Kubrick
>which will first be shown in Frankfurt and then go (among others) to
>Zürich and London.
Hope this hits our shores. Thanks for the info.
Mark Ervin
Lev28
re-releasing ACO in Britain, against Kubrick's wishes, just a year
after his death. But shure that's easily rationalised, right? >>
the part that gives me the heebie-jeebies is that Harlan now has a career as
the great man's spokesman. Enjoying all the festival visits he was 'denied' in
the bad old days...Has there been a Harlan putsch in the house of Kubrick? Is
this what Padraig senses and has been much maligned for?
PT Caffey
> Thanks for the news, very interesting. Did he say anything at all
> about releasing AI or Aryan Papers screenplays? Or anything else about
> AI (such as what exactly about the ending of AI was as Kubrick had
> written it)?
>
> Matthew
They plan to release the final draft of "Aryan Papers" one page at a
time, in beautiful clothbound editions ($39.95 each), over a span of
136 years.
PT Caffey
Matthew Dickinson
Gordon, understand I realize all of this and agree with you. I know
that Kubrick constantly revised his scripts and films during every
stage of production. But in the context of what I was saying this
isn't contradicted. By "Kubrick's version" I meant the unfinished
screenplays. Judging what Kubrick would have done with them is any
fan's guess, but our best bet at knowing what he would have done does
lie in Spielberg's film, because it's all we got (unfortunately). I'd
love to read Kubrick's scripts and I wish they were published much
more than I wish Spielberg or anyone else ever made their own version,
though I do like his film on its own. We'd go by these scripts if we
had them, though with the caveat that they were unfinished and would
have changed drastically during production. That said, I still think
it's likely Spielberg's version of this scene is closer in *meaning*
than it is to what Lord Bullingdon was suggesting (though maybe I
misunderstood him given that he said so little). But a lot of people
felt this scene to be very un-Kubrick-like, even unnecessary, and I
don't think that's *entirely* true. I extrapolated from that, making
further judgements, and, of course, I think this film is very
different from Kubrick's scripts and the version he would have filmed
had he lived, but I don't think speculation about what he would have
done is therefore worthless.
Originally I didn't buy the sudden "news" that Kubrick had offered
Spielberg the project, but subsequent stories have convinced me that
some version of this story must have been true. I'm still bothered by
the way it was handled, what little information has still been given
to the public, and so forth. For one thing, I'd like to know precisely
what date Kubrick offered the project to him and what the screenplays
were like then. Given that Ian Watson and Sara Maitland (and others?)
were brought in after this, it certainly seems Kubrick had changed his
mind, had new ideas about the project, and wanted to direct it
himself. Even Jan Harlan has contradicted himself by saying that
Kubrick was planning on filming it after Eyes Wide Shut - a very
disturbing contradiction, because if it's true there's no basis
whatsoever that Spielberg should have (or was meant) to direct it
(Kubrick's later wishes hold sway over his previous ones). I have a
suspicion that the version Kubrick offered Spielberg was not only
different but tailored *for* him, probably simplified, which may have
had something to due with why Spielberg felt justified in rewriting it
to his own liking. I really wish he, Jan Harlan and others would come
out in detail on this subject, which is much more complex than they
make it out to be. I know, it's ridiculous.
(One other thing - if Spielberg had not made his version I wouldn't
argue that Kubrick's scripts *should* be published, just as I don't
presently argue that Kubrick's diary *should* be published. But given
that he did make it and it obviously differs substantially from
Kubrick's scripts, it is only fair that they are published so that
Spielberg's film doesn't stand as a final statement on the subject,
and as our only reference point beyond the few interviews the
collaborators have given).
Matthew
Simon Spiegel
>
>
>
>>A little OT: he also said
>>that the MPAA has a lot of rules about female nudity but not one line
>>about male nudity...
>>
>
>
> How can it be? We don't usualy see full frontal male nudity in
> american "rated R" movies, there must be a reason for that. Maybe it
> is so obvious that it wont be accepted that they simply leave it
> unsaid.
>
> L.B.
Exactly. Obviously, for Americans a naked man is such on obscene thing
that they don't even have to write down that you can't show it... At
least, that's my interpretation.
--
Simon Spiegel
"Ein Philosoph, den ich nicht verstehe, ist ein Schuft." André Breton
Simon Spiegel
> Simon Spiegel <si...@removethis.simifilm.ch> wrote in message news:<3ecf2330$0$1045$5402...@news.sunrise.ch>...
>
>>But for Harlan it was
>>unthinkable to change anything about SK's cut, so he came up with the
>>black shadows. A bad solution IMO.
>
> Yes, it's bad but what's the alternative? At least this way the
> original version exists (no Leon is coming to my place burning my HK
> DVD :-) )
Of course opinions to differ here, but if it really was a question of,
let's say two cuts, I would have preferred those, even if they hadn't
been authorized by the great man himself. The current solution seems
like a much stronger change to me. Anyway, since I'm in Europe I don't
care too much.
>>We *wont* see "Fear and Desire". Harlan
>>has no intention to ever release this, in his opinion this would be
>>against SK's will.
>
>
> That's fine but (as I never seem to get tired of pointing out) a clean
> print and a clean video transfer *should* be made for deposition at a
> research library and with restricted access (or no access) until some
> fixed future date, say 2050 or something. Doing anything else is
> cultural vandalism. The general idea behind all this is that artists
> do not command their work's fate for all time. This is well
> established in all arts except film although the recording industry
> suffers from a similar blind spot to some extent.
I'm not definitely sure here. But Harlan said that he's cooperating with
film archives and that they have copies of Kubrick's old films. I don't
know if this also includes F&D.
--
Simon Spiegel
"Zukunft ist gut für alle." Dr. Guido Brömmer
Simon Spiegel
> On 5/24/03 3:46 AM, "Simon Spiegel" <si...@removethis.simifilm.ch> wrote:
>
>
>>Jan Harlan is a very charming and modest man whose life seems to be
>>completey devoted to SK. While being in Zürich he gave a lecture at the
>>University and after our screening he did a little Q&A. I also had the
>>chance to have dinner with him and talk a lot about Kubrick and his films.
>
>
> What a wonderful opportunity. What language was the discussion conducted in?
German and Swiss Dialect. ;) To my great surprise Harlan spoke almost
Swiss Dialect almost fluently (which is really a rare thing). He has
lived in Zürich for several years when he was young and visits the city
regularly.
>
> I respect that SK didn't want this film released. However, I'm weary of
> this idea of releasing a third complete collection. To me, the first set
> was a despicable marketing grab for bucks, rushed to coincide with EWS.
> Shame on Warner. The second set revealed a considerable improvement to the
> audio and video of the films, which are of course the essential bits to the
> DVDs. This justified its purchase for me. To justify a third purchase,
> this new set would have to make a considerable statement for itself as an
> improvement over the last set. They can't do anything more to the audio or
> video. They might decide to release some of the films cropped to 16:9 and
> anamorphically enhanced. But the thing that would sway me is if there were
> extensive commentaries on most of the films or interviews or documentaries
> of substantial worth. Knick-knack extras wouldn't convince me of the
> purchase, such as storyboards or behind the scenes photos or what have you.
>
> Tansal
If I understood him correctly, they try to have a more complete
collection this time, adding films not owned by WB. Of course, I see
your point, but on the other hand you could argue, that everyone who
hasn't bought the collection will be happy about the bonuses. It's like
with computers: wait half a year and you'll always get something better
for the money.
--
Simon Spiegel
"To you, I'm an atheist; to God, I am the Loyal Opposition." Woody Allen
Steve O'Keefe
Simon Spiegel wrote:
>>According to Harlan SK's version wouldn't have
>>been possible anyway (MPAA rating and all).
It's quite likely Gigolo Joe went into "NC-17" territory in the "A.I."
treatments. Perhaps "SK's version wouldn't have been possible" for
Spielberg, considering SS's box office history.
Simon Spiegel wrote:
>>German and Swiss Dialect. ;) To my great
>>surprise Harlan spoke almost Swiss Dialect
>>almost fluently (which is really a rare thing).
le...@aol.com (Lev28) wrote:
> hmmm...seems like Jan Harlan has recently learnt the word "impossible"....
Those were Simon Spiegel's words, and Simon is relating/translating
Jan Harlan's comments from the filmstelle Q&A held in "German and
Swiss Dialect". Considering the aforementioned, I'm can't imagine
myself flying off the handle at this.
Simon Spiegel wrote:
>>Concerning EWS: After Kubrick died Harlan personally
>>negiotiated with the MPAA and they objected to the
>>"accumulation of full frontal female nudity" (what an
>>expression!). So the problem was not the scene in
>>itself but the duration of how long naked women are show.
Again, "accumulation of full frontal female nudity" was a translation
of Simon's from the filmstelle Q&A. Incidentally, KKH did comment on
the MPAA issue (and I can't help but reiterate how sad it is to see
her antagonized on AMK re-reading a post like this):
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=0bcbda70.948aef27%40usw-ex0104-087.remarq.com
Simon Spiegel wrote:
>>Right now, Harlan is working on DVD extras for the new
>>edition of the Stanley Kubrick Collection. Warners is
>>negotiating with MGM to get their films as well and
>>have a more complete collection. Among the new extras
>> we will see unused art design etchings and drawings for
>>2001, much more material shot for Harlan's documentary
>>and some of Kubrick's early >> shorts (I'm not really sure
>>if they will release all, "Day of the Fight" will definitely
>>be on the DVD). We *wont* see "Fear and Desire". Harlan
>> has no intention to ever release this, in his opinion this
>>would be >> against SK's will.
le...@aol.com (Lev28) wrote:
> Anyone feel as uncomfortable with all this as I do?
I think more viewers would aquire the MGM SK titles if they were
bundled in the larger Warners boxed set, although the MGM DVDs look
fine and are quite inexpensive. I'm guessing the new extras are for
the eventual HD-DVD Kubrick collection release. Extras like
production sketches have always been available in book form, though
posters and promotional campaign art were lacking from the initial DVD
releases, IMO. There is apparently lots of great interview footage
remaining from Harlan's doc, so I'm sure those interviews will be
interesting. "Day of the Fight" was SK's boxing documentary for RKO,
and I can't say that 16 min short has much interest for me. I'd guess
some "completists" will be happy to have that not left idle in RKO's
vaults, however. If holding back on "Fear and Desire" is respecting
SK's wishes (and the film is as terrible as I've read) it's not a
problem if I never see it. Likewise for the (unmentioned) "Seafarers"
industrial promo...SK's photography is the only interest I would find
there. The 9min "The flying padre" might be of interest to me if only
as a contrast to SK's later take on priesthood in POG.
le...@aol.com (Lev28) wrote:
>the part that gives me the heebie-jeebies is that Harlan now
>has a career as the great man's spokesman.
>Enjoying all the festival visits he was 'denied' in
>the bad old days...Has there been a Harlan putsch in the
>house of Kubrick? Is this what Padraig senses and has
>been much maligned for?
It seems pretty obvious to me CK and her brother JH are attempting to
set the media record straight on SK, settle his estate and tie-up
unfinished works while they can "do the circuit", as it were (CK is
70, and JH may be near his 70's). I bet they are more familiar with
SK and his wishes than you, me or Padraig, so why not (at the very
least ) give them the benefit of the doubt.
Regards,
Steve
Matthew Dickinson
Are you sure that's not 114 years?
Matthew
Josh
>discredited by now.
I know, but every A.I. detractor is still holding on to that, blaming Spielberg
for creating an ending they didn't like and trampling over SK's intentions.
The so-called bootleg "Kubrick cut" on the internet is not only a ridiculous
but also an incredible demonstration of how ignorant some people are. The idea
behind that cut (as well as the people who hate A.I. because they feel Kubrick
didn't come up with that ending) is that Spielberg, who actually was a friend
of Kubrick's, didn't really know the man or understand his work, but they, as
people who have never met the man, have an entirely more sophisticated
understanding of SK and know what he would and wouldn't do. That Spielberg
worked from conceptual material by SK is irrelevant; without that material,
those elitist wannabe fans know more about A.I. and SK than someone who a) had
access to all of SK's materials, b) was assisted by SK's family, c)
collaborated with SK's longtime producer and associate, and d) was a friend of
SK's who was actually asked to direct the film by SK, who felt that Spielberg's
touch was suited to the material. I'm sorry, but if you think that you know
more about what SK would or wouldn't do or what he did or didn't intend than
someone like Spielberg who fits into that criteria, you have your head pretty
far up your ass. It's one thing to simply dislike the movie. It's another
thing to say that Spielberg ruined it and that anything you liked in there was
SK's and anything you didn't wasn't.
Josh
>> scene was all that different in Kubrick's version, except it might
>> have been a little more pathetic. The very point is for Dr. Know to be
>> silly and worthless
I think Robin Williams was perfect for that part. He addresses David with such
excitement and energy that it's cute and amusing to watch at first, but as the
scene progresses you realize it's very much like calling customer service for
something and getting stuck in one of those automated menus when all you want
is to speak to another human being.
Josh
are simply lacking in common sense. Given that, and given that Eyes Wide Shut
would not have been released as an NC-17 feature in the U.S., I think Harlan
chose the lesser of two evils when it was decided to digitally censor some of
the nudity to get the "R" over actually recutting the scene. Recutting the
scene could have changed the pacing and rhythm. The 'Austin Powers' version
still makes it clear what's going on - I just don't see how that version is
considered acceptible and the original version is obscene or whatever. If you
want to place blame somewhere, blame the MPAA for being as rigid and dumb as
they are. "The Matrix," with all of its wonderfully cartoony violence, carries
the same rating as "Fight Club" - by the MPAA's ruling, they're equally
inappropriate to someone under the age of 17. "Clerks" was originally given an
NC-17! (It wasn't changed since it was rated R, it's the same version.)
"Jerry Maguire" is rated R, and so is "Trainspotting" - do you think that means
if someone is mature enough to see Jerry Maguire, Trainspotting is
automatically appropriate for them? I think not. And Traffic is PG-13, but
for all of the violence and drug use in that, I'd sooner have my 12 year old
see Jerry Maguire.
The ratings board is out of control, and has been that way at least as long as
I can remember. You can have massive amounts of murder, evil, and darkness in
a "G" movie - take a look at The Lion King, and remember it was made for an all
ages audience. I wouldn't let a three year old watch it. If you say "fuck"
your movie is automatically a PG-13, if not an immediate R. You can have mass
slaughter in a PG-13 movie, but if you say too many curses or show too much
skin, it's an R. If you have male nudity, the movie can easily become NC-17.
But, the R rated movie can be such simply for a few bad words. I cannot think
of any justifiable reason for a movie like "Wonder Boys" to carry an R rating.
And I certainly think there's something wrong when "Eyes Wide Shut" carries the
same restriction as "American Pie." But that's the American ratings system for
you.
The only thing I would hold against WB and maybe Harlan, depending on his role
in this, was not releasing an uncut version of EWS on DVD. So many movies now
are made avaliable in uncut versions on DVD, and usually it's just for the
purpose of throwing in a little more T&A to encourage horny guys to buy the
thing and see their favorite actor naked for longer. It shouldn't even be a
question if the decision to release an unrated version of a film is for
artistic reasons - OK, I understand why WB couldn't release an NC-17 and I
can't blame them for the MPAA. But I can hold it against WB for not putting it
out unrated on DVD, where unrated releases are commonplace.
Thornhill
> It seems pretty obvious to me CK and her brother JH are attempting to
> set the media record straight on SK, settle his estate and tie-up
> unfinished works while they can "do the circuit", as it were (CK is
> 70, and JH may be near his 70's). I bet they are more familiar with
> SK and his wishes than you, me or Padraig, so why not (at the very
> least ) give them the benefit of the doubt.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve
Oh, now stop it, Steve, stop it! You're being far too rational! Why
not give them the benefit of the doubt?? Simple. If the family were
granted that mooncalf request of yours, then the flame-throwing
directed at them would have to stop, apologies would have to be
issued, and whole varieties of posts with such excoriating words as
"highjacked," "stolen," "treachery," "crime," "theft, "shanghai'd" and
"twat," among many others, would have to me entirely discounted,
perhaps even, eaten.
And, how likely is that, really?
I knew that would bring you to your senses. You are a sensible man.
Thornhill
Thornhill
> ...so why not (at the very
> least ) give them the benefit of the doubt.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve
Oh, yeah. Another word that's set for edible retraction, if your
"Johnny-head-in-air" suggestion comes to pass:
"putsch"
Thornhill
Thornhill
> figuei...@hotmail.com (Lord Bullingdon) wrote in message news:<5ee3f0ed.03052...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > - The ending of Spielberg's A.I. was as SK had written it. Spielberg's
> > > and all).
> >
> > also didn't use CGI on David's face, as Kubrick planned, probably
> > because it would be too expensive...
>
> scene was all that different in Kubrick's version, except it might
> have been a little more pathetic. The very point is for Dr. Know to be
> (in this respect it's a lot like the "helpful" AI bots many commercial
> websites employ to answer FAQ and the like). David is bent on
> believing in every blue fairy he can find regardless of how many times
> his illusion is destroyed. Just like mankind.
>
Not sure how you know SK, "probably wouldn't have used Robin
Williams," but, you (and Josh) might be interested in the link below,
to the long-*ish* ago, and far-*ish* away days of AMK. Jump down to
David Sticher's sharp comments, 3rd down.
Other than your one thought about mis-casting Williams, everything
else in your post is razor sharp.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&th=8d97932c18987af4&rnum=2
Thornhill
Thornhill
> least ) give them the benefit of the doubt.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve
Oops. Forgot even another one; a reprehensible, but still potentially
retractable phrase, worthy of a lip-smacking festal banquet:
"crock of shit"
Regarding any *actual* retraction, I am, paradoxically, not holding my
breath.
Thornhill
Simon Spiegel
> << The ending of Spielberg's A.I. was as SK had written it. Spielberg's
> main change was the softening of the character of Gigolo Joe. According
> to Harlan SK's version wouldn't have been possible anyway (MPAA rating
> and all). >><BR><BR>
>
> hmmm...seems like Jan Harlan has recently learnt the word "impossible"....
All he wanted so was that if the orgy scene in EWS had troubles getting
an R rating, Kubrick would have had even more problems with his version
of Gigolo Joe. Nothing more.
test
> le...@aol.com (Lev28) wrote:
>
> Simon Spiegel wrote:
>
>>>According to Harlan SK's version wouldn't have
>>>been possible anyway (MPAA rating and all).
>
>
> It's quite likely Gigolo Joe went into "NC-17" territory in the "A.I."
> treatments. Perhaps "SK's version wouldn't have been possible" for
> Spielberg, considering SS's box office history.
NC-17 wouldn't have been possible for Kubrick either. Sad fact.
> Again, "accumulation of full frontal female nudity" was a translation
> of Simon's from the filmstelle Q&A. Incidentally, KKH did comment on
> the MPAA issue (and I can't help but reiterate how sad it is to see
> her antagonized on AMK re-reading a post like this):
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=0bcbda70.948aef27%40usw-ex0104-087.remarq.com
Actually this is the original english phrasing given by Harlan.
Simon Spiegel
> By the way, I saw the programm of filmestelle! You are very lucky to
> have such a nice cinema there.
Thank you, we try to do our best. Zürich in general is extremely lucky
when it comes to cinemas. I think in Europe there are only about Berlin,
London and Paris which have a better offer. And those are cities more
than ten times the size of Zürich.
> Did you attend the Olympia session?
> I've recently bought Riefenstahl's Olympia and Nuba books, and I have
> a poor copy of Olympia in VHS. It is amazingly Beautiful.
>
> I don't care if she was a nazi, it is impossible to deny her genius.
> Like in Kubrick's films, every frame of her movies is a perfect
> composition.
Of course, Riefenstahl is a visual genius, but you cannot separate her
films from their historical context. To do so would be really ignorant.
And Riefenstahl herself, who still insists that her films have nothing
to do with politics, is either a hyppocrite or really dumb. Anyway, the
thme of our film cycle was scandal provoking films. We didn't show
Olympia just because it's a nice a film but because of its historical
and political context.
--
Simon Spiegel
"Two dead ends and you still got to choose..." Tom Waits
Simon Spiegel
> On 24 May 2003 20:51:12 GMT, le...@aol.com (Lev28) wrote:
>
>
>><< The ending of Spielberg's A.I. was as SK had written it. Spielberg's
>>main change was the softening of the character of Gigolo Joe. According
>>to Harlan SK's version wouldn't have been possible anyway (MPAA rating
>>and all). >><BR><BR>
>>
>>hmmm...seems like Jan Harlan has recently learnt the word "impossible"....
>
>
> Yes, Harlan is advancing the - now entirely understandable -
> leveraged view that Spielberg's realised "version" was superior to
> Kubrick's planned realisation. But shure what would Kubrick know
> anyway? After all, he couldn't even come up with a version, according
> to Harlan, that would "have been possible anyway."
You're reading much into my post which simply isn't there. All Harlan
was saying was that Kubrick's original version of Gigolo Joe wouldn't
have gotten an R rating. And although Harlan is happy about A.I. he
didn't say that it was better than what Kubrick would have done. He
would never say something like that, he worships Kubrick much too much.
You're fighting a strawman here.
--
Simon Spiegel
"Everybody needs money. That's why they call it money." David Mamet
Simon Spiegel
test wrote:
--
Simon Spiegel
Mutschellenstr. 97
8038 Zürich
Telephon: ++41 1 481 48 52
Mobophon: ++41 76 459 60 39
"In a world getting more and more democratic, film directing is the last
resort for dictators." Francis Ford Coppola
Simon Spiegel
Spielberg was to the original script. IT's obvious for anyone (including
Kubrick, Harlan and Kubrick) that Spielberg and Kubrick make different
films. In the end, the only thing that counts is whether the final film
is good or bad. And Harlan didn't say that Spielberg made the film
exactly like Kubrick would have done it, he just said that he didn't
alter the script substantially, this is not the same.
Gordon Dahlquist wrote:
> On Sat, 24 May 2003, Matthew Dickinson wrote:
>
>
>>figuei...@hotmail.com (Lord Bullingdon) wrote in message news:<5ee3f0ed.03052...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>
>>>>- The ending of Spielberg's A.I. was as SK had written it. Spielberg's
>>>>main change was the softening of the character of Gigolo Joe. According
>>>>to Harlan SK's version wouldn't have been possible anyway (MPAA rating
>>>>and all).
>>>
>>>What about that silly Dr. Know, with Robin Williams' voice? Spielberg
>>>also didn't use CGI on David's face, as Kubrick planned, probably
>>>because it would be too expensive...
>>
>>Kubrick probably wouldn't have used Robin Williams, but I doubt this
>>scene was all that different in Kubrick's version, except it might
>>have been a little more pathetic. The very point is for Dr. Know to be
>>silly and worthless and for David not to be able to understand this
>>(in this respect it's a lot like the "helpful" AI bots many commercial
>>websites employ to answer FAQ and the like). David is bent on
>>believing in every blue fairy he can find regardless of how many times
>>his illusion is destroyed. Just like mankind.
>
>
>
> no, matt. the problem with ai is 1) someone else filmed kubrick's
> unifinished screenply and 2) someone else filmed kubrick's unfinished
> screenplay. what I mean is 1) the instinct and sensibility behing the
> project is not the same one that has conceived and galvanized the project
> and 2) for no major film of kubrick's - at least since lolita - did the
> screenplay as written not undergo serious and constant revision - by
> kubrick - during filming, and then again during post-production. saying
> ai is anything like "what kubrick would have done" because they filmed him
> (unfinished) screenplay and were "as faithful as possible" to his
> production notes should tell anyone with a shred of knowledge about
> kubrick's methods that, at best, they've cobbled together half of what he
> would have had for the finished film. and of course few people know that
> better than jan harlan, no matter what crap he spouts about spielberg's
> film.
--
Simon Spiegel
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's
even remotely true!" -- Homer Simpson
Simon Spiegel
>
> Originally I didn't buy the sudden "news" that Kubrick had offered
> Spielberg the project, but subsequent stories have convinced me that
> some version of this story must have been true. I'm still bothered by
> the way it was handled, what little information has still been given
> to the public, and so forth. For one thing, I'd like to know precisely
> what date Kubrick offered the project to him and what the screenplays
> were like then. Given that Ian Watson and Sara Maitland (and others?)
> were brought in after this, it certainly seems Kubrick had changed his
> mind, had new ideas about the project, and wanted to direct it
> himself. Even Jan Harlan has contradicted himself by saying that
> Kubrick was planning on filming it after Eyes Wide Shut - a very
> disturbing contradiction, because if it's true there's no basis
> whatsoever that Spielberg should have (or was meant) to direct it
> (Kubrick's later wishes hold sway over his previous ones). I have a
> suspicion that the version Kubrick offered Spielberg was not only
> different but tailored *for* him, probably simplified, which may have
> had something to due with why Spielberg felt justified in rewriting it
> to his own liking. I really wish he, Jan Harlan and others would come
> out in detail on this subject, which is much more complex than they
> make it out to be. I know, it's ridiculous.
Maybe there never really was a complete script to begin with? I think
you guys put much too much toughts into this. At one point Kubrick
thought that Spielberg would be the perfect the director. While he was
alive this didn't happen. Maybe Spielberg felt uneasy with the idea of a
control freak like Kubrick in his back (that's at least something Harlan
mentioned), maybe Kubrick decided that he still wanted to do it on its
won, maybe both. Anyway, we only have Spielberg's film. Harlan likes it,
I don't. End of discussion.
--
Simon Spiegel
"Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others." Groucho
Marx
Simon Spiegel
> Thanks for the news, very interesting. Did he say anything at all
> about releasing AI or Aryan Papers screenplays? Or anything else about
> AI (such as what exactly about the ending of AI was as Kubrick had
> written it)?
He didn't say anything about Aryan Papers besides that Kubrick cancelled
it because of Schindler's List.
As for the AI ending he said something interesting. According to him, it
was important for Kubrick that the creatures in the end live in perfect
harmony. I always thought that those creatures were aliens, but
obviously they were meant to be AIs. So, while at the end of AI all
human beings are extinguished for reasons unknown, the machines are
still there because the lack all negative emotions like envy, hate etc.
He said that this was a point which probably wasn't clear enough in
Spielberg's version but which was very important to Kubrick.
Steve O'Keefe
>NC-17 wouldn't have been possible for Kubrick either. Sad fact.
Perhaps not possible in the USA, but remember that EWS went uncensored
elsewehere.
TansalQ wrote:
>>What language was the discussion conducted in?
Simon Spiegel wrote:
>>German and Swiss Dialect. ;)
Steve O'Keefe wrote:
>>Again, "accumulation of full frontal female nudity"
>>was a translation of Simon's from the filmstelle Q&A.
Simon Spiegel wrote:
>Actually this is the original english phrasing given by Harlan.
Considering that, it would be quite something to hear the MPAA's list
of complaints after viewing that lengthy, "omnibus" orgy scene re:
accumulated buttocks, accumulated female breats, accumulated female
frontals, accumulated couplings, accumulated thrustings... :-o
Thank you for your report for the Filmstelle event, btw.
Steve
Simon Spiegel
> Simon Spiegel <si...@removethis.simifilm.ch> wrote:
>
>
>>NC-17 wouldn't have been possible for Kubrick either. Sad fact.
>
>
> Perhaps not possible in the USA, but remember that EWS went uncensored
> elsewehere.
I remember that very well. After all, we in Switzerland have seen the
unaltered version. But don't forget that the US market is still the most
important for the majors. If they're convinced that they can't sell a
film there you, as a director, have serious problem. Anyway, with EWS
Kubrick was legally bound to deliever an R rating, and I doubt it would
have been any different with A.I.
Thornhill
> TansalQ wrote:
>
> > On 5/24/03 3:46 AM, "Simon Spiegel" <si...@removethis.simifilm.ch> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Jan Harlan is a very charming and modest man whose life seems to be
> >>completey devoted to SK. While being in Zürich he gave a lecture at the
> >>University and after our screening he did a little Q&A. I also had the
> >>chance to have dinner with him and talk a lot about Kubrick and his films.
> >
> >
> > What a wonderful opportunity. What language was the discussion conducted in?
>
> German and Swiss Dialect. ;) To my great surprise Harlan spoke almost
> Swiss Dialect almost fluently (which is really a rare thing). He has
> lived in Zürich for several years when he was young and visits the city
> regularly.
I'm curious. Is this Swiss dialect Romantsch, or something other?
[snip]
> If I understood him correctly, they try to have a more complete
> collection this time, adding films not owned by WB. Of course, I see
> your point, but on the other hand you could argue, that everyone who
> hasn't bought the collection will be happy about the bonuses. It's like
> with computers: wait half a year and you'll always get something better
> for the money.
Your analogy is better than my 'CDs replacing LPs', etc. Thanks for
all the very interesting info you've posted.
Thornhill
Gordon Dahlquist
give me a fucking break. when warners (and harlan) maintain with a
straight face, as they do, that the version of ews released in the us is
"kubrick's version" when the decisions and solutions for the "edits" took
place after his death and exist in no other version released elsewhere in
the world, and >still< refuse to - with the same explanation - release
any "director's cut" of the film as a supplement or unrated version in the
us, then I stand by my "crock of shit" comment. it's obviously not his
preferential cut and it's obvious that the version as we have wasn't his
decision. did harlan make the best of it, given his options? perhaps he
did, and it's not a personal attack on him to point out that official
statements about the releasing/altering/subsequent non-releasing of
another version haven't been full of evasions and half-truths. if you
want a retraction on this, keep waiting, but I suggest you exhale.
Thornhill
My comment was on your comment. If I were to actually think you'd
actually think about you comment, "crock of shit" (only one amongst
other tangy morsels issued round and about), then I'd have to be an
authentic mooncalf foundling dropped - plunk - on the Isle of Sausage.
I'm not.
Thornhill
Gordon Dahlquist
On Mon, 26 May 2003, Thornhill wrote:
> Gordon Dahlquist <gd...@columbia.edu>
>
> > give me a fucking break. when warners (and harlan) maintain with a
> > straight face, as they do, that the version of ews released in the us is
> > "kubrick's version" when the decisions and solutions for the "edits" took
> > place after his death and exist in no other version released elsewhere in
> > the world, and >still< refuse to - with the same explanation - release
> > any "director's cut" of the film as a supplement or unrated version in the
> > us, then I stand by my "crock of shit" comment. it's obviously not his
> > preferential cut and it's obvious that the version as we have wasn't his
> > decision. did harlan make the best of it, given his options? perhaps he
> > did, and it's not a personal attack on him to point out that official
> > statements about the releasing/altering/subsequent non-releasing of
> > another version haven't been full of evasions and half-truths. if you
> > want a retraction on this, keep waiting, but I suggest you exhale.
>
> My comment was on your comment.
yeah, thus my reply.
> If I were to actually think you'd
> actually think about you comment, "crock of shit" (only one amongst
> other tangy morsels issued round and about)
but not the same as others. I'd suggest that there's a difference between
being calling pr from a producer, who must, perforce, endorse a company
line, a "crock of shit", and using a term like "putsch" in reference to
kubrick family relations (which I don't have any idea about, and which I
don't think it's my place [or interest] to make any such inference) which
seems to have offended you from another post. conflate them if you want,
but it's your action, not mine. nor do I see you in any way considering
my fuller reasoning behind my comment, which I did in fact provide lest
you think it was "merely" a flip comment. it wasn't. in this of all
days, when multiple versions and extra cuts of many many films are
available, I find it really problematic that harlan and warners, between
them, can't put together some kind of release for the non-obscured version
of ews - the final film from perhaps warners' most celebrated director
over the last 30 years. I really don't understand this. these are the
people who have the contracts, the rights, the access. the explanation
has always been "kubrick wouldn't approve of and 'different' version"
and/or "there is no other 'director's cut' - this is his cut". which I
might believe if the obscured figures were in worldwide release, but they
aren't, so in fact it's really obvious that another version of the film is
the kubrick-preferred version. is is just a question of expense? then
just say that. in any case, this is what is informing my comment. do
you disagree with it?
> then I'd have to be an
> authentic mooncalf foundling dropped - plunk - on the Isle of Sausage.
>
> I'm not.
no, but you're not what you say you are either. I'm not a troll, chuck,
and I'm not throwing stones at the kubrick family - however good it feels
leaping to their protection. if the way I made my point offended you,
well, I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm wrong. feel free to disagree.
and if you want to get into it, I'm happy to do so.
Steve O'Keefe
>SK (via JH) "Well, if I have to deliver an R-rated picture the only
thing we can do is superimpose upper people, so that you don't see as
much as I have filmed"
>JH on SK "Because had he lived he wouldn't have done this - he would
have recut it. "
While L.B. continues to accuse JH of contradicting himself in these
two interview quotes, others may easily "fill in the blanks":
The editor of EWS, Nigel Galt, confirmed SK was pursuing the digital
obscuration option before his death: ""We went through exhaustive
digital film testing," recalls Nigel Galt, the movie's Editor, "As
Stanley was well aware that digital effects were going to be needed to
gain the film its 'R' rating in the US. He felt that the quality of
Framestore CFC's tests was the best he'd seen.""
http://www.framestore-cfc.com/feature/eyes_wide_shut/index.html
JH and Nigel Galt (also KKH) stated SK knew digitizing would have to
be done and he clearly pursued this process. KKH also related on AMK
that the digitizing was done after SK passed away. This again
supports the digital film effects for the orgy sequence being TESTED,
not COMPLETED.
Jan Harlan also relates SK's choice for the US version in the reel.com
interview, "Because had he lived he wouldn't have done this — he would
have recut it. But I couldn't do that."
With respect to both JH and Galt's comments, SK likely evaluated the
CFC tests, but decided he would re-cut the scene instead. This would
not be dissimilar to SK exhaustively testing alien life form special
effects for "2001:aso", but later dropping the idea.
Note that SK passed away on March 7, 1999, not even two days after the
initial corporate screening for Warners' Semel & Daley on March 5,
1999:
http://movies.go.com/news/1999/3/kubrick030599.html
Any US MPAA re-edit would of course have to occur after the results of
the MPAA screening and (fill in the blanks) SK would not have received
the MPAA reviews before his untimely death.
As JH admitted, journalists would have been screaming murder if anyone
touched the edit SK delivered to Warners on March 5th. JH has said he
chose the digital film work SK had underway (the best digital film
results) to respect SK's final edit. I should add, the US and
International versions of the orgy sequence are frame-accurate: the
U.S. sequence is "censored", NOT "re-edited". Comments of JH and Nigel
Galt considered, this 'timeline of events' regarding the MPAA-obscured
version of the orgy sequence is entirely plausible and very likely.
As a side-note, Paddy Eason (CFC's senior effects designer at the
time) was a contributor to AMK years before working on the EWS CGI
obscurations.
Regards,
Steve
Thornhill
>
> yeah, thus my reply.
>
> > If I were to actually think you'd
> > actually think about you comment, "crock of shit" (only one amongst
> > other tangy morsels issued round and about)
>
> but not the same as others.
Not the same, but of a piece. A piece of "what," I'll leave to those
who are so given to throwing it.
>I'd suggest that there's a difference between
> being calling pr from a producer, who must, perforce, endorse a company
> line, a "crock of shit", and using a term like "putsch" in reference to
> kubrick family relations (which I don't have any idea about, and which I
> don't think it's my place [or interest] to make any such inference) which
> seems to have offended you from another post.
If you presume that I have been "offended," it might only be due to
such rash, inflammatory, unnecessary, low-grade language that is more
suitable for freshmen high schoolers (not that "putsch" is thrown
around so much by 'kinder', but that doesn't elevate it either). Such
'grungeloquent' 'gadflight' is hardly worthy of your Columbia address,
nor any posters at AMK, actually, barring the occasional influx, and
reflux, of trollish tripe. They are worthy of it, and it of them.
What stops you from carefully, lucidly, making your point without
reverting to cheap BANG-language?
> conflate them if you want,
> but it's your action, not mine. nor do I see you in any way considering
> my fuller reasoning behind my comment, which I did in fact provide lest
> you think it was "merely" a flip comment. it wasn't.
Then you are working as a kind of Stealth Poster, who disguises his
considered intent with considerable gutter talk. The disguise works.
> in this of all
> days, when multiple versions and extra cuts of many many films are
> available, I find it really problematic that harlan and warners, between
> them, can't put together some kind of release for the non-obscured version
> of ews - the final film from perhaps warners' most celebrated director
> over the last 30 years. I really don't understand this. these are the
> people who have the contracts, the rights, the access. the explanation
> has always been "kubrick wouldn't approve of and 'different' version"
> and/or "there is no other 'director's cut' - this is his cut". which I
> might believe if the obscured figures were in worldwide release, but they
> aren't, so in fact it's really obvious that another version of the film is
> the kubrick-preferred version. is is just a question of expense? then
> just say that. in any case, this is what is informing my comment. do
> you disagree with it?
In part, yes, but I think you're allowing things to get unmeshed.
What if the cut as seen in America, and on American video and disc,
WAS Kubrick's cut? Could it be that Kubrick's preferred version *in
America* - only America - IS this cut? What penalties are there, in
America, for instance, for releasing films (especially long films) as
NC-17? Could that have anything to do with such a decision, if such a
decision had been made? To say that the 'authentic' cut is simply the
non-American cut, seems to me presumptuous and unfounded. What would
you say was the 'authentic' cut of "The Shining," for instance? I've
seen, and shown, several different ones.
>
> > then I'd have to be an
> > authentic mooncalf foundling dropped - plunk - on the Isle of Sausage.
> >
> > I'm not.
>
> no, but you're not what you say you are either.
What have I said I am? I are cornfused. But, maybe you and Mark
really onto something ("Link, or pattie? Best, or wurst?).
> I'm not a troll, chuck,
What value have you derived from stating the above?
> and I'm not throwing stones at the kubrick family - however good it feels
> leaping to their protection.
1) no, not "stones," (said the Houyhnhnm to the Yahoo) and,
2) you actually think a 'country boy' can leap "to their protection."
C'est fou!
> if the way I made my point offended you,
> well, I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm wrong. feel free to disagree.
> and if you want to get into it, I'm happy to do so.
Here's my major point: Your point is illogical, and does not follow
the premises you yourself have set out. But, you're welcome to
dispute my potential 're-meshing' of your point.
Thornhill
Gordon Dahlquist
yeah, but none of that works for this situation.
first, there was quite a public to-do when the film was submitted to the
mpaa, and the digital figures were added, in order to secure an r rating,
to which kubrick/kubrick-estate was contractually obligated. and yes, of
course, I understand the problems of an nc-17 film (which is an appalling
situation in this country, but another matter) but that's only an issue
for warners, not for k/k-e, as they've been contractually obliged to
deliver an r-rated film. this is clear to me (though, as I side not, I do
wonder if the mpaa would have been so firm with their decision had kubrick
been alive, or whether warners might have fought harder had kubrick been
alive - again, all moot, and I understand why they're moot). harlan/k-e
make a pragmatic decision that falls under the category of "least-harm
done". I don't think anyone's arguing this, though there is some fudging
in various accounts about whether "kubrick's film" has been altered or
whether "kubrick himself" authorized the digital figures. whether he
would have, or whether he would have just said "fuck it" and re-cut the
film, the fact is, this happened after his death, and he didn't make these
decisions or these contingencies
second, though, when the same film is released elsewhere, without the
usa's nc-17 problems, the film is released without the digital figures,
and, quite clearly, in the version assembled at kubrick's death. I'd
suggest that this is quite different from the multiple versions of the
shining in that we have two versions quite explicitly released in
reference to particular strictures, and nothing else. if you want to
argue that, somehow, the american version is somehow a "more authentic"
cut, when it's patently clear that the digitial figures were added because
of a specific contractual circumstance after his death, well, go ahead,
but the sense of it is beyond me, aside from "this is the cut that kubrick
and the kubrick estate were contractually bound to deliver to warners for
release in america, therefore it is the most authentic cut of the film"
rationale. who really believes this? anywhere? who doesn't regret the
digital figures? who doesn't think it's stupid puritanical nonsense
imposed on the last work of a great artist? do you seriously think harlan
or the kubrick family prefer the figures? I would be very much
surprised.
third, given the post-theatrical release possibility for a studio to
release an unrated version of a film released in theatres as an r (which
is, you'll agree, a commonplace matter), this hasn't happened for ews,
again, the last film from one of warners' most celebrated directores, and
the explanation has always been that the r-rated version was "kubrick's
cut" and "we can't touch it". except for release on the rest of planet.
and except for the addition of figures after his death. so, it's
kubrick's cut contractually, but no other - really, >literally<, no other
way, because he was dead before that cut was made.
I understand why they made the changes, and that's fine - I blame the
mpaa, I blame american society. but I don't understand why the people who
have the power to provide the other version of this film - and, really, I
do not at all understand how one could seriously say it's not the
preferred version - do not do so, now that those theatrical-release
barriers are no longer in effect.
unless, post-semel, warners could care less about it, because it's
old-regime property - which would, in my opinion, stink. as would
prevaricating around that truth.
but maybe we'll get it as a feature on the 3rd dvd collection.
Peter Tonguette
"cut"; apparently, it is indeed the cut he showed to the studio the week before
his death. The issue is the digital cartoon figures which have been inserted
into that cut in U.S. release prints, a decision which Harlan has now said
Kubrick would have hated. I can understand the choice to go with them as
opposed to Harlan/Galt/WB cutting up the scene in order to secure at R for the
theatrical release. I find it regrettable, but I think it can be justified as
the lesser of two evils. What I find more difficult to understand is why - I
won't call it the "director's cut" - but the "unaltered version" of the
director's cut hasn't been released to video. Indeed, I can't imagine that an
unrated version of the film wouldn't be a huge seller. It would actually
justify a new DVD release of the film.
"A.I."... I feel like this thing is pretty much a dead horse in that I have
posted so much about it over the years. I've grown to like things in the film
very much, though it's so chaotic - what Robin Wood might call, in quite a
different context, an incoherent text - that I can't in good faith group it
with Spielberg's best work, like "Always" or "Catch Me If You Can." But that
needs to be separated from the ethical issues surrounding its production; it
was relentlessly posited as a fulfilmment of Kubrick's vision initially (though
Harlan seems to be backing away from this slightly now) and, as such, clouds
his body of work in a way I find a little uncomfortable. If there was a
release of the "A.I." materials - the work Kubrick did on the film, from
scripts to storyboards to whatever - to better underline the degree to which
the >film< "A.I." is a SS gloss on some SK raw material, I'd be much happier.
Peter
Matthew Dickinson
> Lord Bullingdon baited:
>
> >SK (via JH) "Well, if I have to deliver an R-rated picture the only
> thing we can do is superimpose upper people, so that you don't see as
> much as I have filmed"
> >JH on SK "Because had he lived he wouldn't have done this - he would
> have recut it. "
>
> While L.B. continues to accuse JH of contradicting himself in these
> two interview quotes, others may easily "fill in the blanks":
>
> The editor of EWS, Nigel Galt, confirmed SK was pursuing the digital
> obscuration option before his death: ""We went through exhaustive
> digital film testing," recalls Nigel Galt, the movie's Editor, "As
> Stanley was well aware that digital effects were going to be needed to
> gain the film its 'R' rating in the US. He felt that the quality of
> Framestore CFC's tests was the best he'd seen.""
>
> http://www.framestore-cfc.com/feature/eyes_wide_shut/index.html
>
> JH and Nigel Galt (also KKH) stated SK knew digitizing would have to
> be done and he clearly pursued this process. KKH also related on AMK
> that the digitizing was done after SK passed away. This again
> supports the digital film effects for the orgy sequence being TESTED,
> not COMPLETED.
>
> Jan Harlan also relates SK's choice for the US version in the reel.com
Great info! Thanks, Steve.
Matthew
Padraig L Henry
wrote:
[A Spielbergian retraction of FMJ reprehensibility (extract)]:
There is no racial bigotry here. We do not look down on Beeps,
Beepers, Beepies or Beepsters, because here you are all equally
Beepless. Do you Beepots understand?
Until that day you are Beep, you are Beepless, you are the lowest form
of Beep on Earth. You are not even human Beeping beings. You people
are nothing but grabastic pieces of amphibian Beep.
I will Beep your eyes out and skull-Beep you.
Your Beep looks like a hundred and fifty pounds of chewed bubblegum.
Pyle.
Drop your Beeps and grab your socks.
I bet you could Beep a golfball through a garden hose.
Looks like the best part of you ran down the Beep of your momma's Beep
and ended up as a Beep-Beep on the mattress.
I don't know what I've been told, Eskimo Beepy is mighty cold.
Your days of Beeper-Beeping Mary-Jane RottenBeep in her pretty pink
Beepies are over ...
You climb obstacles like old people Beep, Pyle .... Now get the Beep
down off of my obstacle, Pyle ... I will motivate you, Pyle, if it
sure takes every last Beepible in the Congo ...
[And EWS retracted?]
But I do think that maybe there is something very important that we
need to do as soon as possible.
As soon as poss-si-bill!?
Yes, as soon as possible.
And what maybe do you think we should do that is something very
important as soon as poss-si-bill?
Fuu ... Faa ... Fue ... FaFaFuu .... Shop?
Padraig
"Stanley, how come you get to see all of my films before they're
released but I don't get to see any of your's?"
"Because you're you and I'm me, Steve."
=====SpibbleBabbleberg spieling in The Last Movie doc.
M4RV1N
writes:
>when the film was submitted to the
>mpaa, and the digital figures were added, in order to secure an r rating,
>to which kubrick/kubrick-estate was contractually obligated. and yes, of
>course, I understand the problems of an nc-17 film (which is an appalling
>situation in this country, but another matter) but that's only an issue
>for warners, not for k/k-e, as they've been contractually obliged to
>deliver an r-rated film. this is clear to me (though, as I side not, I do
>wonder if the mpaa would have been so firm with their decision had kubrick
>been alive, or whether warners might have fought harder had kubrick been
>alive - again, all moot, and I understand why they're moot). harlan/k-e
>make a pragmatic decision that falls under the category of "least-harm
>done". I don't think anyone's arguing this, though there is some fudging
>in various accounts about whether "kubrick's film" has been altered or
>whether "kubrick himself" authorized the digital figures. whether he
>would have, or whether he would have just said "fuck it" and re-cut the
>film, the fact is, this happened after his death, and he didn't make these
>decisions or these contingencies
That's the fact, but there are indications (O'Keefe's post above) that he would
have made judicious cuts to get the R. Important to note, I'd say, that there
is precidence for this with ACO (took it from X to R for it's wider American
release).
>second, though, when the same film is released elsewhere, without the
>usa's nc-17 problems, the film is released without the digital figures,
>and, quite clearly, in the version assembled at kubrick's death. I'd
>suggest that this is quite different from the multiple versions of the
>shining in that we have two versions quite explicitly released in
>reference to particular strictures, and nothing else.
True. In the case of TS, we have the instance (just about singular in history
perhaps) of a director >wanting< two versions to exist.
>if you want to
>argue that, somehow, the american version is somehow a "more authentic"
>cut, when it's patently clear that the digitial figures were added because
>of a specific contractual circumstance after his death, well, go ahead,
>but the sense of it is beyond me, aside from "this is the cut that kubrick
>and the kubrick estate were contractually bound to deliver to warners for
>release in america, therefore it is the most authentic cut of the film"
>rationale. who really believes this? anywhere? who doesn't regret the
>digital figures? who doesn't think it's stupid puritanical nonsense
>imposed on the last work of a great artist? do you seriously think harlan
>or the kubrick family prefer the figures? I would be very much
>surprised.
We could easily break this down to alternative possibilities to be clear about
likely outcome "ratios":
A) SK changes his mind, inserts the CGI figures and keeps the edit.
1) SK decides this is the American release only to get an R.
2) SK decides this is >the< film, and preserves this version worldwide.
B) SK makes slights cuts in the edit to get an R.
1) SK decides this the American release only to get an R.
2) SK decides this is >the< film and preserves this version worldwide.
(and perhaps we can agree it's unlikely that:...)
C) SK decides to fight Warners' wishes and somehow gets the complete edit,
non-CGI version in America (obviously worldwide too).
A-2 strikes me as ridiculously absurd, given SK didn't like the CGI option, and
given he'd know the non-CGI film would eventually be seen by everyone.
Possible but probability about 1000 to 1, or less.
It's painful to admit, but the next least likely scenario is C. A 65 million
dollar film with huge stars must reach an audience, one that NC-17 cannot
deliver.
Cut to the chase: the most likely outcome to me (>clearly< to me) is B-2. This
is what happened with ACO--as I said.
>third, given the post-theatrical release possibility for a studio to
>release an unrated version of a film released in theatres as an r (which
>is, you'll agree, a commonplace matter), this hasn't happened for ews,
>again, the last film from one of warners' most celebrated directores, and
>the explanation has always been that the r-rated version was "kubrick's
>cut" and "we can't touch it". except for release on the rest of planet.
>and except for the addition of figures after his death. so, it's
>kubrick's cut contractually, but no other - really, >literally<, no other
>way, because he was dead before that cut was made.
>
>I understand why they made the changes, and that's fine - I blame the
>mpaa, I blame american society. but I don't understand why the people who
>have the power to provide the other version of this film - and, really, I
>do not at all understand how one could seriously say it's not the
>preferred version - do not do so, now that those theatrical-release
>barriers are no longer in effect.
I think it's because the Warners suits can't allow it to be the case that they
can be seen to have made a mistake. Perhaps it's related to keeping other
directors (and others) from thinking there is such leeway. The corporate
mindset.
>unless, post-semel, warners could care less about it, because it's
>old-regime property - which would, in my opinion, stink. as would
>prevaricating around that truth.
They may not care about the small numbers that would buy it. If there were
good numbers in this regard, they'd do it in a second. But I lean toward the
more nefarious explanation above; "mistakes aren't corrected because we don't
make them."
>but maybe we'll get it as a feature on the 3rd dvd collection.
Maybe on HDVDs. Maybe not.
Mark Ervin
Gordon Dahlquist
On Wed, 28 May 2003, M4RV1N wrote:
> >Gordon Dahlquist
>
> >when the film was submitted to the
> >mpaa, and the digital figures were added, in order to secure an r rating,
> >to which kubrick/kubrick-estate was contractually obligated. and yes, of
> >course, I understand the problems of an nc-17 film (which is an appalling
> >situation in this country, but another matter) but that's only an issue
> >for warners, not for k/k-e, as they've been contractually obliged to
> >deliver an r-rated film. this is clear to me (though, as I side not, I do
> >wonder if the mpaa would have been so firm with their decision had kubrick
> >been alive, or whether warners might have fought harder had kubrick been
> >alive - again, all moot, and I understand why they're moot). harlan/k-e
> >make a pragmatic decision that falls under the category of "least-harm
> >done". I don't think anyone's arguing this, though there is some fudging
> >in various accounts about whether "kubrick's film" has been altered or
> >whether "kubrick himself" authorized the digital figures. whether he
> >would have, or whether he would have just said "fuck it" and re-cut the
> >film, the fact is, this happened after his death, and he didn't make these
> >decisions or these contingencies
>
> That's the fact, but there are indications (O'Keefe's post above) that he would
> have made judicious cuts to get the R. Important to note, I'd say, that there
> is precidence for this with ACO (took it from X to R for it's wider American
> release).
well, I think there are two things here. one, in discussing versions of
the film, harlan/warners used the word "cut" to specifically meet "edited"
and not mean "digitally altered", e.g., "the digitally altered film
remains kubrick's cut". literally, they're right, but it's also a
face-saving gesture of "fealty". for all practical purposes, it amounts
to the same thing: the film has been changed, no two ways about it. two,
there are the pragmatic circumstances, both contractual and economic. of
course kubrick would have done something. first, I'm sure he would have
pushed as far as his clout would allow on the mpaa to fold on their
decision (and I think it's more a question of fighting them than fighting
warners, as nc-17 was never really a option for anyone), or lobbied for a
much more minimal degree of change. after that, he probably would have cut
away to cruise a couple of times (though this does really break the whole
effect of the scene as conceived, so it would be very regrettable). but I
also wonder about the comparison of ACO in this instance. at that time,
the theatrical release was the only venue for the film. with the example
of different versions for the shining, I wonder if he would have used
different versions, with the intention to get his original version out in
an end-run way on video or dvd. I know that theatrical release is by far
what he was working toward, but I wonder how the various elements of
worldwide release, video/dvd release, and the degree to which he felt this
cut was "better" would have worked. I'm not sure it would have changed
anything, but the film market was a very different place than 1971, and he
did pay attention to that.
no, nc-17 isn't an option. but I do think the mpaa situation might have
been different if kubrick were alive to fight and politic for the film.
at the very least there would have been a give-and-take that didn't occur
without his presence. depending on how strongly he felt about it, it
could have become a very big deal (and would have been great publicity
either way), and I wouldn't say the result was foregone.
> Cut to the chase: the most likely outcome to me (>clearly< to me) is
> B-2. This is what happened with ACO--as I said.
I think you're probably right, but I think there is a case for B1, as we
also have the precendent of the multiple shinings (and the possibility for
extra income with a later "re-release" of the world-version of the film in
the usa via video/dvd).
> >third, given the post-theatrical release possibility for a studio to
> >release an unrated version of a film released in theatres as an r (which
> >is, you'll agree, a commonplace matter), this hasn't happened for ews,
> >again, the last film from one of warners' most celebrated directores, and
> >the explanation has always been that the r-rated version was "kubrick's
> >cut" and "we can't touch it". except for release on the rest of planet.
> >and except for the addition of figures after his death. so, it's
> >kubrick's cut contractually, but no other - really, >literally<, no other
> >way, because he was dead before that cut was made.
> >
> >I understand why they made the changes, and that's fine - I blame the
> >mpaa, I blame american society. but I don't understand why the people who
> >have the power to provide the other version of this film - and, really, I
> >do not at all understand how one could seriously say it's not the
> >preferred version - do not do so, now that those theatrical-release
> >barriers are no longer in effect.
>
> I think it's because the Warners suits can't allow it to be the case
> that they can be seen to have made a mistake. Perhaps it's related to
> keeping other directors (and others) from thinking there is such leeway.
> The corporate mindset.
that's a very likely explanation. it's annoying however when the
justification for it is "the r-rated version is kubrick's cut, therefore
there is no need for any other version of the film to be released". that
seems very disengenuous, to be polite. but I also think it's to do with
studio politics. the people who made the film, and worked with kubrick,
are gone from the studio, and the popular sense is that the film was "a
flop".
> >unless, post-semel, warners could care less about it, because it's
> >old-regime property - which would, in my opinion, stink. as would
> >prevaricating around that truth.
>
> They may not care about the small numbers that would buy it. If there were
> good numbers in this regard, they'd do it in a second. But I lean toward the
> more nefarious explanation above; "mistakes aren't corrected because we don't
> make them."
well, I live in new york, so perhaps it's skewed, but every video store I
can think of (with the exception of blockbuster) would be certain to pick
up a copy, because people would rent it out of curiosity. it wouldn't be
a huge seller, but I think it would very much cover its costs, if not
more. there was a contractual obligation to re-release 2001 too, but it
was done (here) in such a way as to make as little money as possible - no
press, and practically no advertising. it was, frankly, bizarre - it was
just so blatantly backhanded. so, I too buy the nefarious angle more than
anything.
TansalQ
I agree.
>> Cut to the chase: the most likely outcome to me (>clearly< to me) is
>> B-2. This is what happened with ACO--as I said.
>
> I think you're probably right, but I think there is a case for B1, as we
> also have the precendent of the multiple shinings (and the possibility for
> extra income with a later "re-release" of the world-version of the film in
> the usa via video/dvd).
It's precisely this re-release on video idea that I've been clutching to in
the hope that Warners will eventually release the unaltered version of EWS.
I thought it might happen with the remastered box, but no such luck. I'm
hoping that they will release it with the third wave of releases that Harlan
is said to have announced. My preferred treatment for the third wave would
not be another box, but individual dual-disc special edition treatments, a
la Singin' In The Rain or Citizen Kane or Unforgiven. Maybe the third wave
will also see an official individual release, stateside, of Harlan's docu.
Yes, it continues to be very disingenuous of them to stick to this line.
But as M4RVIN says below, they seem to be of the belief that they haven't
and aren't making a mistake here.
>>> unless, post-semel, warners could care less about it, because it's
>>> old-regime property - which would, in my opinion, stink. as would
>>> prevaricating around that truth.
>>
>> They may not care about the small numbers that would buy it. If there were
>> good numbers in this regard, they'd do it in a second. But I lean toward the
>> more nefarious explanation above; "mistakes aren't corrected because we don't
>> make them."
>
> well, I live in new york, so perhaps it's skewed, but every video store I
> can think of (with the exception of blockbuster) would be certain to pick
> up a copy, because people would rent it out of curiosity. it wouldn't be
> a huge seller, but I think it would very much cover its costs, if not
> more. there was a contractual obligation to re-release 2001 too, but it
> was done (here) in such a way as to make as little money as possible - no
> press, and practically no advertising. it was, frankly, bizarre - it was
> just so blatantly backhanded. so, I too buy the nefarious angle more than
> anything.
I don't understand Warners. 2001 and Superman could have been big
re-releases had they chosen do approach them this way. The re-releases for
Das Boot, The Godfather, certainly The Exorcist all got more press than
these Warners properties. Superman was remastered with new footage, much
like Das Boot and The Exorcist, but The Godfather was the same cut as is the
case with 2001 and though its re-release was very modest, I seem to remember
a bit more press surrounding it than 2001, which I could easily have missed.
They squeezed it into one theatre a couple of weeks before the end of the
year. Even so, with eight people in the theatre, it was one of my favorite
movie moments to see it as it was intended, in 70mm.
Tansal
Gordon Dahlquist
On Thu, 29 May 2003, TansalQ wrote:
> I don't understand Warners. 2001 and Superman could have been big
> re-releases had they chosen do approach them this way. The re-releases for
> Das Boot, The Godfather, certainly The Exorcist all got more press than
> these Warners properties. Superman was remastered with new footage, much
> like Das Boot and The Exorcist, but The Godfather was the same cut as is the
> case with 2001 and though its re-release was very modest, I seem to remember
> a bit more press surrounding it than 2001, which I could easily have missed.
> They squeezed it into one theatre a couple of weeks before the end of the
> year. Even so, with eight people in the theatre, it was one of my favorite
> movie moments to see it as it was intended, in 70mm.
for all practical purposes, people heard about it through word of mouth -
because the ones who did see it (all 8 of them in a theatre that would
easily hold 1,000) came staggering out of the theatre, simply amazed at
the experience. this, for me, is the difficulty - the artistic
experience of seeing 2001 in 70mm is indeed superior to any other version.
and I believe that the un-digitized version of ews is significantly
superior to the american-release version. I'd just like to see his work,
in its best light, made readily available. simple, really.
Thrawn
> would have made judicious cuts to get the R. Important to note, I'd say,
> that there is precidence for this with ACO (took it from X to R for it's
> wider American release).
>
That's just not true at all. Here are the facts.
ACO released 12/19/71 with an X rating.
ACO re-released 1/1/73 with an R rating.
It had been out "wide" quite a while by then.
Viddy Well!
Alex Thrawn
www.malcolmmcdowell.net
Home of the ACO Timeline
TansalQ
>> That's the fact, but there are indications (O'Keefe's post above) that he
>> would have made judicious cuts to get the R. Important to note, I'd say,
>> that there is precidence for this with ACO (took it from X to R for it's
>> wider American release).
>>
>
> That's just not true at all. Here are the facts.
> ACO released 12/19/71 with an X rating.
> ACO re-released 1/1/73 with an R rating.
>
> It had been out "wide" quite a while by then.
Wow, thanks for the dates. I hadn't known that the film was released for
over a year in its X-version before Kubrick cut and R-version to replace it.
I do doubt, however, that a similar thing would have happened with EWS. I'm
not sure what the marketplace was like in the early '70s, but it may have
been a bit easier to get away with something like that than it is nowadays.
I don't think Kubrick would have wanted to release EWS as an NC-17 film,
regardless of the obligations of his contract, because he also wanted his
films to be seen by people and to make money and an NC-17 rating would have
severely curtailed such a response.
Tansal
TansalQ
Yes, quite simple. This is why I still hold out hope that EWS may be
released in a future DVD as unrated. Universal has been doing this with
many films, admittedly mostly comedies, such as American Pie and Old School.
There's plenty of precedent among major studio and independents for
releasing an unrated version of a film on home video. This WB policy of not
making or releasing unrated films is bogus.
And about 2001... Yes, indeed, everyone I saw it with or brought to the film
was amazed by the experience. And all of them reacted to it as if they'd
seen it for the first time, and all of them had seen it many times before.
How many films can this experience be true of? Superman was a lot of fun to
see on the big screen, but it wasn't a profoundly different experience than
the new DVD - it just had all the basic benefits a big screen presentation
has over a television presentation. On the other hand, 2001 and Barry
Lyndon were profoundly different experiences. I don't mind saying that,
because it was true for me and those with me, and I don't think it is
pretentious to insist that it is a wholly different experience than video.
Tansal, who apologizes for the excessive use of the word 'experience' above
Wordsmith
Perhaps Thornhill will lend you his thesarus.
Wordsmith :)
TansalQ
> TansalQ <tan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Tansal, who apologizes for the excessive use of the word 'experience' above
>
> Perhaps Thornhill will lend you his thesarus.
>
> Wordsmith :)
Well, I don't want to sound like the Architect in Matrix Reloaded, either!
Tansal
Boaz
When the X rating was put into effect by the MPAA in 1969 it was not
synonymous with pornography, as it is today. The intention was to
designate a film that had strong mature and adult themes which might
not be suitable for audiences under the age of 18, and that was it;
graphic sex was not an issue. "Midnight Cowboy" was among the first
features from a major studio to get the X rating. It did very good
business (it was also made for very little money) and it even won an
Academy Award for Best Picture (as well as Best director and Best
Adapted Screenplay). This is something that would never happen today,
even with younger, more open minded people who make up some of the
Academy members. This is because of the stigma that is now associated
with the X rating, and has been an ongoing thing for 30 years. I
believe this was based on the ratings system in Britian. I know they
often rated films with extreme violence and scenes of a sexual nature
X, and a lot of horror films got the X rating. But I think the
intentions of the X over there was different to how it was orignally
used here in the States by 1969. Nevertheless, it seemed the X was
something that would stand out as a kind of red flag to anyone who
would scan the movie ads in a paper to see what movies were showing
and what might be suitable for children and what might be suitable for
adults. ACO was the last film, I believe to have an X rating to
receive such critical praise and Oscar nominations (or it could have
been "Last Tango in Paris," which came out a year later). But by the
time ACO went into wide release (about April of '72) adult movies were
turning up more and more in theaters across the country, and they
began to use the X rating for their movies. What happened there is
that the MPAA didn't register the X label as they did for their other
ratings, and this opened the doors to the people who made pornographic
films to use it for their own product, both as a warning and as a lure
to get more audiences. As a result, anything that came out of a studio
or major independent company with an X rating was immediately labeled
"porn," even if it had sex scenes (or even just one) that were
simulated, perhaps a brief view of full frontal nudity, and thus ran
the risk of being put into the same category with films that had real
sex going on in them. I think Kubrick re-cut portions of ACO to get
the R rating because by 1973 people would had not yet seen it might
take it for a pornographic film. The film had stirred up enough
controversy regarding its violence, with those who didn't like the
film claiming it glorified violence. Now there was the issue of
whether the sex and nudity qualified it as pornography in the same way
something like "Deep Throat" (which came out in early 1972) was in its
depiction of graphic sex. Many more conservative newspapers were now
refusing to put in movie ads if the film had an X rating, even if it
were something like ACO. Without advertising there would be no way for
many people to know if the film were playing at a nearby theater. So
revenue would not only drop due to the lack of under-18s that couldn't
go in but also from not knowing the film was at a local theater at
all!
By the time Orion Pictures released Philip Kaufman's "Henry and June"
in 1989 the MPAA came up with the NC-17 rating. But it was too late;
the damage had been done. The conservative newspapers would still
refuse to run ads for the film and many other conservative "watch-dog"
groups felt NC-17 was just X but with a different label -- an X by any
other name, as it were. Had the MPAA come up with a different letter,
or had registered the X this would have forced the people making
pornographic films to have labeled their films in a different way.
Perhaps in the long run that might not have done any good either, I
don't know. It's quite likely that the more mature mainstream films
would have been lumped in with the more sleazy pornographic films on
principle anyway. The fact that a compromise was reached on EWS by
digitizing cloaked figures or the backs of two nude females, a la
Helmut Newton, over what was essentially simulated sex shows how
little progress has been made in coming up with a commercially viable
rating for films with a more strong adult and sexual nature, as well
as how we have regressed into this neo-conservative, almost
neo-Eisenhower era, mindset, that the acceptance of the openness and
frankness and of the '60s and early '70s has been compartmentalized
into something almost taboo again. And instead of looking at nudity
and sex in a more casual way as the Europeans have quite often done in
their films, we continue to see it as something dirty and corruptable.
And the current political climate is not helping matters any.
Boaz
Josh
>digitizing cloaked figures or the backs of two nude females, a la
>Helmut Newton, over what was essentially simulated sex shows how
>little progress has been made
What baffles me is how one version is considered almost obscene (since that's
how an X/NC-17 rating is viewed) while one version is just fine. If you know
what's going on and you understand the content perfectly, does it matter to
what degree you see it? But the ratings people are the same people who would
think putting "F--- you" in an article would be fine while writing it out as
"Fuck you" would be offensive - to me it's obviously the same damn thing! But
such is America.
When EWS came out, I wasn't 18 so I'm glad it was R rated so I could get in
with a parent (though I hoped the video would be uncensored). Now that I'm
older, I cringe whenever I read anything about films having to be cut to
accomodate a certain target rating, whether that rating is PG-13, R, or NC-17.
I don't want some group deciding what is or isn't appropriate for me to see,
and I don't want some group telling me what is and isn't ok for my children to
see.
"Orgasmo" is rated NC-17 and "Boogie Nights" is rated R. Does anyone else see
a problem in a system that says one film that contains neither nudity nor
simulated sex, only humorous references to it, is considered to be more
offensive, if you will, than a film that contains full frontal male and female
nudity, graphic violence, intense scenes of drug abuse, and scenes of
realistic-looking simulated sex?
<sigh>
Josh
Me (cool stuff) http://members.aol.com/vertigoman/me
CDR Trading:
http://members.aol.com/vertigoman/me/bootlist.html
TansalQ
Excellent points. I think Orgazmo is more entertaining than Boogie Nights,
too. Roger Ebert never tires of pointing out these kinds of absurd
discrepancies in his reviews and columns. He has insisted on what he calls
a "workable A-rating" for films containing mature adult content. By now,
the R-rating has been expanded to take over the films that might otherwise
have been rated X/NC-17/A. One thing that is still confusing, and depends
mostly on the exhibitor, is whether NC-17 means "no one under 17" in which
case a 17-year-old should be allowed in, or "no one 17 or under" in which
case only those 18 years old and over would be allowed. Either way, I was
20 years old and sporting a beard and I still managed to get carded when
purchasing tickets for EWS. (The only other film I was carded for was
Starship Troopers.)
I'm with you, though, Josh. Any rating over an R would mean that everyone
under 18 would be prohibited from seeing the film, even if a consenting
guardian were to accompany them. I find this idea questionable.
Tansal
TansalQ
Thanks for the great post, Boaz. I have a couple of questions. Was
Midnight Cowboy ever recut to receive an R? Or was it reevaluated and
downgraded to an R? Or is the version available on home video still the
original X-rated cut? As far as I know, the MPAA does not reevaluate films
that have already been rated and not subsequently altered in any way. So
were the original release of Midnight Cowboy to receive a theatrical revival
today, most papers would not print ads for it because it is rated X?
Anyway, I'm searching for logic in a process that defies this notion.
Tansal
Hugh Mungus
> I'm with you, though, Josh. Any rating over an R would mean that everyone
> under 18 would be prohibited from seeing the film, even if a consenting
> guardian were to accompany them. I find this idea questionable.
I believe enforcement of the American ratings system is voluntary, not
compulsory as it is in other counties. Theaters are not required by law to
prevent underage people from seeing a film. The gray area would be that
there are laws against exposing children to pornography of any type. The
first time I saw the unrated Dawn of the Dead, the theater would not allow
an underage boy into see the film even though he was accompanied by two
adults. While not MPAA rated, the distributor imposed its own "noone under
18 admitted at all" policy. The second time I saw the film there were two
underage, unaccompanied boys sitting right in front of me, scared out of
their minds.
Boaz
Thanks, Tansal. First off, I need to correct myself here. The ratings
system was put into effect in late 1968, not 1969. Second, I want to
elaborate here a bit by saying that the ratings system was set up due
to the proliferation of more mature themed films being made by the mid
1960s. The old Code, set up with the Hays Office, died of old age
(mostly due to its inability to keep up with the changing mores of
post-WWII America), and the permissiveness of the '60s was also
showing itself in the kinds of films that were coming out at that
time. Films such as "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf?" didn't have
ratings, but they did have warnings (those little red flags I
mentioned before) that the film was for "mature audiences," and that
persons under 17 or 18 would not be admitted without a parent or adult
guardian. This and other films prompted the creation of the new
ratings system, thus avoiding yet another shitstorm of controversy
from the bluenose politicians and church groups. The original alphabet
soup ratings were G, M, R and our friend X. Unfortunately, M or R
should have been the mainstream equivalent of X. Since R meant
"restricted" anyway, it should have meant restricted to those under
18, period, instead of restricted to those under 18 without a parent.
Again, the too little, too late syndrome had taken effect with the
ratings system, and by the time M (Mature Audiences) was replaced with
GP (later to be reversed to PG -- Parental Guidance) it was too late
to take more intense and mature films (such as ACO) and give them a
letter that indicated no one under 18 but without the dreaded X
rating. As I stated above in my earlier post, NC-17 was looked upon by
critics of the ratings system (and Hollywood) as merely a new paint
job to an old chassis. Most filmmakers today would rather just have
the film go into theaters unrated than have that albatross hanging
around the necks of their works.
As to whether "Midnight Cowboy" was re-cut in any way to receive an R
rating, I couldn't tell you. My theory was that it was re-evaluated by
the ratings board (with perhaps a little under-the-table persuasion,
though I can't be certain of that either) and seen as more R than X. I
think somewhere along the lines the ratings board re-evaluated the
entire ratings system and allowed certain things acceptable for R, and
MC might have walked that fine line anyway. (I also think there was
some lobbying -- read: pressure -- among the executives in the studios
towards the ratings board to re-evaluate their priorities, since the
labeling of a film with a certain ratings letter also meant reveune
either lost or gained at the box office. I also would like to point
out here that many studios actually avoided having their films rated
G, as they thought such a family oriented rating was also the kiss of
death at the box office, or that such a rating was best left to
Disney's movies.) It's possible that a few seconds or frames were cut
to make the R rating, only to perhaps be put back in to release the
film as an R (as if the ratings board is going to inspect every print
that goes out to theaters, including 16mm copies that went to college
screenings, which is where I first saw it). I know Kubrick did make
cuts in ACO, mostly taking out at least one shot of the gang rape of
the girl that Alex was being forced to watch during the Luduvico
Treatment, and I believe Kubrick actually re-shot the high speed orgy
between Alex and the two girls that is set to the "William Tell
Overture." But in the last ten years or so I've been seeing Kubrick's
original X cut shown at screenings around L.A., and when the BBC
showed ACO (which I got to see on BBC America) it was also the
original X cut that first hit theaters in December of 1971.
So, yes, the ratings board will re-evaluate a film to re-rate it if
necessary. But I think that does require money, not merely as a means
to sway opinion (read: bribe) but to pay for the MPAA's services, to
pay for the screening room, to pay for the projectionist, and so on.
One would think that the MPAA should be paying for that themselves, as
they are a non-profit organization. But if a studio is lobbying to
have a particular film re-rated they often have to go to the expense
to do so themselves. When Warner Bros. released the "director's cut"
of Peckinpah's "The Wild Bunch" it actually received an NC-17 rating,
due to the violence. But someone apparently did some good lobbying and
got the film back down to its original R rating.
I would think that any video copy (especially DVD) of "Midnight
Cowboy" would be exactly the same cut that was released in its X form
in 1969. It isn't so much what we see in that film is what it is
implied (e.g., when Joe Buck has to resort to getting a blowjob from a
guy because he hasn't been successful in selling his services to women
and he's running out of the cash he's saved up; this was pretty daring
stuff to show in a film in 1969, even though we never actually saw
anything but Joe Buck's reaction, which is sad and hardly erotic).
It's like the great scene where Joe Buck walks down the street in
Manhattan and sees other male hustlers dressed like him. For Joe the
idea of being dressed as a cowboy is a symbol of masculinity; to those
in the Big Apple it's something else entirely. (Here's a little bit of
trivia: back in the early 1970s, when the TV show "Barney Miller"
first aired, there was a scene where someone in a western hat was
placed in a holding tank, and one of the cops was supposed to say,
"Here you go, cowboy." But the S&P people at ABC said that line had to
be cut, since the word "cowboy" might be interpreted as something out
of "Midnight Cowboy," and they didn't want any suggestions at all of
that character being a gay male hustler.)
One more interesting thing to share here: when "Midnight Cowboy" came
out in 1969, it was about the same time "True Grit" came out. "True
Grit" got a G rating; that's right, boys and girls, a G rating. Here
was a film with plenty of violence in it, including Dennis Hopper
getting his fingers chopped off with a butcher knife, people getting
shot and seeing the bullet wounds, a hanging in the town square, and
even John Wayne saying, "son of a bitch" before taking on Robert
Duvall and his gang in a fusillade of gunfire. And it was rated G for
the whole family! (It also had Kim Darby playing a girl with no
interest in men and a somewhat "masculine" quality about her
demeanor.) It also had one of the worst performances in a film, by
Glen Campbell, but that has nothing to do with the film's rating.
But, to wrap this up, the MPAA will re-evaluate certain films (mostly
high profile films like MC or ACO) if the studio is willing to go the
expense to lobby for a re-rating, and they will lobby hard and spend
whatever they need from their war chest to ensure that their product
will either go to the theaters as an R, or at least be released on
video as an R, even if they have to do their own re-cut to make the
grade to sell or rent at Blockbuster.
Boaz
M4RV1N
writes:
> he
>> would have made judicious cuts to get the R. Important to note, I'd say,
>> that there is precidence for this with ACO (took it from X to R for it's
>> wider American release).
>>
>That's just not true at all. Here are the facts.
>ACO released 12/19/71 with an X rating.
>ACO re-released 1/1/73 with an R rating.
>
>It had been out "wide" quite a while by then.
Alex you are correct. I do think, just to be a bit of weasel, I could say it
did get a "wider" audience with the R. I know I snuck into see a lot of R
films as a kid and ACO was one of them.
Mark Ervin
Josh
>rating, I couldn't tell you.
I believe it was re-rated, rather than having been recut. Winning Best Picture
will do that for a film...
>I also would like to point
>out here that many studios actually avoided having their films rated
>G, as they thought such a family oriented rating was also the kiss of
>death at the box office, or that such a rating was best left to
>Disney's movies.
Still do. There was a movie that came out a few years ago called "Fly Away
Home" with Anna Paquin, and it was G rated and the producers actually threw in
a "shit" to get it a PG - in hopes that the stronger rating would help the film
appeal to a wider audience.
>So, yes, the ratings board will re-evaluate a film to re-rate it if
>necessary. But I think that does require money, not merely as a means
>to sway opinion (read: bribe) but to pay for the MPAA's services, to
>pay for the screening room, to pay for the projectionist, and so on.
Kevin Smith's "Clerks" was given the NC-17 stamp of death first time around;
Miramax hired Alan Dershowitz to sue the ratings board to get the R rating, and
won; the R-rated Clerks is the exact same version that the board originally
gave an NC-17 to.
What I've been told is maddingly frustrating about the ratings board is that
there isn't a specific set of rules published, and when they view your films
and give it a rating, they don't give exact reasonings. Thus, if you get an
NC-17 the first time around and want the R, they won't tell you exactly what it
is they object too; they might say "too much sex" but they won't tell you which
sex they object to. There have been films originally given NC-17s that have
scenes that on their own are no more graphic than PG-13 or R films, but in
combination are deemed to be too strong to get less than an NC-17. The DVD cut
of "American Pie" (which says "Unrated" on the box) is the original version
submitted that got the NC-17; the theatrical R-rated cut is the edit. The
difference? In the original cut, when Jason Biggs humps the pie, he's humping
it missionary style on the counter. In the R-rated reshoot, he's standing
against the wall with his back to the camera humping the pie. Does it really
make a difference, folks?
>When Warner Bros. released the "director's cut"
>of Peckinpah's "The Wild Bunch" it actually received an NC-17 rating,
>due to the violence. But someone apparently did some good lobbying and
>got the film back down to its original R rating.
Ratings often seem to be adjusted to what kind of release they think the film
will get. An art-house or foreign R, I've noticed, will often have more
graphic content than what's in a studio R. I think they might figure that
since no one's going to see this art house picture, it doesn't need to be NC-17
because kids won't try to sneak in, but since American Pie is a big summer
blockbuster, we must protect the children from it!
>One more interesting thing to share here: when "Midnight Cowboy" came
>out in 1969, it was about the same time "True Grit" came out. "True
>Grit" got a G rating; that's right, boys and girls, a G rating.
I think it's up to studios to resubmit films for ratings when they get
re-released, otherwise the original rating stands. There's no way True Grit
would get a G now, but of course Paramount isn't going to go out and ask for a
higher rating. And a lot of R rated features from the seventies would now
carry a PG-13. And "All The President's Men," rated PG, would now recieve an R
solely because of the amount of times they say "fuck" in the film. It's
ludicrious.
Josh
>compulsory as it is in other counties.
I think that's technically true, but because of different lobbying groups and
whatnot, theatres have pretty much become bound by the ratings board. I don't
think it's ever been made official, but it certainly does get enforced because
the potential public outcry and political reaction isn't worth it for the
theaters.
I don't object to alerts warning parents and consumers about the content of the
film. I think the ratings system has gotten better since it started putting
tags on ratings explaining why a film got what it got. But I do object to
restricting people from seeing films; I think its up to parents to decide what
their children can and can't see, so if I want to let my kid see "Scream" then
that should be the end of the discussion. Maybe I should have to buy the
tickets, but I shouldn't have to go in with them. And I definitely don't
approve of NC-17 (which officially is "no children 17 or under permitted")
because if I want to take my kid to see an NC-17 picture, that's no one's
business but mine.
But if we're going to do this for ratings, we might as well go into the liquor
laws and start asking if something substantially changes from being 20 and 364
days and being 21 that makes it inappropriate for someone to drink under that
age, and appropriate to drink afterwards. It's all arbitrary.
TansalQ
Very interesting, Boaz. What you're explaining here really expresses what a
flawed system the MPAA have. How would they have explained their
discrepancy of awarding True Grit a G and Midnight Cowboy an X? The whole
time I was reading your post, I was thinking of how 2001 received a G, even
though there are several murders that take place, one of which is violent.
But since that film has already been rated once, and the studio never
resubmitted it for another rating, it remains a G-rated film. Funny.
There's also a tendency that I've read about filmmakers adding much more
violence or sex than they really want in their films, in order to be able to
cut the extraneous bits out as if by request of the MPAA, and therefore
cajole that coveted R-rating with a film that might otherwise have received
an NC-17 if presented merely as the filmmaker wanted it in the first place.
Tansal
Josh
>time I was reading your post, I was thinking of how 2001 received a G, even
>though there are several murders that take place, one of which is violent.
Hmm... one man-ape to the animal, Moonwatcher kills one, HAL kills the three
frozen astronauts and Poole, and Bowman kills Hal. But if the film was being
rated today, I would venture to guess that the ratings board would have more of
an issue with Dave saying "hell" during his conversation with Hal from the pod
than they would with any of the violence.
>But since that film has already been rated once, and the studio never
>resubmitted it for another rating, it remains a G-rated film. Funny.
Interestingly, "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" was issued on DVD a little over
a year ago in a new 'director's cut' - different from the theatrical cut and
the original home video/broadcast version. It has a couple new effects shots,
but other than that, it's actually a shorter cut than the home video/broadcast
version, by about ten minutes. The home video version is G; the DVD director's
cut is PG. That's the first time I've ever heard of a film getting a higher
rating by removing footage!
Wordsmith
*TG* was quite rambunctious for the rating it got, but the bloodiest film
I've ever seen that was "G"'d was also a John Wayne film: *Big Jake*. A
dog gets hacked to shreds with a machete in that one. Ech.
Wordsmith :)
PS Did you like the stories?
Boaz
> >The whole
> >time I was reading your post, I was thinking of how 2001 received a G, even
> >though there are several murders that take place, one of which is violent.
>
> Hmm... one man-ape to the animal, Moonwatcher kills one, HAL kills the three
> frozen astronauts and Poole, and Bowman kills Hal. But if the film was being
> rated today, I would venture to guess that the ratings board would have more of
> an issue with Dave saying "hell" during his conversation with Hal from the pod
> than they would with any of the violence.
Especially since we never saw any blood during the killings by
Moonwatcher and his waterhole buds. It's as if the suggestion of
bloodless killing is acceptable.
> >But since that film has already been rated once, and the studio never
> >resubmitted it for another rating, it remains a G-rated film. Funny.
>
> Interestingly, "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" was issued on DVD a little over
> a year ago in a new 'director's cut' - different from the theatrical cut and
> the original home video/broadcast version. It has a couple new effects shots,
> but other than that, it's actually a shorter cut than the home video/broadcast
> version, by about ten minutes. The home video version is G; the DVD director's
> cut is PG. That's the first time I've ever heard of a film getting a higher
> rating by removing footage!
Here's another interesting tidbit: last night on TCM I watched "The
Andromeda Strain," also directed by Robert Wise (it came on right
after "2001"). I remember the film was rated G, but it also had the
disclaimer, "But may be too intense for younger audiences!" in the
original newspaper ads. In the film we saw numerous dead bodies,
killed from the intergalactic virus, including one that had its arm
partly eaten by a vulture (which was dead as well), the two scientists
checking the coagulating of the blood into a fine red powder by
cutting open the wrist of a corpse; there was an old lady hanging from
a stairway (she'd hanged herself) plus her dead cat lying on one of
the steps. Then, during a multiple screen montage of the other victims
the scientists were finding we see a shot of a young woman, dead,
lying half naked on her back, her breasts fully exposed. And THIS film
got a G rating? And this doesn't include other scenes, such as the one
female scientist making a joke about having once worked in a bordello
to hide the fact that the flashing red light could trigger an
epileptic seizure (which happens later in the film), or the old man
who survived because he drank Sterno, the two or three lab animals who
died in order to test the lethal level of the virus, or the skeletal
remains of the pilot whose jet plane crashed outside of the infected
desert town and is found by the search party.
I suppose the rationale behind the ratings choices is based on the
subject matter, though that should not be an issue; it prejudices the
decisions on the part of the MPAA people and in the long run no one
can take the ratings seriously. It merely becomes a crutch for parents
to look at in a glance and decide if the film is suitable for their
kids to see only by how it is rated instead of looking into the matter
further as to what the film is actually about.
Boaz
TansalQ
>> The whole
>> time I was reading your post, I was thinking of how 2001 received a G, even
>> though there are several murders that take place, one of which is violent.
>
> Hmm... one man-ape to the animal, Moonwatcher kills one, HAL kills the three
> frozen astronauts and Poole, and Bowman kills Hal. But if the film was being
> rated today, I would venture to guess that the ratings board would have more
> of
> an issue with Dave saying "hell" during his conversation with Hal from the pod
> than they would with any of the violence.
The ape-man that Moonwatcher kills is the violent murder I had in mind.
Your point re: the MPAA guidelines is valid. Stupid Language! :o)
>> But since that film has already been rated once, and the studio never
>> resubmitted it for another rating, it remains a G-rated film. Funny.
>
> Interestingly, "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" was issued on DVD a little over
> a year ago in a new 'director's cut' - different from the theatrical cut and
> the original home video/broadcast version. It has a couple new effects shots,
> but other than that, it's actually a shorter cut than the home video/broadcast
> version, by about ten minutes. The home video version is G; the DVD
> director's
> cut is PG. That's the first time I've ever heard of a film getting a higher
> rating by removing footage!
I was really impressed by the DVD director's edition. I always hated this
film and could never understand why it was so awful, or why I always had
such trouble with it. I decided one day to watch my friend's copy - and I
was really quite astonished! It was like night and day for me. The whole
thing was tightened, the effects were finished - we find out in the
documentary that the film was rushed to theatres without giving the effects
enough time to be completed properly, hence many cuts to reaction shots in
the original version, now wisely excised. I think it now ranks fairly with
Star Trek II, IV, VI, VIII - all of which are entertaining films. I would
say that in its current form, Star Trek: The Motion Picture is even the most
scientific and high-minded of the films, whereas the rest are more
action-based. Watching the Director's Edition of Star Trek II, I was
actually less impressed than how I remembered the film to be. Still a good
movie, but it felt a bit slow in the beginning. I also watched the Special
Edition of Star Trek III and was reminded of all the reasons why that film
is a disaster. :o)
Tansal
TansalQ
> Kevin Smith's "Clerks" was given the NC-17 stamp of death first time around;
> Miramax hired Alan Dershowitz to sue the ratings board to get the R rating,
> and won; the R-rated Clerks is the exact same version that the board
> originally gave an NC-17 to.
I didn't know this. It gives us some food for thought about whether Stanley
would have fought to keep his cut of EWS without the cloaked figures or
whether he would have decided that it wasn't that important and he could
recut it to get an R. He was pretty meticulous about his editing, but he
also doesn't appear to have been dogmatic about his cuts, being able to
adjust things after the fact for practical purposes as he did with ACO.
> What I've been told is maddingly frustrating about the ratings board is that
> there isn't a specific set of rules published, and when they view your films
> and give it a rating, they don't give exact reasonings. Thus, if you get an
> NC-17 the first time around and want the R, they won't tell you exactly what
> it is they object too; they might say "too much sex" but they won't tell you
> which sex they object to.
Also, from what I've heard, a different anonymous group of people make these
rating decisions every time a film is screened for the MPAA. Since the
viewers rotate, it seems possible to screen the exact same cut of a movie
twice and get two different ratings. I think this wishy-washy system is
also what is responsible for being unable to get a straight answer from the
MPAA about what exactly it is that they find so objectionable about a film.
> There have been films originally given NC-17s that have scenes that on their
> own are no more graphic than PG-13 or R films, but in combination are deemed
> to be too strong to get less than an NC-17. The DVD cut of "American Pie"
> (which says "Unrated" on the box) is the original version submitted that got
> the NC-17; the theatrical R-rated cut is the edit. The difference? In the
> original cut, when Jason Biggs humps the pie, he's humping it missionary style
> on the counter. In the R-rated reshoot, he's standing against the wall with
> his back to the camera humping the pie. Does it really make a difference,
> folks?
That's interesting. I never saw the unrated cut, but an article I read
about it at the time mentioned the only difference as being the number of
thrusts into the pie. Missionary style on the counter is a huge change! :o)
> Ratings often seem to be adjusted to what kind of release they think the
> film will get. An art-house or foreign R, I've noticed, will often have
> more graphic content than what's in a studio R. I think they might figure
> that since no one's going to see this art house picture, it doesn't need
> to be NC-17 because kids won't try to sneak in, but since American Pie is
> a big summer blockbuster, we must protect the children from it!
Also, it's not as important for certain art-house or foreign films to be
released as NC-17 or unrated. Requiem For A Dream was unrated, and probably
did a bit less business as a result, but I doubt there was a drastic
financial difference for this film. In fact, it may have done better
business because it was unrated and not labeled NC-17. A Hollywood film
costs a lot more to make and has a lot more riding on the opening weekend
and the total box office grosses, which makes this ratings issue more
crucial and also heavily politicized.
> I think it's up to studios to resubmit films for ratings when they get
> re-released, otherwise the original rating stands. There's no way True Grit
> would get a G now, but of course Paramount isn't going to go out and ask for a
> higher rating. And a lot of R rated features from the seventies would now
> carry a PG-13. And "All The President's Men," rated PG, would now recieve an
> R solely because of the amount of times they say "fuck" in the film. It's
> ludicrious.
Roger Ebert has reviewed several intelligent films dealing with teenagers or
kids a bit younger that have great relevance to youth, but it is precisely
this audience that is locked out from seeing these films without parental
supervision because they received an R-rating due to some "language." I
think the last time I remember reading this sort of comment in a review of
his was with The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys, which may not have been a
great film but the acting was good and I think it captured some rather
powerful and genuine emotions for its youngsters. What would Stand By Me
get rated today?
Tansal
Josh
>Edition of Star Trek III and was reminded of all the reasons why that film
>is a disaster. :o)
Ehh... I love 'em all. I even like Star Trek V, a lot - I might be the only
person on the face of the earth other than William Shatner who can say that.
Star Trek II is a pretty damn good movie; between watching II, VI, and Time
After Time, I keep wishing Nicholas Meyer had directed more films. By the way,
I thought Meyer's commentary on II was outstanding - he doesn't talk a lot
about the Star Trek legacy or repeat stories that have been told a million
times by other fans, but he does speak a lot about storytelling in general and
how to construct a film from all of the different elements - I found that to be
very insightful.