Censorship: Protection or Segregation?

[Soggy Bagel's Revenge!]

Hello there. I was just recently thinking about the ABSOLOUTLEY SPECTACULAR "Requiem for a Dream" by Darren Aronofsky, and found that Artisan Entertainment really does support the NC-17 cut of the film, as that's what they released theatrically, there are no special features on the R-rated cut on DVD, and the new dvd clearly states "EDITED VERSION" (In fact, I looked at the back, and they actually changed the title to "Requiem for a Dream: Edited Version"). With a studio FINALLY giving an NC-17 movie tons of support, you'd think that it would be really easy to see the good version. It is in fact not, unless you buy it. If you buy it, you already know about the film, and the TRUE version of the film is not getting to anyone who are new to it and don't know. If it didn't have to edited for Blockbuster, "Requiem for a Dream" could have reached a ton more people, and they would have really appreciated it, instead they are left with a terribly cut version.

With that in mind, I realized that certain companies (Specifically Blockbuster) are actually PREDJUDIST against NC-17 movies. An NC-17 film has just as much (if not more) merit as an R-rated or PG-rated one, yet if a film is NC-17 it's considered trash. True, those who know how can find the original versions, but that's not enough. Companies under-estimate the intelligence of the public by limiting what they can see. True, most of the time kids shouldn't be able to see an NC-17 film (I would consider "Requiem for a Dream" an exception, however), but there's absoloutley no reason not to give an adult the opportunity to go rent one. It's completely insane, and when I started tinking about it, I actually started to cry. As a filmmaker, it hurts me a lot to see this happen. I just don't know what I can do about it. Any ideas? Do you agree? Disagree? Let me know.

Thanx,
Brook

------------------
Go to the missing title art gallery for fun comics, creative writing, and original short films!

or, visit Cheap Thrills ...or more? for lots of horror cinema fun!

[manigrasso]

I consider this more of a Soapbox topic, but I wanted to ad my 375 pesos...

I completely understand Blockbuster's decision to be a family-friendly store and not carry, say, hardcore porn. However NC-17 does NOT constitute porn. It just means that the themes are adult enough in nature that kids should not see it.

Blockbuster still carries erotic thrillers, and wacky teenage T&A romps, stuff that I think is far LESS adult in nature than Requiem For a Dream, or Henry & June. They carry action movies where hundreds of people are killed, slasher flicks with no redeeming value (God, I love 'em, though), blah blah blah...yet a movie that tries to be thought-provoking and mature has no place in the store. Makes you wonder what they're REALLY trying to censor.

I just wish BLockbuster would admit that there's a difference between XXX hardcore porn and NC-17 art films, and stop "ghettoizing" films that truly deserve an audience to see them as they were originally released.

[Eye]

Agreed. Moving to the SoapBox forum.

------------------
..:: Eye | Moderator | Rats.

[egman]

Some very good points. It's hard to fathom the hypocrisy a chain like BB has int its policies. They want to "protect" the kids, but at the same time there is easy access to movies which show extreme violence. Then a movie like this comes along that is trying to make a point and it has to gloss over its point.

And, have you noticed that a lot of this censor happens more often with scenes involving sex? Wow, its very appropiate to rent out of film which depict bloody death, but let us see an intimate moment between two individuals--oh boy, we have crossed the line now!

I'm not a father, but if I was I would rather do my own censoring. Let me decide what should be brought home. What you find offensive to you may not be so to me.

[Chunkblower]

I find it ironic that Blockbuster has nor problem renting and selling the Fight Club DVD, which has Unrated material in the special features section that was cut to avoid an NC-17 rating (the brutal beating of Angel Face). Unrated is okay, just as long as it isn't included in the film proper.

Perhaps Artisan should have just put the entire Unrated version of Requiem as one long special feature on the DVD.



------------------
"Don't blame me, *I* voted for Kodos!"

[saraswati]

the CEO of Blockbuster is a born-again-christian. if you've ever dealt with anyone like that (sorry in advance if anyone out there is, though i feel like we'd have heard all about it if that was the case), you should understand completely. Blockbuster policy is that they will not stock NC-17 films. if a film is NC-17 for violence reasons, then BB will stock the cut version, just as it stocks cut versions of films rated NC-17 due to sex. HOWEVER, our buddies at the MPAA pretty much see to it that extreme violence usually doesn't get more than an R, so Blockbuster doesn't have to worry about that much.



------------------
"Crap, lousy ceiling!"

[Wilson]

I'm not really clear on all of the "Requiem for a Dream" versions but the version I rented at Blockbuster was the "directors cut" and If anything was cut I would be suprised. I live in Canada so maybe blockbuster has different policies here. Can anyone shed some light on this.

[Chunkblower]

Originally posted by Wilson:
I'm not really clear on all of the "Requiem for a Dream" versions but the version I rented at Blockbuster was the "directors cut" and If anything was cut I would be suprised. I live in Canada so maybe blockbuster has different policies here. Can anyone shed some light on this.

Blockbuster Canada goes by the Canadian ratings and not the American ones. The uncut version of Requiem was rated R by the Canadian system, so Blockbuster will stock the uncut version. If you rented it on DVD and it had special features (like the commentary), then it was the uncut version you rented.

It may also have something to do with the fact that Requiem is distributed in Canada by Alliance Atlantis and they may only be distributing the uncut version in Canada.



------------------
"Don't blame me, *I* voted for Kodos!"

[DVD_Bob]

My question is if "Requiem for a Dream" was such a great movie why did it only make $3,609,278 in 150 days of release.
www.the-numbers.com/movies/2000/RQDRM.html

True, it was only released in small movie houses through out the country. But, the more cities that were added, the less it made per showing. Maybe it was released with a "R" rating so more people would rent/buy it. I would bet that if you could have tracked the renting/buying of both versions the rated "R" would out do the "NC-17" version.

Could this have more to do with $$$, not just with Blockbuster. Blockbuster is not perfect, but I am glad they do not have Porno placed throughout the store like the "Neighborhood" stores tend to do. I had to stop taking my kids to the video store because of covers of the Porno videos that were not hidden, but at the kids eye level. That store went out of business. Now I go to Blockbuster, and I am glad my kids can now go with me to pick out a DVD that they want to watch.

In responce to your topic, (Censorship: Protection or Segregation?) censorship will be whatever each person wants to think it is. Censorship for my kids is for their protection, but you will say that you are feeling the segregation of the censorship.

[saraswati]

Originally posted by DVD_Bob:
My question is if "Requiem for a Dream" was such a great movie why did it only make $3,609,278 in 150 days of release.

do you honestly judge the quality of a film on how it performs at the box office?!? the quality of a film cannot be measured in $$. there are a ton of great films out there that nobody saw. films are not just a commodity to be bought and sold, they're art. and art is judged, not by how much money it makes, but on the quality of the work. do you honestly think a movie like Tomb Raider is a great film because it made almost 50 million last weekend, while Requiem for a Dream, which only made 3 million in its entire run, must not be very good?

mostly it has to do with marketing. the movies that make the big grosses are the movies that have a ton of ads on tv, in newspapers, etc, and are plugged on all the big network talk shows. and studios don't heavily market films that don't have a very wide appeal (obscene or not, requiem isn't exactly a "feel good" movie). since most of the mainstream didn't know requiem for a dream existed until ellen burstyn was oscar-nominated (WAY too late in the game for a box office turnaround), it didn't make very much money.

Maybe it was released with a "R" rating so more people would rent/buy it. I would bet that if you could have tracked the renting/buying of both versions the rated "R" would out do the "NC-17" version.

while i'm not sure what kind of business either disc is doing, i know that artisan has packed the nc-17 version with extras, and it has released the r version bare bones. also, the r version has been retitled "requiem for a dream: edited version." since most people who would enjoy the movie would not like to see an "edited" version, after seeing an "edited" box at blockbuster, they would most likely go rent it somewhere else to see the complete film. in a way, the edited version is like an advertisement for the real version, placed in blockbusters all over the country.

Blockbuster is not perfect, but I am glad they do not have Porno placed throughout the store like the "Neighborhood" stores tend to do. I had to stop taking my kids to the video store because of covers of the Porno videos that were not hidden, but at the kids eye level. That store went out of business. Now I go to Blockbuster, and I am glad my kids can now go with me to pick out a DVD that they want to watch.

first of all, i have never been in any video store anywhere that had porn titles in the middle of the store, interspersed with everything else. most stores have a back room or an area that is curtained off. or at least a special porn aisle that is strategically located away from more family friendly stuff, so that kids wouldn't just happen by it. and, even if your neighborhood store didn't take this precaution, i highly doubt that the porn would be hanging around in the "comedy," "drama," "family," or "action" aisles. most video stores have everything sectioned off into genres. i have never been into any video store that had porn amongst other titles.

i suspect that what you mean is that you can't control your kids enough to keep them from running all over the store. so they run into the porn area, check out all the boobies (which, by the way, all women, porn stars or not, have, and are just a natural part of living, so it really shouldn't be that big a deal anyway). if this is in fact the case, then you need to be responsible for this yourself rather than refusing to patronize the place. you are the parent. it's your job, not the video store's, to make sure your kids don't go running through the porn section.

In responce to your topic, (Censorship: Protection or Segregation?) censorship will be whatever each person wants to think it is.

what are you talking about? this sentence is meaningless. it really annoys me when people declare shades of grey rather than face facts. censorship is when institutions decide what forms of expression are or are not appropriate. blockbuster's choice not to carry nc-17 videos is a form of censorship, no matter which way you look at it. you might agree with the censorship, but that doesn't mean it is not censorship. it's just censorship that you condone. and since that sounds bad, you have to say that it isn't really censorship, or that censorship is such a subjective concept that no one can agree on what it is.

Censorship for my kids is for their protection, but you will say that you are feeling the segregation of the censorship.

your children are protected when you say, "hey, johnny and suzy, stay here and help me pick the movie. don't go running off where i can't see you." your children are protected when you say, "maybe we'll watch Requiem for a Dream when you're a little older." your children are protected when you say, "hey! here's spy kids! you guys are gonna love this one!"

censorship is not protecting your kids, it's an excuse that allows you to be a negligent parent, but still have something to blame when things go wrong. you and your children's mother are the only people who can protect your children. you are also the only people who should have to protect your children. this is your job, not big corporations' or the government's.


------------------
"Crap, lousy ceiling!"

[Soggy Bagel's Revenge!]

saraswati, I couldn't have said it better myself. Parents really need to take more responsiblity in raising their kids. It's bad enough that they let them play too many video games and yes, even watch too many movies, now they're depending on COMPANIES to raise their children! All this does is make kids mindless drones who grow up to be whores for the huge corporations by buying whatever the companies say they should. I personally think that it's really bad that kids today don't get enough time to be creative, and also that they're so sheltered, taht they can't make descisions for themselves later in life.

Furthermore, I consider it SEGREGATION becuase they prevent ADULTS from seeing the film.

Thanx,
Brook

------------------
Go to the missing title art gallery for fun comics, creative writing, and original short films!

or, visit Cheap Thrills ...or more? for lots of horror cinema fun!

[egman]

This is all so true. If a parent really cares about the things their kids digest, then they would be the ones to take upon themselves to control what they see and hear. Don't punish the responsible adults because of a few irresponsible parents.

[1138]

Not to mention that if you raise your kids right, even if they see something like that South Park episode, it won't 'ruin' them.

------------------
1138 - DVD File Forum Greeter
Oh George, not the livestock!

[Chunkblower]

What censorship amounts to is a group of my *peers* deciding *for me* what I *can and cannot* watch/read/listen to. I'm sorry, but I'm not about to have that liberty taken away from me so that somebody else can be a lousy parent.

"The media cannot override good parenting."

-John Sherry, Purdue University



------------------
"Don't blame me, *I* voted for Kodos!"