Author Topic: Blasphemy  (Read 7921 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +638
Blasphemy
« Reply #15 on: May 07, 2003, 10:36:59 AM »
0
Quote from: SoNowThen
So then, just to confirm: what everyone's telling me is that all the Warners dvd's (specifically Shining, FMJ, & EWS) are exactly how Kubrick wanted me to see them? For true?


Well, except in "Eyes wide Shut", Kubrick originally wanted the American audience to see the orgy scene without the digital people blocking their view.
“Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.” - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Blasphemy
« Reply #16 on: May 07, 2003, 10:48:30 AM »
0
Aaarrrgh!! That's right! No sleep now, I reckon...

Actually, for some reason, this has never bothered me much. It's just 'cause on the others I had a creeping feeling that the framing was slightly off.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

(kelvin)

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Respect: +1
Blasphemy
« Reply #17 on: May 07, 2003, 04:18:16 PM »
0
Well, thanks for the information on the aspect ratios. I really didn't know that. Concerning the digital camouflage in EWS, I think it's rather a shame to let some people butcher the beforementioned scene...what about Kubrick's ("post-mortem") influence on Warner in that particular case?
I saw both versions and just cannot understand the bigotry of those responsible for this decision. I mean, that was certainly not Kubrick's intention, was it?

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5767
  • Respect: +151
Blasphemy
« Reply #18 on: May 07, 2003, 04:46:16 PM »
0
Officially, the editing in Eyes Wide Shut was done with Kubrick's blessing when it was shown to him. Kubrick wanted to make an R rated movie, and not an NC-17 one and knew with his original cut, he would be getting an NC-17 rating which would greatly limit the availability of the movie around the country. And Warner Brothers where running with the slogan, "We're not in the business of making NC-17 films." I do wish the original could have been shown, but I understand the logistics of what Kubrick was trying to do and how he saw the scene still being able to play out. In Kubrick's eyes, seeing all the nudity and sexual acts was not necessary, what was necessary was the implication of the idea and the viewer imagination to take over the rest. The blocking out is nicely done so it doesn't appear as a major artificial stain and I don't really think it is a bad decision anyways.

~rougerum

(kelvin)

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Respect: +1
Blasphemy
« Reply #19 on: May 07, 2003, 04:54:24 PM »
0
I'm not very familiar to the American rating system...where is the difference between an NC-17 and an R-rating? Besides, censoring this film is pure hypocrisy. Where is in this case the difference between showing and suggesting?

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5767
  • Respect: +151
Blasphemy
« Reply #20 on: May 07, 2003, 05:10:02 PM »
0
NC-17 is a rating that is for people who are 17 and older only. It is the rating above the R rating and is commonly refused by almost all movie theatres and theatre chains. It gets shit distributation.

There isn't censorship in this film at all. As much to the dismay of many Kubrick fans here, Kubrick himself approved this version while alive and thought it was still effective. It wasn't a studio hack job like some Welles situation or something.


The difference in this case is that the "censorship" still perfectly fits the themes running through this story and hold very well in displaying ambiguilty to the scene in not showing everything. Showing everything would limit the viewer to seeing the sex one exact way and nothing else. Everything would be on the table. Not doing it makes the viewer imagine the level of intensity and explicitness in the sex everywhere for themselves. The reason going exactly for this fits the themes is because the theme is not about the touch of having an affair, but the mystery of what having an affair could be like. Everything in this movie is about the suggestion of things that seem completely devastating to the worlds of these people.

The main reason people speak on how this feels like a hack job is because they disagree with Kubrick's decision and either don't know he approved this version or want to believe he would never have allowd for this. They want to see it all in the scene. I think Kubrick did right and I disagree with the detractors of the scene.

~rougerum

cowboykurtis

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1671
  • Respect: +8
Blasphemy
« Reply #21 on: May 07, 2003, 05:12:45 PM »
0
Quote from: chriskelvin
I'm not very familiar to the American rating system...where is the difference between an NC-17 and an R-rating? Besides, censoring this film is pure hypocrisy. Where is in this case the difference between showing and suggesting?


nc-17: under no circumstance can a person under 17 be admitted

R: any age can be admitted as long as they are escorted by an adult over the age of 17.
...your excuses are your own...

(kelvin)

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Respect: +1
Blasphemy
« Reply #22 on: May 08, 2003, 11:46:06 AM »
0
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
Kubrick himself approved this version while alive and thought it was still effective. It wasn't a studio hack job like some Welles situation or something.
...
Showing everything would limit the viewer to seeing the sex one exact way and nothing else. Everything would be on the table. Not doing it makes the viewer imagine the level of intensity and explicitness in the sex everywhere for themselves.
...
The main reason people speak on how this feels like a hack job is because they disagree with Kubrick's decision and either don't know he approved this version or want to believe he would never have allowd for this. They want to see it all in the scene. I think Kubrick did right and I disagree with the detractors of the scene.

~rougerum


In that case, I don't understand why Kubrick didn't shoot this scene in the camouflaged version right away. That doesn't make sense if he just wanted to suggest something. And in the case he later decided that the manipulated scene was the better one, why did he approve the initial version for the rest of the world? Anyway, I have seen the original version and there is not that much explicitness, really. I guess this is more a question of puritanism.

(kelvin)

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Respect: +1
Blasphemy
« Reply #23 on: May 08, 2003, 11:47:20 AM »
0
Quote from: cowboykurtis
Quote from: chriskelvin
I'm not very familiar to the American rating system...where is the difference between an NC-17 and an R-rating? Besides, censoring this film is pure hypocrisy. Where is in this case the difference between showing and suggesting?


nc-17: under no circumstance can a person under 17 be admitted

R: any age can be admitted as long as they are escorted by an adult over the age of 17.


Has there been any major film that got an Nc-17-rating?

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5767
  • Respect: +151
Blasphemy
« Reply #24 on: May 08, 2003, 12:06:06 PM »
0
He made the original version because he didn't know how it would pass across the ratings board. When it was threatened with an NC-17 rating, he did the touch up. Only reason American version has this because of how shot the rating system is in the country. It is terrible. Thing is though, he still approved of the touch up and maybe in hindsight, felt it had the same effect and actually liked it. Opinions and feels can change.

~rougerum

(kelvin)

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Respect: +1
Blasphemy
« Reply #25 on: May 08, 2003, 01:27:43 PM »
0
Yes, I see what you mean. But if Kubrick liked the american version, why didn't he decide to show this one worldwide? There is no sense in two different versions of the same film, is there? Or was he just up to publicity ex patria? I mean, there had been a lot of rumours around before the release. And this had surely its effects on the box office statistics.

Fernando

  • satan's little helper
  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2228
  • Respect: +227
Blasphemy
« Reply #26 on: May 08, 2003, 04:37:22 PM »
0
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
He made the original version because he didn't know how it would pass across the ratings board. When it was threatened with an NC-17 rating, he did the touch up. Only reason American version has this because of how shot the rating system is in the country. It is terrible. Thing is though, he still approved of the touch up and maybe in hindsight, felt it had the same effect and actually liked it. Opinions and feels can change.

~rougerum


According to this interview with Jan Harlan and Leon Vitali he didn't do the touch, they say that he would recut that part of the movie instead of adding the digital figures.

Here's the link.

http://www.reel.com/reel.asp?ode=movienews/confidential&pageid=17353

Here's what they said about the digital figures.

Would Kubrick have been pleased or satisfied with the digital cover-up work that was done in the orgy scene to obtain the R rating that Warner Bros. had contractually insisted upon?

"Oh, no — he would've hated it," said Harlan. "Because had he lived he wouldn't have done this — he would have recut it. But I couldn't do that. Had we touched his cut, every journalist would have screamed murder. Had he lived, it would have been two days on the Avid and cutting back on Tom [Cruise] more and he would have obviously changed it."

Vitali added, "He was aware there probably would be a problem with it. He actually refused to shoot any kind of cover for what he was doing. He wanted to present [the orgy scene] exactly as he saw it. The whole point of it is it was supposed to be sick." Harlan added, "A demonic environment. Much more like Hieronymous Bosch."

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5767
  • Respect: +151
Blasphemy
« Reply #27 on: May 08, 2003, 07:56:24 PM »
0
Interesting. Here is an interview with Tom Cruise done by Roger Ebert that counters that.

Ebert: Did he say he would add digital figures in the forefront?
 
Cruise: Yes, that's what he was exploring when he was in the editing process and what he discussed. He didn't want to cut into the shots, but he felt if he took the digital effects and just covered, you know...because he wanted to deliver an R rating.

Later on, Cruise says his final word: But this is Stanley's cut. I would not have supported anything that Stanley hadn't approved or didn't want. There's absolutely no way that would have happened. I mean, before he died, we went through a lot of details about how the movie was going to be released, how he wanted things handled, where he wanted the print developed. All of these issues. Stanley did everything. Only Stanley.

I will concede the point that Stanley saw the finished film with this, because with the film being completed only 7 days before his death, it is likely he didn't. But I am convinced he ran the gamut on debating this idea in his desire to deliver an R rated film. Like I said before, I would have liked to see the other version as well but the rating systems is hell in this mess but nonetheless, this is Kubrick's version and the arguments presented by his brother n law don't make sense. First off, if they said Stanley would have hated this version, why did they not release two separate rated films on dvd. One being Unrated and the other an R rating? That is common practice for dvds. If they felt they were doing a dishonor to Kubrick's wishes, they would have at least done this. But alas, no such efforts have even been approached or mentioned at all. This great silence speaks that this was likely Stanley's cut add even in death, he controlled his films.

~rougerum

cowboykurtis

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1671
  • Respect: +8
Blasphemy
« Reply #28 on: May 08, 2003, 11:46:09 PM »
0
Quote from: chriskelvin
Quote from: cowboykurtis
Quote from: chriskelvin
I'm not very familiar to the American rating system...where is the difference between an NC-17 and an R-rating? Besides, censoring this film is pure hypocrisy. Where is in this case the difference between showing and suggesting?


nc-17: under no circumstance can a person under 17 be admitted

R: any age can be admitted as long as they are escorted by an adult over the age of 17.


Has there been any major film that got an Nc-17-rating?


some well known films such as: natural born killers, kids, midnight cowboy(Xrated which is samething) were all thearically released nc-17.
...your excuses are your own...

Fernando

  • satan's little helper
  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2228
  • Respect: +227
Blasphemy
« Reply #29 on: May 08, 2003, 11:54:54 PM »
0
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
Interesting. Here is an interview with Tom Cruise done by Roger Ebert that counters that.


~rougerum


Actually, Harlan contradicted himself in an older interview but I don't have the link or the source right now.
There's been a lot of discussion about this issue and they've been contradicting themselves a number of times, at this point I just don't know what Stanley wanted or not, what I feel certain is that he had to deliver an R rating, that this rating was up to the MPAA not WB, and that he had to do something to deliver that rating.

BTW, do you have the link for the Ebert-Cruise interview?

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy