MovieChat Forums > Don's Plum (2001) Discussion > Why did Leo get it banned in the US?

Why did Leo get it banned in the US?

posted 17 years ago by MrHenryTaggart
13 replies | jump to latest

ANY IDEAS?

I was wondering the same thing. It also mentioned that Tobey M. had also particpated in the lawsuit.

They only did it as a favour to a friend who was making a "student" film. It was never intended to be shown in public - which is kind of stupid. Why make it if you didn't intend to screen it?

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] premont 17 years ago

I think they supported it at first, but then Tobey decided he looked stupid in it.
He and DiCaprio threatened to blackball the director and producers and ultimately it was just released in Europe. One of the producers sued them because he said they threatened not to work with anyone who released the film in America.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fantasyfan1974 16 years ago

I don't understand it either. Jenny Lewis is in it too (now frontwoman of Rilo Kiley) and there's two songs in it from Rilo Kiley which is cool.
She didn't ask for cancellation of the movie and she is rather open in the movie. Leonardo is probably scared for his image, with the rabbit teeth joke in the movie. Or thinks he performed badly in it. I didn't see it. Little bit weird in the beginning to watch but not bad.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] OKCRay 16 years ago

Two words... POWER TRIPPING

[–] suzycreamcheese1 13 years ago

well put. I'll bet they had no problem taking any money involved.

RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008

[–] b_b_pinky 13 years ago

They blocked this movie for several reasons. First off, it was only supposed to be a short. The director went back on his word and almost made it 90 minutes. There was hardly any editing at all in this film. If you watch the scene in the restaurant, it's pretty much continuous. Leo, Tobey, and others made this film as a favor to a friend and when he went back on their agreement they took action against them.

Not everyone involved with this movie signed a contract, which is why they sued and blocked it from distribution. It managed to be distributed outside of Canada and the US because international law is different from US law.

I'm convinced some of the actors involved weren't acting but were naturally being themselves. It's kind of an existential film that portrays the actors in a negative light. Ultimately, they blocked this film from distribution because it wasn't very good and the actors involved were worried about their image.

[–] DeputyDippity 10 years ago

I agree with you about the "negative light" thing. I've seen a clip from this, showing Leonardo DiCaprio saying terrible things with a terrible look on his face.

The thing about how they sued because it was supposed to be a short film makes no sense. It was 90 minutes and not 10, so they sued? No.

I've never heard of that happening before, but trying to block something because someone is ashamed of it has such a long, solid history that TVtropes has a page devoted to it.

I`m sorry for my lack of manners, but I`m not used to escorting men.

[–] dalewheatley 10 years ago

Check out www.freedonsplum.com for the details about this crazy moment in Indie film history.