During the sex scene between Vi, and Mr. Scott a large red box appeared over them. Am I not getting something here, or has my copy been censored? If I'm not getting something, someone please explain it to me. I just don't see the point of intentionally censoring out a sex scene.
Thanks.
That's actually the way the film was released. It was done that way to avoid an AO rating. I suppose they could have released a "Director's Cut" DVD with the scene restored, but what you're seeing is the way the film appeared in theaters, and your copy is fine. They wanted an R rating instead of AO for commercial reasons.
shareThat's actually the way the film was released. It was done that way to avoid an AO rating. I suppose they could have released a "Director's Cut" DVD with the scene restored....
Wow - that would have sounded very dumb.
Storytelling -9/10
Four Christmases -7/10
Slunt:
' There is no truth to the rumor that there was also a PG version where the dialog in the scene was re-dubbed to "African American, make love to me more intensely" '
HILARIOUS!
Very interesting thread. Was wondering about this myself. When I watched it ON DEMAND the scene included the box and I figured since it was OD that it might have been censored for that purpose. Then it appeared on the INDIE channel and there was that box again! Thanks for filling me in on the background.
Actually saw the scene uncut on the net and although there is a wide view and thrusting motions, there really isn't much to see. As another poster mentioned, the dialog itself is more explicit and the shots of the actors' faces make it clear that they aren't playing Twister.
As far as the MPAA is concerned, it's a no-win situation. You really don't want kids to view this material and if it was given an "R" rating they WOULD find a way to see it. Only other solution I can envision is to have two different prints of the movie sent to theatres and the NC-17 version could be shown after 10pm for adults only. I do not know what the costs would be for double the prints but if they are negligible, everybody wins. The film gets full distribution, kids are prevented from seeing it, and adults have the choice.
According to wikipedia (and im pretty sure this is true):
"During the sex scene in the "Fiction" part of the film, a red box was added for the American version of the film. This was used to bend the rules of the MPAA's rating system, allowing the film to obtain the R rating instead of NC-17. Initially the red box was to have had the word "Censored" on it, but the MPAA also deemed this unacceptable because they do not consider themselves censors.[citation needed] Solondz described the addition of the box as a political statement: "I was prepared to make that political statement. This is something I've always been prepared to do, as long as the audience is aware of what it's not allowed to see. That's how I feel "politically" about that. (...)" [1] The box is not present in the international version of the film, although in the american DVD release, both options are available, reflecting the popularity of the censored version."
______________________
"People are just bastard coated bastards with bastard filling."
i wanted to comment on Sonondz's remarks on censorship. i originally watched the unrated version i got form nextflix and only went through the rated version to see how the sex scene would be treated. i thought to myself that all you would get to see was blair naked and then a quick cut to the next scene impliciatly implying the 'deed' was done. to my supprise however the huge red box appeared and i instantly started laughing. i agree with solondz, if the audience knows that they are not seeing full disclosure then they must laugh about the very idea of censorship. by not completely removing the scene itself, (as they do in TV broadcasts of other violent films in order to give a smooth narrative without the violence or sex scenes) Solondz draws immediate attention to selma's naughty bits, completely defeating the purpose of the red box. so i say bravo! to solondz, way to ruin the mpaa's censorship in an entirely filmic fashion.
shareI thought it was a green box (better check the contrast on my TV). Anyway, they could have easily got an R rating simply by cutting to Blair's face throughout the whole sex scene. It seemed obvious to me Solondz was trying to say something about censorship--and it worked because usually people are not aware of this kind of idiotic censorship.
What the hell are they censoring anyway? Everyone watching this knows he's not helping her apply her hemorroid cream. I haven't seen the unedited version, but I assume the sex was unsimulated. (Hell, even within the movie itself this whole scene might have been "fiction").
In the excellent documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" it shows how independent film gets treated differently than mainstream film by the MPAA, and how some kinds of sex (i.e. gay sex) get treated differently than heterosexual sex. Perhaps our self-appointed moral guardians still have a problem with a sex scene between a big black guy and little white girl? I found this film far less disturbing than "Happiness", which I thought really did go too far in places. But then I just won't watch it again--I'm not gonna tell other adults what they should do. There's a very easy way to fix the rating system actually--have "G", "PG", and "PG-13" rating for "concerned parents" (and other douchebags), and leave everything else unrated so that adults can watch whatever the hell they want.
"the MPAA do not consider themselves censors". WTF? What the hell are they then?
sharePlaying Devil's Advocate: the MPAA DOES weigh in on what the rating will be, but if you don't like it, you can release it without a rating (if you can) or not distribute it, or distribute it through other means. The MPAA's point is that what they do is not a government dictation of what one can or can not film. If they did THAT, it would be certainly be censorship. The MPAA will only tell you what rating they give the film. That said, the MPAA certification is completely voluntary. I realize that it can be argued that the MPAA certification can make or break a film and that an NC-17 rating can be a death sentence for a movie and therefore, it is de facto censorship, but that's a different argument.
shareThanks I really learned something today!
It's not voluntary. Where can you show an unrated movie? Obvious that the ratings are compulsory or why would anyone bother getting an NC-17? Now you'll say that theaters' policies not to show unrated movies are voluntary, but they are clearly under political pressure. "Obscenity" is still actually illegal and without rated movies they could even find themselves in jail.
share"i wanted to comment on Sonondz's remarks on censorship. i originally watched the unrated version i got form nextflix and only went through the rated version to see how the sex scene would be treated. i thought to myself that all you would get to see was blair naked and then a quick cut to the next scene impliciatly implying the 'deed' was done. to my supprise however the huge red box appeared and i instantly started laughing."
Yeah I remember laughing hysterically when I rewatched with the censored version and saw that giant red box. The DVD I rented had the option to watch both. I love how the big red box is on the DVD cover and everything. But I must admit, when I watched it on cable and forgot about it, I was really mad I couldn't scene as I first saw it.
...even in a valley without mountains the wind could still blow.
I felt that was a very, very powerful redbox. That was his way of saying, "I'm not changing my movie, I want my audience too see it as it was. I can't show that? Ok, I'll let them know you are covering their eyes."
Considering the dialogue taking place during this scene, its positively laughable the MPAA had a problem with the wide shot of the sex scene.
No red box in the version I saw, yay! (I'm from New Zealand).
Films are rated here, and the rating is compulsory, ie movie theatres must abide by the rating. But very little is censored, if there is an "adult" scene, then it just gets a higher rating. I'm guessing that's why "Storytelling" was rated R18 here (restricted to ages 18 and above).
I would rather have a higher rating and know I'm watching an uncut/unedited film.
The MPAA is rating films that are for ADULTS. (Let's face it neither the edited or unedited version of this film is appropriate for children). The films that don't get an "R" rating can not be advertised in the mainstream media and their potential audience doesn't find out about them (of course, it also certainly doesn't help that we're a country chock-full of complete tools). The filmmaker then has two choice: he or she can cut the movie OR release it "unrated" and risk losing his or her investment and never be able to make another movie. This is censorship anyway you slice it, and in fact in many ways it's a lot more insidious than the government censorship they do in countries like Britain.
You also need to to take into account that the MPAA is controlled by big studios. While they're playing the nanny to ADULTS by "rating" independent movies, they turn around and release violent "PG-13" movies aimed at teenagers in the multiplexes. Which do you think does more damage? I was a high school teacher back when this came out, and I don't recall one student at any time ever mentioning this movie or any other Todd Solondtz film ( and, believe me, teenagers can see films like this if they want). The "G", "PG", and "PG-13" ratings are fine for parents (even if the latter especially is often a crock). But all the "R-rating" is doing is "protecting" adults from sophisticated adult entetainment.
Exterminate the Brutes!
I feel so much better after reading this. I never heard of this and must have seen the unrated version previous. I just watched this at Netflix and thought they had put the box on there. I was going crazy trying to understand why this scene was so bad when I know I've seen (what I would consider) much worse content on Netflix not to mention this film. I was almost pissed off at them and wanted to see what others had to say about it here. Glad to see Netflix isn't sensoring its movies and it's just Todd Solondz and his wacky hyjinx.
share
I actually think Solondz is wrong, trying to add word "censored" to that box and everything. Because MPAA doesn't censor anything, they just give the rating. Okay, I understand that directors doesn't have the power to say everything and procuders want more money, but if you make a movie who cares if it's NC-17 or NC-80? Just make a movie you like.
Technically, you're right. But why not just have one simple "R" rating? If a movie is for adults, it's for adults--who cares if it's hardcore porn even?
The MPAA is the fox garden the chicken coop. It's like McDonald's running restaurant health inspections. They use their power to stick it to truly independent and foreign films.
Well, actually some kind of XXX-rating would be nice. I mean even Terminator 2 is R, but it's kids' stuff. They should say if a movie is that kind you don't want to watch with your parents.. Like many Lars Von Trier movies..