WILD AT HEART (consolidated thread) (1 Viewer)

[Michael K Hill]

Matt, I understand your point.

However, the choice of NOT changing the film, and getting an X rating (or NC-17) is still no choice at all.

The amount of money that is lost with an X rating (because of limited screens and showtimes) renders the option moot.

 

[Vincent-P]

Plus, many movies have it in their contracts that they have to come in at a certain rating. If Lynch had not been willing to make some sort of change, the studio probably still would have had the power to force a change.

 

[Patrick Larkin]

What exactly is in the unaltered version? I remember the Dafoe shotgun blast to be pretty graphic. I recall a dog running away with a hand or something too.

Since this film hasn't been on DVD, the last time I saw it was in the theater many years ago.

 

[Matt Stone]

If Lynch had not been willing to make some sort of change, the studio probably still would have had the power to force a change.

You're not wrong regarding the decision substantially affecting money. We had a discussion about how much money X, NC-17, and Unrated films made in the horror thread over in Movies and come to the conclusion that they can still make a good deal of money. I'm not saying that an X is as theater-chain friendly as an R...obviously it's not, but to say it's the same as no choice is an over-simplification.

I mostly agree with what you are saying, I just don't think it's censorship.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

As I said before, your definition of censorship does not fit this scenario. He wasn't told to alter his film or it wouldn't be released, he was told that if he didn't alter it, the film would receive an X rating. Lynch made the choice himself to alter his film and take the R rating.

I don't think Lynch ever had a choice. Even Stanley Kubrick was forced to deliver an R-Rated film per his contract. OK, if you don't like the term "censorship"...I understand your argument. Perhaps "forced-alteration" is more accurate. Without the MPAA, Lynch wouldn't have altered the film. Thus the MGM DVD is not Lynch's original vision. The Universal release is.

Jeff

 

[Jeff Adkins]

Since this film hasn't been on DVD, the last time I saw it was in the theater many years ago.

Actually it has been available. The Korean and Brazil releases from Universal are NTSC Region 0 and play on any U.S. DVD player just fine.

 

[Matt Stone]

As I said, I don't necessarily disagree with your argument, Jeff. I just don't consider it censorship by definition. If the studio forced cuts, than that's definitely studio interference, but they are paying for the movie so they have some stake in it artistic or otherwise.

The only thing I do disagree with you on is how the MPAA handles cuts. I'm having a hard time coming up with a direct example, but I'm 99% sure they aren't allowed to pick out specific shots, etc.

Maybe Vince can offer some more info on this one with regards to Clerks getting an NC-17 after it's first submission.

Either way...I think we agree in spirit. If Lynch wants a specific cut out there, it should be out there.

 

[Damin J Toell]

The only thing I do disagree with you on is how the MPAA handles cuts. I'm having a hard time coming up with a direct example, but I'm 99% sure they aren't allowed to pick out specific shots, etc.

Of course they are. The raters may advise the producers what lead to their rating. They can say whatever they want. How could they not be allowed to do so? By law? Anyway, for example, the raters advised the producers of Requiem for a Dream, that a number of shots of a sex toy would lead to an NC-17 rating. This was the sole difference between the potentially NC-17 (eventually released unrated) and R-rated versions.
DJ

 

[JonZ]

"that a number of shots of a sex toy would lead to an NC-17 rating"
The Naked Gun displays sex toys and dildos, why isnt it NC17.
Kinsey shows erect penises and vaginas and its only rated R
The MPAA make no sense.
Im about to venture out in the bad weather to get this

 

[Adrian P]

The Naked Gun displays sex toys and dildos, why isnt it NC17.

The difference is that Requiem shows two women doing anal together with a sex toy and though it is brief, it looks like it is real (penetration)...

 

[JonZ]

Ive never seen the R version.

I thought the R version cut the scene of them lubbing up the dildo but still had the butt-bumping scene shot from above intact.

I picked this up and cant wait to watch it. The gunshot scene isnt a big deal to me. If this is Lynch approved Im happy.

Now if could just get a decent DVD of Mulholland Drive and Twin Peaks FWWM (with the deleted scenes)

 

[Adrian P]

Now if could just get a decent DVD of Mulholland Drive and Twin Peaks FWWM (with the deleted scenes)

and Twin Peaks Season 2 w/the pilot.

 

[Damin J Toell]

I don't remember if the lubing was in the R version or not. When I saw the theatrical release, I seem to remember that part was intact - quite a few people walked out of the theater. It may have been the unrated theatrical though - not sure.

Only the unrated version was released theatrically. The R-rated version was done specifically for video the following year.

DJ

 

[Vincent_P]

Regarding the CLERKS NC-17, I honestly can't recall if the MPAA specifically said what language got it the NC-17, but I *THINK* one of the main sticking points was the "37" scene. I seem to recall that as being something they specifically tagged, but can't remember conclusively...

I *DO* know that the MPAA gave specific examples of dialogue (among other things) that got VULGAR an NC-17- for example, the term "toss the salad" was flagged.

I picked up the MGM dvd of WILD AT HEART today, and gotta say that after seeing the unaltered Bobby Peru death all over U.S. cable television during the past couple months, I was very, VERY disappointed that the DVD presents the altered R-rated version of this scene. The unaltered version is a hell of a lot more effective. Otherwise, it's a very nice DVD, but I wish that scene was intact as David Lynch originally intended it to be.

Vincent

 

[Jeff Adkins]

I picked up the MGM dvd of WILD AT HEART today, and gotta say that after seeing the unaltered Bobby Peru death all over U.S. cable television during the past couple months, I was very, VERY disappointed that the DVD presents the altered R-rated version of this scene. The unaltered version is a hell of a lot more effective. Otherwise, it's a very nice DVD, but I wish that scene was intact as David Lynch originally intended it to be.

Especially from MGM, who clearly has no problem with unrated releases. I need to see this scene in real time because it's been years since I saw the altered U.S. version. On the screenshots posted on DVD Beaver, the alteration looks like a bad optical effect. I'm going to try and pick this up tonight and see if its really as bad as it looks.

 

[Shawn_Sek]

i think this whole issue, non-issue?, is all on Lynch. Lynch supervised this transfer, obviously including this scene. unless i hear that Lynch went to MGM and said "I want to use the original version without the smoke" and they said NO, then this is the version Lynch wants.

sure, he had to cut scenes back before the wide release of the film, but that happens to alot of films. every DVD doesnt have to have all existing footage reinserted for the DVD or be considered "CUT".

Lynch went thru Eraserhead frame-by-frame to make it look better, he wont allow the TP:FWWM deleted scenes come out without extensive work on them, and altered Mulholland Dr for whatever reason you want to believe. surely, if he wanted the original WAH scene without the smoke on the DVD, it would be there. until i hear different, this is Lynch's version so its not "cut".

 

[Matt Stone]

i think this whole issue, non-issue?, is all on Lynch. Lynch supervised this transfer, obviously including this scene. unless i hear that Lynch went to MGM and said "I want to use the original version without the smoke" and they said NO, then this is the version Lynch wants.

That's definitely the side that I come down on. I'd be more prone to argue for the unrated cut if I had scene the unaltered death scene, but I haven't.

Much like Mulholland Drive's blurring, or the lack of chapter stops on most Lynch DVDs...if Lynch wants it that way, it's fine by me.

Thanks for the thoughts, Vincent. I figured they could give suggestions, but couldn't say something as conclusive as "Take out these 6 seconds and get an R," etc.

 

[Vincent_P]

Actually, if you watch the supplement on the DVD where Lynch specifically discusses the film-to-tape transfer process, Lynch mentions how they started the transfer using an existing fine-grain positive, but that the night scenes were looking really crappy and no matted how hard they tried in telecine, they couldn't be corrected, so MGM agreed to have a brand-new fine-grain master made directly off the negative, and the transfer was started again from scratch. I'm starting to wonder if the inclusion of the altered Bobby Peru death (when it's been showing up all over cable, in both letterboxed and pan-sand-scan transfers, unaltered) in this DVD is a result of that new film element having been made. I'm wondering if when MGM made that new element, the R-rated Bobby Peru footage was included as opposed to the uncut...

In any case, there is NO QUESTION that the Bobby Peru death alteration was done to placate the MPAA and for that reason alone- it and was NOT an "artistic decision" by Lynch himself. Maybe he doesn't particularily mind the change and was willing to let it stand, but that doesn't mean he PREFERS it by any means. Hell, if it was his artistic preference that Bobby Peru's death by optically toned-down, then doesn't it stand to reason that he'd have had ALL worldwide versions of WILD AT HEART presented this way? If he didn't want the unaltered version of those two shots shown to audiences, then why is that version being shown on cable television right here in the U.S.? Matt's comment re: Lynch having made the change really misses the point. It's not like Lynch was sitting around saying to himself, "Gee that shot bugs me, it's too gory" and then decided on his own to change it- it was changed ONLY because WILD AT HEART was being threated with an X or NC-17 rating by the MPAA, and Lynch had to deliver an R. Being the consciences artist that he is, Lynch made the change himself rather than letting some studio hack do it so as to have at least SOME control over it, but the fact that the unaltered shot was shown worldwide is a pretty damn clear indication that Lynch in no way, shape, or form PREFERS the altered version. Lynch had every worldwide version of MULLHOLLAND DR. released with the optical fogging of Laura Harring- if he could do that, then clearly he could've forced the altered Bobby Peru death on worldwide audiences, too.

And Shawn, re: this:

"sure, he had to cut scenes back before the wide release of the film, but that happens to alot of films. every DVD doesnt have to have all existing footage reinserted for the DVD or be considered "CUT"."

NOBODY in this thread has argued that every scrap of footage ever shot for a film be reinstated. What we are arguing about is a particular scene that's been shown EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD one way, but here in the U.S. a diffferent way, and only because of the MPAA, not because of an artistic choice by the director. This is exactly like the EYES WIDE SHUT case- Kubrick may have "approved" the digital censorship in order to appease the MPAA, but clearly he didn't PREFER it, or else EVERY VERSION of EYES WIDE SHUT wouldv't been shown that way. What we're talking about here is a director-approved compromise in order to appease his distributor, not an artistic choice to alter something after the fact because the director prefers it to be altered. There is a HUGE difference.

Vincent

 

[Jussi Tarvainen]

So how about some more screen caps?

 

[MarcusUdeh]

RE: Vincent, you have forgotten to mention one important fact about the region one release: David Lynch was actually involved in the decision making process. Unlike the foreign editions of the movie this release could have had the uncut shotgun scene or the extended version of the movie that was shown at Cannes, but Lynch didn’t want anything but the final Domestic print used for the DVD. There are no deleted scenes because he did not want them seen. The R-rated movie as it stands – even for today’s standards is still extremely violent.