Why does VHS box say Rated R?
The poster for this film says it was rated GP, but the VHS box and label says it was rated R. Why the discrepancy? Based on the version I just watched, clearly this would be rated GP (or PG today).
shareI'd say that the "R" rating is a typo. However, in today's world, this movie would be classified as "politically UNCORRECT", and so the powers that be might have decided that an "R" rating may be a safer bet than the much more "tame" rating of "PG".
shareWhen this film came out in 1971, I was under the impression it was rated R. I loved the Carpenters, but I was sad I couldn't see this film because I was too young to get into the movie. Then again, I was so young at the time I may have gotten this film mixed up with "Deliverance," which came out a year later, featured a rifle on the poster, and also had a song ("Dueling Banjos") on the charts.
Certainly there's nothing in the version I've just watched to suggest an R rating. Could there have been scenes cut to tone it down to GP/PG?
That's what I'm wondering about. I noticed that some of the editing was kind of jumpy--like maybe some parts of certain scenes might have been edited out for whatever reasons. You know, this movie has been released twice: October, 1971 and then September or October, 1972. I'm thinking that it's possible that they redited the film to give it a more acceptable rating so that more people, particularly younger audiences, could go see it and not be offended by certain scenes. I hope that if, or should I say when (let's think positive here), they put this movie on DVD, then if there is any extra material that was left on the cutting room floor, may be reinserted into the film, or shown in the Special Features, or Deleted Scenes sections of the DVD.
Cross your fingers!!!
This is really bothering me, because for years — decades, actually — I was under the impression that this was rated R. I remember distinctly when it was released in the early '70s and wanting to see the film because of the Carpenters song, but I couldn't without my parents (who would not take me to an R-rated movie). It came out about the same time as other R-rated movies I wanted to see like "Deliverance," "Play Misty for Me" and "Last House on the Left." Even though I was only 8 or 9, I was very aware of movie ratings and what they meant.
I have the soundtrack LP to this film, but there's no indication of the film's rating. Nor is there even any year on it, which was typical of vinyl records at the time. And I can find no indication in my movie books that this film was ever rated R. Yet I'm convinced this was the case at one point.
I watched the film again this week, and you are right: It does seem kind of jumpy in places. Of course, this was a very old videotape of a very old film. I remember watching it on HBO in the late '70s or early '80s, and I can't remember if anything was cut from when I saw it then.
Do you have any idea of the nature of what might have been cut -- language, violence or nudity? After watching this again, it does seem odd that this would have been rated R because it seems like a good movie for adolescents and teenagers, at least those in the '70s. But if some scenes were cut, I'll keep my fingers crossed that we'll someday be able to see them on DVD!
The only thing I can think of is a "bumping" scene. Remember in the book that Goodenow told Cotton of an exercise they did in his Spec Ed school called "bumping"? It's where the group of kids huddle together, put their arms around each other, and touch one another while keeping their eyes closed. The Bedwetters did this exercise twice while on their journey: the first time, when they went to steal the truck (I think), the second time was when the buffalo rushed them while the boys were trying to figure out the best way to free them. That's one possible subject that Kramer might have filmed, but decided that it was too extreme to show for that time.
It's also possible that they may have edited out profanity; I wouldn't be surprised if the Bedwetters, or some of the other characters, may have uttered the "F" word, but again, that word was too "taboo" for the times.
But I'm leaning toward the theory of time constraints, I mean after all, that film is classified as a "B" movie, and the Head Honchos at Columbia Studios probably told Kramer that it was too long for the budget that they wanted to dish out and they wanted to make sure that they at least "break even" with the box office receipts. However, I don't think they thought this movie would be used for such a heavy circulation in educational institutions (I first saw this movie as a nineth grader at my high school in the 16mm format). So, the folks at the studio made quite a killing just on rental fees alone!
I just wonder if any of the actors are receiving any residuals?
Probably not!
I have not read the book, but I vaguely remember the "bumping" scene when I saw this on HBO almost 30 years ago. As I recall, it was sort of a naughty-but-still-innocent "rite of passage" that would make it to films in the '70s but wouldn't fly in these politically charged times. I don't remember any F-bombs when I first saw the film, but the word wasn't used as much then anyway, so it had maximum impact (and shock value).
As for residuals, I suspect the young cast was probably paid a minimal flat rate for the pleasure of being in a Hollywood film, and I doubt they made much on any reissues or rental income. Of course, I suspect Stanley Kramer got ripped off as well! Perhaps people like Jesse White did OK, because he was a fairly established name and surely had an agent. I'm very saddened by Barry Robins' death, but I'm glad to see that Bill Mumy is still working!
Yeah, you're probably right on the boys only getting a flat rate for working in the film, but I think that they should get SOME kind of residule for the rentals. I mean my God, this movie has made money hand over fist on the rentals to schools over the last thirty odd years or so! The rental fee on the old reel-to-reel 16mm format was about $100 or more, and this was in the mid-1970's! Of course VHS was alot cheaper, but I imagine that rentals increased because of the cheaper format, so therefore, the profits had sky-rocketed one hundred fold!! Not bad for a "budget film"! Still, you would think that the actors would get SOMETHING for their hard work beside the accoulades they received for a job well done.
But isn't this the very thing that the Screen Writer's Guild is striking over? They want a piece of the Internet profits pie, and the studio hounchos don't want to share. So I guess the Boys of Box Canyon get the accoulades only, and very little else.
That sucks!!
You have a very good, shall I say, historical perspective if you can remember when reel-to-reel films were available for rent! I vaguely remember when 16mm and Super 8 versions of major films were available for people and organizations that had projectors, but I was too young to rent them and I don't remember a lot of desirable titles being available. In my school, they usually just showed educational films and very dull feature adaptations of books we were reading, all of it heavily sanitized and surely rated G. Then, with the dawn of VHS (and the ill-fated Beta), it became easier for people to bring movies into their homes, though as I recall, initially we rented the VCRs too because they were too expensive to buy.
And yes, more power to the writers who are fortunate enough to have union representation against the corporate conglomerates that control the entertainment industry. If they're having so much trouble getting a few more pennies per DVD today, imagine how hard it must have been for unknown child actors trying to break into the business in the early '70s.
That's what made this movie so special--it was one of the first "real" films that I saw in my school. We used to watch those lame Ed films too, and to watch a movie that was actually shown in a theater was a wonderful treat!
I guess that was part of the reason that this movie was so special; it was a full length motion picture ran on film projectors similar to those found in a cinema projection booth.
If I was to see this movie for the first time today (especially on a VCR), then I think that this film wouldn't have had as great an impact as it did. It's kind of like the McDonald's phenomenon: when the franchise was only in the big towns, going there was such a treat, but now that there are McD's all over the place, then it's no longer a big deal. In all likelihood, I would have seen this movie at home, and it would have been "no big deal."
It's because of those perspectives that I'm glad that I saw "Bless the Beasts" when I did. It'll be 30 years ago this March that I've seen this film for the first time, and as a 14 year old with a small town upbringing, this movie was one of the "major" milestones of life.
I'll always love this film!