What's with all these movies being released on DVD in the "unrated" version, "uncensored" version...? I even saw one that claimed to be the "unedited" version!
I would love to see that. What would it be, the whole movie in one take? Either that, or else: "Now available in the Unedited Version! Sit through 16 different takes of each scene! The whole unspoiled glory of the film unspools before your eyes, out-of-sequence and in the original order that the scenes were shot - with none of the intrusive editing that undermines the artistic purity of other films!"
I can only assume that in most of these releases, which are comedies of various low-to-middling sorts, "unrated" is a come-on intended to imply "additional tits added in!" (whether or not they deliver on that unspoken promise). But there are a lot of films coming out "unrated" where that just...almost couldn't conceivably apply. I mean, The Ring 2? I wouldn't want to think that Naomi Watts would allow her, ahem, bosoms to be reduced to the status of a DVD extra. It's not really that type of film, anyway. Nor is it a "guts and gore" horror film. So what's uncensored? What's unrated? What do you get extra? "Now with even more lingering shots of grotesquely distorted rictuses!"?
I seriously doubt that would put it over the line, as far as the MPAA is concerned. Nor, for that matter, would mere nudity. So...I don't get it. If the film was already rated "R", there are only a few things that are going to push it over the hump, into NC-17 territory. Let's be honest, these are not things that are being added in to these supposed "unrated", "uncensored" versions!
But there's a much bigger issue at stake here than empty titillation.
These "special versions" dilute the identity of the original film as a work of art. We look at an acknowledged masterpiece by Leonardo Di Vinci or Picasso, and we say, "yeah! That's it! That's the one and only! A masterpiece!" Sure, a lot of those masters made multiples of some of their more high-profile pieces. Edvard Munch comes to mind. He had a bunch of different takes on "The Scream." Perhaps he had enough vision to see that it was going to end up as Pop Art. But the main thing is, he may have done more than one "The Scream," but they're all pretty much the same. It's not like there's an "uncensored" version with extra tits!
I blame Ridley Scott. Him and his Blade Runner with three different theatrical releases - and now the original version is gone, seemingly for good. And for what? What are these directors saying? As far as I'm concerned, the original wide-release theatrical version of every movie is the "Director's Cut." That's what the director was able to achieve. That's what the director accomplished, for real, when it counted. I'm not calling Ridley Scott a pussy, but any director who can't get their cut and their vision approved the first time around...is a pussy. You can either say, "yes, this is what I was able to do, this is my film" or you can disown it. Or, you can shut up. That's always an option. But you don't just wait until the film is released, let it make as much money as it can, let it garner a dedicated fan base, and then say, oh, wait! That cut sucks, that's the Producer's Cut! Wait 'til you see this cut! "Here comes my bold vision!"
Bold vision my ass. It was your job to fight for that vision the first time, if it's so damn bold. Either that, or take your name off in protest if what's being released is not your vision. Because I've got news for you: you are either the director or you're not. Don't come to us the second time around, talking about what an uncompromising artist you are.
Or if you do...at least, have the decency to put some extra titties in there.
2 comments:
This is a huge pet peeve of mine! The "unrated" releases of movies rarely have anything juicy added to them. They just add a couple of the deleted scenes and don't send it off to get rated again, and since the MPAA hasn't looked at it and rated it with those scenes, it's technically unrated--yet it's no more racy or violent than the original. There's just a little more of the same, and they take advantage of the fact that most people don't realize that. Grumble.
You know, I'm really a fine one to talk about finished works, original visions and director's cuts. Every damn time I see this post, I go in and change a word or two!
Edana, what bugs me most is when I've seen the movie in the theater, and it was tight and it hummed and it was well put together - and then you get the DVD (which is the only one available, which is "unrated") and the rhythm of the movie is destroyed. Scenes drag with needless padding added in, "shock" gags and pseudo-comic skits of dialogue...it's disgusting.
I bought the film because I liked the film. The film I liked no longer exists.
Post a Comment