I just watched the DVD with the director's commentary and he discusses a number of issues he had with the MPAA in trying to avoid an X rating. On the version I saw, there is only one blurred photograph, which is hanging in the "chicken house" after the cops arrive. The director states that the photo was alleged to be an erect penis by the MPAA, so the filmmakers decided to blur it. He says that years later, he realized that the photo in question was simply of a human leg. The funny thing is that moments later, other, non-blurred images which clearly feature full frontal male nudity in pretty graphic detail are seen on a wall in another room.
Without the benefit of seeing what the actual blurred image originally was, I guess we have to take the director's word for it. Although, I have no idea why there would be a photo of just a single leg on the wall. A pornographic image entirely fits with the other photos on set. Directors love to make the MPAA sound ridiculous, so keep in mind this is just his spin on things, over thirty years after the fact. Also, I don't know if the un-blurred images were actually included in the theatrical version (the DVD says it's a "director's cut" and brags that it includes more graphic content).
Here's a real kick....on the commentary, the director also asks the question: what kind of person even looks for such things in the background? He seems to suggest that it's the MPAA who are the ones with the filthy minds after all. This is a little disingenuous, imo. Of course, on a big screen, such imagery would be quite easy to see, even if in the background. Secondly, his art directors are the ones who put the photos up in the first place, so obviously they wanted them to be seen. Now, whether or not such content should warrant an X-rating in 1980 is another debate entirely.
reply
share
pv416
9 years ago
Thank you for that in depth insight billymac72, just to add to the equation, I watched that same scene on a DVD version of the film released by Anchor Bay quite some time ago as mentioned in my previous comment. The image in question is not censored, upon first appearance it does seem to be an erect penis being held downwards, what strikes me as odd is the point you also made that so many other photos depict the exact same or similar images but are in clear view.
Who knows, but both versions that I have claim to be unrated, its quite strange that one has been censored and the other hasn't, I guess we will put it down to the image going unnoticed on the Anchor Bay DVD that came out in 1998.
reply
share
billymac72
9 years ago
That is strange. If I had to guess, I would suspect that they simply used different source material for the last Anchor Bay release in which the image was blurred. After all, the actual "censoring" was not performed by the MPAA. They only assign the ratings, and don't actually censor what's in a film. You hear directors getting all up in arms about the MPAA, but in most instances, the directors' studios are the ones insistent upon certain ratings. This creates a whole thing with the MPAA where the directors will appeal if they receive an X (or, NC-17 today) and the MPAA is then required to detail why they gave the rating. The directors then go through a tedious editing process to avoid the rating, yet trying to include as much content as possible. This is why you'll hear them say "it came down to x number of frames" that the MPAA were "offended" by and so forth. The "artistic" conversation is the one that dominates the public's understanding. But it's not the full story. There was an entire documentary made about this "issue" ("This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated") that remarkably neglected to even touch upon the real factors.
The whole reason the studios want to avoid NC-17 is because that rating prohibits those under 17 from being admitted, regardless of whether a parent or guardian is with them. This therefore equates with less money at the box office. This makes it less likely theaters will want to pick up the movie for exhibition(this is also true for unrated films, which is always an option for the studio). These studios depend upon young audiences to see their R rated films, and they market them directly to that demographic.
So, the blurring effect was put in place by the filmmakers themselves (I gave you the long explanation!) Anchor Bay likely utilized source material that had it in place. They may have known it was there, but used it because the print was in better condition overall than what they used before and/or was not worth restoring. Of course, it's possible they may have not noticed at all (weirder things have happened!).
reply
share
saint-21
8 years ago
Funny, they can show a man get be headed in great detail, but they cant show a mans penis in a picture.
reply
share