Argh! (Eyes Wide Screwed...)

[mahavishnu]

I'm posting this in the software column, because it will affect any future DVD release of the film.

Warner Brothers have re-edited international prints of Eyes Wide Shut following a storm of protest by a bunch of Hindu's, offended by a few words spoken on the soundtrack during the orgy scene. It seems that this new redubbed version will be the one ending up on DVD. It remains to be seen whether or not the digital masking will also mar the transfer. Perhaps we'll be able to turn it on and off, SFT3k style... heh.

Time to run out and buy the soundtrack quick, so you can dub it back in at the appropriate moments!

[roger thornhill]

I refused to see this movie in the theater because of the censoring, and if the dvd is censored, I will wait however long it takes until an uncensored version is made available. I am getting 'damned' sick and tired of this censorship. My uncensored message to the studios is simple. Stop this bullshit!!!

------------------
dds #070

[Rock]

While this does suck, The Rock is glad that he bought the soundtrack almost immediately after it came out.

Also, The Rock is sure the "unrated version" will probably make it to DVD.


DVDFile.Com Moderator
MostElectrifying@netscape.net

------------------
The Rock says: If you can't pay someone to do it, it ain't a job worth doing.

[mahavishnu]

Unrated, probably. But these new changes to the score look likely to stay in place. Can't be offending those easily-offendable minority groups can we now.

Does anyone know the specific lines of dialogue that are supposedly offensive?

I generally feel that someone like Kubrick knew what he was doing. For the studio to tinker with it is really upsetting.

For what it is worth, being a practicer of one of the *less popular* religious beliefs if Kubric or anyone else used sacred Lakota music during an orge scene I would be rather pissed off as well.

So it becomes an issue of what is more important Eyes Wide Shut *a film* or respecting religious/spiritual faiths. Faith is a very touchy issue as it should be because most people take faith in whatever form they choose very very seriously. Does Kubrick or anyone else have the right to degrade and belittle anyones faith for the sake of art?

It is very unfortunate that directors and producers do not take such things into consideration before releasing a film.

I have not seen Eyes Wide Shut and I am not Hindu so I ask "Was the sacred Hindu text important to the film? or was it added because it sounded cool or added atmosphere?"

Should we bow to every nitch group of crazies? No, but Hindu is a major faith with millions of beleivers. Should millions of people have their faith degraded so that we can enjoy a film? No again. Should the transgression in Eyes Wide Shut be corrected? notsure. But I do know that untill such issues are adressed in upcomming films before their release we will see this again and again.



------------------
Istagi *Feather Head*
Moderator of the Now Playing Forum
DDS-351

[mahavishnu]

What is more important? Freedom of expression, that's what's important. Kubrick used the music for whatever reason he wanted to use it for. It's not for anyone else to question his artistic judegment. Simple as that.

As it happens, the words as they have been translated fit in quite well with the tone of the scene. And what's so bad about a bit of SEX? It's a perfectly natural exercise. And then of course we are talking about Stanley Kubrick here, one of the greatest directors that ever lived and his last film at that. The orgy dequence is in no way pornographic, and is entirely essential to the film... which has already suffered from a load of moronic censorship by the MPAA. How many more indignities must his final masterpiece endure?

At the end of the day, If you or anyone else thinks they might be offended by the film, DON'T GO AND SEE IT. Maybe some people are more concerned with spirituality than the cinematic medium, but that's not a backstage pass to urinate on someone elses candle.

Incidentally, i mentioned "minority groups" because I just find it a little interesting that if a film accidentally offends, say, a Hindu or Muslim audience then the studio is only too happy to cut the film. If, on the other hand, a film takes huge great swipes at Christians (eg. The Life of Brian or South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut) then that is allowed to pass. I just find that a little interesting.

I have faith in Kubrick and his reputation, hopefully Rogert Ebert and others will come to his aid here, and demand a true release. Kubrick didn't include this song just because it sounded good, everything in his movies had underlying meanings. It shouldn't be taken out because someone is offended. I as well trust a TRUE uncensored version will someday be released, hopefully within the next year or so.

[Rock]

Like said, freedom of speech is more important. No where does it state that we have "freedom to not be offended." After all, everything is gonna be offensive to at least one person.

Yes, religion is a touchy issue, but whether it is offending a miniority group or a majority group, it don't matter. It's America dammit.

The Rock is Christian, but Hell, crap all over it if you like. The Rock's beliefs and values will not change. And if The Great One was that offended, he just wouldn't watch it or listen to it. He wouldn't complain or sue like every other whiner out there.

Deal with it people. Life's tough. Life ain't fair. Buck up or shut the fuck up.


DVDFile.Com Moderator
MostElectrifying@netscape.net

------------------
The Rock says: If you can't pay someone to do it, it ain't a job worth doing.

Life ain't fair. Buck up or shut the fuck up.

You know what you are right, the argument goes both ways (devils advocate), it is just a film and not the end of the world.

------------------
Istagi *Feather Head*
Moderator of the Now Playing Forum
DDS-351

[Dehrian]

Exactly. We all have the equal right to piss each other off.

Personally, I hated it when Disney changed the lyric in Aladdin because a group (that will rename nameless) moaned that the line was insulting or deflamatory or just plain not nice. Who cares? Grow up. Learn to live with the fact that you're not going to be pleased or happy with everything that happens in the world and that said world does not, coincidentally, revolve around you, and let the rest of the world get on with its life.

[This message has been edited by Dehrian (edited 09-02-1999).]

Can someone explain why South Park and Dogma can rip on Christianity without the studios even thinking about "censoring" content, but you piss off a minority group by using a few words from their religion and it has to be changed. Doesn't make sense. ... actually, now that I think about it, this is the only place that I've seen any reference to these changes. Does anyone have an official report on this? Where did this rumor come from?

How many people in here think that members of the Christian community are not screeming their asses off about South Park?

I think one of the main differences is that I see Christians every day, I walk past them, I working with them, eat with them, I talk with them and I am friends with them.

Watching South Park does not cause people to think 8 year olds act like that or that Santa and Christ get in fights to the death.
simply because we are familiar with 8 year olds, Santa, and Christ. The problem occurs when Hollywood produces or uses images from less visible cultures in a derogatory manner.

I will ask this again "Is the few lines of sacred Hindu text neccesary to the Orge scene in Eyes Wide Shut?"

Oh and One more
"If the text is not improtant enough for Hindus to get upset why is it improtant enough for you to get upset?"

------------------
Istagi *Feather Head*
Moderator of the Now Playing Forum
DDS-351

[Hendrik]

"...If, on the other hand, a film takes huge great swipes at Christians (eg. The Life of Brian..."

Christians? I thought they were Jews!...

(signed) Hendrik, Liberal Agnostic

! !

Hmm... I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure I agree. My point wasn't that South Park doesn't make (certain) Chrstians angry... of course it does. My point was, they've made no attempt to appease their complaints. Now, if the Hindu text in EWS was offensive, I certainly understand people getting upset. Thing is: 1) the text is not linked to any sort of Hindu ceremony (real or conceived), and 2) I wouldn't have been able to tell you it was Hindu had it not been mentioned here. Therefore, I think saying that it's "Unfairly representing" the Hindu faith isn't quite accurate. Since Hindu ISN'T publicly recognizable, I don't think there's any fear that people will judge the faith based on this scene. In addition, I don't think most people would find ANY aspect of that scene in the movie "appripriate" in real life.

As far as the question of the neccesity in the scene, it's not for any living person to decide, I think. Only Stanley Kubrick could make that decision, and he's not around to ask.

(signed) Mark, conservative atheist

[This message has been edited by Rorschach (edited 09-02-1999).]

In fact, LOB and Last Temptation had problems finding venues here in the heart o' the Bible belt. I hear that Dogma is having the same types of problems...

[roger thornhill]

Well there are a LOT of things in movies that I find offensive (not just religiously based). But, I do not want any of it censored. If I don't like it, I don't buy it. If a pro-nazi movie came out I wouldn't see it (actually, I might out of curiousity), but I wouldn't want to deprive any one who wanted to from seeing it. Same for a movie that was pro-Jerry Falwell, pro-Rush Limbaugh, pro-Reagan, pro-death penalty, pro-racism etc.

Similarly a movie that bashed something I held dear might piss me off, but I would not want it censored. Make a movie that's anti-Christian (I mean real Christianity, not this right-wing fundamentalist rip-off of it), anti-Beatles, anti-liberal, anti-Lakers, etc. I complain about it, but not want to censor it.

It's a lot like KKK rallies. You don't ban them, you just hope they attract little attention or very negative attention.

I'm very much into the first amendment and censorship really irks me.

Sorry for the rant.

Well, I have a problem with most orginized religeous groups, be they Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc. Religion IS supposed to be about about tolerance - but the biggest persocutors and indeed, murderers of artists and "free thinkers" throughout history, have been the orginized religeopus groups of the world. They rule and spread their word by preaching, and indeed sending people on massive "guilt trips"

Leave Mr Kubrik's work alone! So, there's a Hindi "soundbite" in his film - whoopee-doo,
big deal! Get over it!!

[1138]

"Religion IS supposed to be about about tolerance "

Uh, it is? I thought religion was about a set of beliefs and a faith in them. I've got no problems with what apparently happened in Mr. Kubrick's film. I've been a catholic christian all my life and still go to church every week. I DO have issues with things like the 'christian right' because they give christians a bad name. I respect any and all religions for the most part (well, except for maybe scientology). Now, some religions might teach and practice tolerance, but a religion does not neccesarily have to. And I tend to agree with most people here that some people need to lighten up and not raise hell when any one thing offends them in the slightest way. Also, I don't see how the movie could be censored now without Kubrick's input. With him dead, I think they should have to leave it the way it is. I also agree that if it is in there, Kubrick no doubt had it in there for a reason. You don't spend two and a half years on a film and then haphazardly throw something like that in without knowing full well what it was and represented.

------------------
Floyd is pink.
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Lot/3924/

I believe Thomas Paine said something to the effect that tolerating a different religion doesn't go far enough. We should learn to appreciate it. I guess it's just a distant dream. The fundalmentalists have introduced legislation in the Indiana (my home state) state legislature to abolish the teaching of evolution. Everywhere some one else knows what's good for me. I'm with Rock on this whole issue.

If the the artist chooses to limit him or her self, so be it (I often time wish they would), but if the artist doesn't choose to limit, I have to support not necessarily the choice he/she made but the freedom to make the choice.

I had to travel all the way up the state of Indiana to see Last Temptation of Christ, and I passed angry fundalmentalists to get into the theater. I really didn't like the movie, but I'd make the journey again. Now, it looks like I'll have to avoid Eyes Wide Shut.

[mahavishnu]

Actually, organised religion is about control and opression. Scare the masses into doing what you want them to do. Or give yourself some beliefs that excuse you in the abasement of others. The Crusades, Israel v. Arabs, India v. Pakistan, The Settlers and missionaries punishing native americans and other races, the Spanish Inquisition, the conflict in Northern Ireland, the KKK. The list goes on.

[This message has been edited by mahavishnu (edited 09-04-1999).]

Did y'all know there's a college christian group called "The Campus Crusade"? I've got a few friends in it, and every time they tell me they're going on a mission trip I say something like "oh, going to kill the Moslems huh?" ... they never laugh.

[This message has been edited by Rorschach (edited 09-07-1999).]

Anyway, more on topic: I personally am an Atheist. Being thus, I have certain issues with the way religious people try to control the way things are taught and said and shown in our culture. The constitution grants both freedom of religion and separation of church and state. Now, granted, the "freedom" of religion was innitially supposed to cover just different denominations of Christianity (as i understand it, anyway), but (getting to my point here... I promise) at this point it SHOULD apply to every religion, including no religion. Thing is, people trying to control the teaching of evolution are going against my religion (IMHO). Organized religions are dangerous because they have power through force of numbers. We atheists have a much more difficult time starting a revolt over something because we don't have an organized group to speak for us. Now, sure, we've taken prayer out of schools (for goodness sake, they don't even say the Pledge of Alliegence anymore...), but I'm not really a big fan of that, either. I think there's a difference between giving someone the choice to abstain from something, and not giving someone a choice to take part in something. People are no longer given the opportunity to say a pledge to our country, because some people were offended by it. Similarly, kids are going to be deprived of the opportunity to learn about evolution because some people don't want their kids to learn it. It makes much more sense to me that these things be offered, and the children (or their parents) be given the right to decline to take the opportunity.

On the Kubrick thing... does it make sense to anyone that they'd change to movie to please the Hindu contingent, just to offend the die-hard Kubrick fans? You can't please everyone, and this movie CERTAINLY doesn't please everyone, so why even bother messing with the master's creation?

[1138]

I just want to point out that the moronic religious people who are trying to get rid of evolution do not represent a major portion of the populace. They in fact give religion a bad name. I've been christian all my life, but I stronlgy support the separation of church and state. I also support all religious freedoms, including atheism. Sure religion has been the cause of some bad things throughout history, but so has a lot of other things. Relgion is not a bad thing in and of itself, but some tend to use in bad ways sometimes (christian right, etc.). Making fun of any and all christians for the crusades is equivalent of making fun of any and all americans for slavery and racism against blacks. Most every american is not for those things today and regrets that they happened, much as is the same for christians and the crusades.

Anyway, my point is not all religion and religious people are like the attention grabbing morons that you see and read about in the media.

------------------
Floyd is pink.
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Lot/3924/

1138,

It was not then and is not now my intention to make fun of any Christian for the Crusades. It was my intention to make fun of a campus group that would name themselves after the Crusades. You have to admit that such a thing defies logic. If there was a campus group called "The Campus Apartheid", I think they'd be asking for the same ridicule.

[This message has been edited by Rorschach (edited 09-07-1999).]

[1138]

Rorschach,
That's cool. A little misunderstanding on my part. That is kinda foolish sounding now that I relize what you meant.

And as much as it angers others about these yahoos that want to abolish evolution, it angers me even more because it gives me and my religion a bad name. I didn't mean to single out Rorschach specifically, but it seems I hear people bash certain religions a lot for ubased ideas of what the religion is about. I think for the most part, religious people are just like non religious people. Unfortunately we just tend to hear about the radicals for the most part. They tend to make a lot of noise and nothing else.

------------------
Floyd is pink.
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Lot/3924/

Creationism, from the producers of such steller ideas as:

The Earth is Flat. and The Earth is not only the center of the solar system but the entire universe. Of cource anyone who provided evidence of the contrary were discredited and villified for thousands of years. I guess with a track record like that I can only assume that creation is a load of crap.

------------------
Istagi *Feather Head*
Moderator of the Now Playing Forum
DDS-351

[manigrasso]

Sorry to try to bring this thread back to DVD for a second, but what the hell it is a DVD site, right?

Something I, as well as others, have said before would certainly apply to this argument: DVDs can release various rated versions of one movie on one disc, with "Censorship on the fly" getting rid of certain cuss words, or inflammatory-to-some-people text lkke the Eyes Wide Shut brouhaha, or box over nudity like USA did with Private Parts last week. It would be great if the studios took advantage of this technology, and give some people a watered-down "respectable parent" edition, and the director's cut for when the kids are asleep or when liberals/freedom of speech advocates are watching. The debate on this thread, and thousands of others like it, and thousands of letters to the editors & boycott threats & picket lines will disappear, because everyone will get what they want.

Manigrasso

------------------
If He had the opportunity to get to know you first, maybe Jesus would not have died for your sins...think about it...

I am thinking about using "sacred lakota music" as background music for a poop fetish movie I am making in my basement. When I sell copies of my poop fetish movie (working title being: Lakotan Poop Festival) out of the back of my wood panelled station wagon in the parking lot of a lakotan casino, I'll be sure to think of my glorious right to freedom of expression while i rake in the $17.95 necessary to buy my copy of the UNCUT version of EWS.

PS - I don't respect the religious or cultural beliefs of any of you.

------------------
Second Brother - "And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying: 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade that, with it, Thou mayest blow Thine enemies to tiny bits in Thy mercy.' And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals and fruit bats and large chu--"
Brother Maynard - "Skip a bit, brother"

[Dehrian]

I think the problem with some of the more... sensitive may be that they don't want others to have what they deem unacceptable and/or inappropriate, either. There's a strange motivation that makes some proselytize, to enforce their own beliefs and standards upon others. But not everyone is going to have the same myopic beliefs or come from the same social strata or whisper into the ears of the same bedposts at bedtime. Part of the greatness of democracy is our right to hold divergent views and opinions and express these views as we deem fit. Take that away, we're one step closer to socialism.

But yes, this is a DVD group. Got to remember that.

...for 1138 and other middle of the road "non defenders" of the faith. Not leveling the criticism at all in religion is made more difficult when the voice you mention doesn't speak up. If the less fundamentalists don't speak up, one can only assume they're allowing the religious right to speak for them. Where is the other voice?

Reminds me of the time a "Born Again Christian" (he was very proud of that fact) co-worker of mine told me he hates Disney and ATT because they were pro-gay. We were talking about the "Lion King" and he said he wouldn't watch it because he was offended by the gay overtones. I had no idea what he was talking about and to tell you the truth I'm still not sure (maybe because of Poombaa and Timon or the hyenas?). My roundabout point is: Why can't we just enjoy a movie and not force our beliefs upon it or into it?

His beliefs have not affected my enjoyment of the movie but if I was a little less strong in my beliefs (or non-beliefs) maybe his line of bullsh*t would have turned me against a very fine movie. I might have never seen the beautiful animation and sound and story just because someone was offended. Maybe if he was a reverend of a large church or a mayor or a president or a dictator, he would have the authority to remove it from the public. That's what's wrong with all this. Giving someone else the power to censor what you can and cannot see or hear. Isn't this America? You have the freedom to close your eyes, close your ears, turn the dial, walk out of the theater, etc. (Un)Fortunately, we also have the right to open our mouths on any subject. Use all your freedoms or lose them.

This guy is the biggest loser I have ever met (and the biggest hypocrite) but he fooled enough people at work to get his way on a lot of things. He was even named the Civil Rights Officer.

You see...what's next?

[1138]

A good point Terry. I too wish more people were vocal in their denouncement of those types. it needs to be made clear that those people represent a minority and not the majority.

------------------
Floyd is pink.
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Lot/3924/

[micahp]

I was brought up Unitarian. This meant that I was taught all the (major and some minor)religions and told to extrapolate what basic "truths" I could and form my own faith system. I was also taught that all religions hold some basic "truths" and I should respect them.

The Fundamentalists (of any religion) make this hard for me sometimes. But I try.

Anyway, as far as the movie is concerned. This stuff has been going on since film began, even before. It will always happen. All we can do is express our displeasure at the desicion and boycott the release.

In other words, do everything the fundamentalists do. The beliefs of the fundamentalists are strong enought to drive them to fight for their cause.

Can we say the same?
In this istance, I can. Can you?

------------------
Resident Me,
Micah P.
Digital Dreams

[roger thornhill]

I'll just throw in my two cents about fundamentalists. I have always found it amusing that when you get right down to it, fundamentalist christians, fundamentalist jews, fundamentalist muslims, and fundamentalist whatevers are more like each other than they are to other christians, jews, etc.

Question for any lurking fundamentalist. If every word in the bible is literally true, then did God make man before or after the animals? Chapter 1 of Genesis says after, Chapter 2 of Genesis says before.

------------------
dds #070

Personally, I worship Monday Night Football, which makes me an atheist between January and early September.

Istagi - about those stellar ideas from those who brought us the 'flat earth' idea - I could not have said that any better!

Now, anyone want to take this to the off-topic? It's great stuff, but....you know.

To add more interesting facts to the everything revolves around the Earth nonsense. The Catholic church branded Galileo a heratic for even suggesting that the Earth was not the center of the solar system and refused to acknowledge his data. However in a historic move the Pope recended the Heratic label 350 years after Galileo's death in 1992

------------------
Istagi *Feather Head*
Moderator of the Now Playing Forum
DDS-351

[Rock]

You are all just pawns of the devil. He wants this kind of flexible morality and Anti-Christian agenda that you people push to become common.

It's sad really.

And by the time you realize the truth, it will be too late. You'll be burning in Hell.

Hope this helps.

Just JOSHIN ya peeps!


DVDFile.Com Moderator
MostElectrifying@netscape.net

------------------
The Rock says: Every episode of Xena is precious. Let us rejoice.

[This message has been edited by Rock (edited 09-08-1999).]

Something else... recently, there have been several uprisings regarding certain movies (like Dogma, for example), where the people revolting against the movies will say "This movie is immoral, and should not be released!" and then in the next sentance they say "no, I haven't seen it, and I won't because it's awful and immoral...". Does anyone else have a problem with this???

[Dominik Pfleghaar]

This is an interesting thread, but it has digressed way off-topic, which is why I'm gonna move it to the, well, off-topic area. Please feel free to continue it there.

------------------
Unca Dom, DDS-088
dvdfile.com moderator
dominikpfleghaar@netscape.net