Ang Lee's "Lust, Caution", Which Version? (1 Viewer)

[SD_Brian]

Oddly enough, I DID recently find a copy of Criterion's 3-disc Seven Samurai on the shelf of a local Wal-Mart. No kidding.

WRT Blockbuster and Wal-Mart et al refusing to stock NC-17's, I wouldn't have so much of a problem with it if they weren't also pushing censored, R-Rated versions of those same movies. If they don't want to stock the NC-17 rated Showgirls, Bad Lieutenant*, Crash (The Cronenberg movie),Lust, Caution etc., then fine, no problem. But to then market cut-down, R-Rated versions that they deem safe for us to view, so that they can suppress the artistic vision while still receiving a revenue stream from the sale/rental of a bastardized version, is just the height of cynicism.

It's also questionable who is actually doing the editing to these movies as they oftentimes are cut in such a way as to make them completely incomprehensible. Peter Jackson's Dead Alive is one good example where, IIRC, nearly a quarter of the original film's running time was cut to get the R-Version. An even worse instance was Peter Greenaway's The Cook, The Thief, His Wife & Her Lover, a movie thats original running time was over 2 hours, cut down to 90 minutes and I defy anyone to comprehend the cut-down version.

This butchering is pointless because, as has been mentioned previously, anyone who would be offended by or avoid the NC-17 versions most likely wouldn't be interested in an R-Rated version either.

*Some examples cited are movies that were available only in R-Rated versions back in the VHS days of yore.

 

[Mike Frezon]

FWIW, I've seen Criterion's Dazed & Confused at my local Wal-Mart side-by-side with the 1-disc release of Dazed & Confused. $34.xx versus $14.xx. Which one do you suppose was selling? !

 

[PaulDA]

Blockbuster announced they would NOT carry such films before the first one hit the cinemas. They opposed the very purpose of the rating. Because of that, few studios wanted to "offend" the largest rental retailer and the rating was never given a fair chance. It is ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE to blame the sanctimonious twits who run Blockbusters (not that I have much respect for the sheep that followed suit).

That rating was designed to overcome the porous nature of R rated films (too easy for under 17 children to get at them) while avoiding the "porn" stigma. If Blockbuster was TRULY interested in "moral values" (as they loudly proclaimed when they boycotted NC-17 films) they would have SUPPORTED the rating as a way to encourage the studios to shift some R material to NC-17. But NO. They pandered to a constituency that has always been a thorn in the side of freedom of choice, all while conveniently circumventing their own policy with "unrated" versions of films. Hypocritical and sanctimonious--an odious combination.

 

[Jon Martin]

But Blockbuster has every right not to carry it. Can you go to your local grocery store and buy an R rated magazine like Playboy? I know most of my newstands don't even carry it. So, why shouldn't a video store have the same option, to keep material they may find offensive off the shelves? Remember, back in the 80's, you had religious groups boycotting 7-11's for carrying adult magazines. Blockbuster was thinking in a business sense. They didn't want the hassle.

As for them carrying R rated versions of NC-17 rated films, that is part of their contract with the studio. Often times, they make deals with video companies to carry all their releases. If they won't carry NC-17, the video company wants the revenue from the store so they make an R rated version.

 

[PaulDA]

The issue is not whether they have the right to do so. They certainly have the right. The issue is whether their stated justification for doing so holds water--it doesn't. They made a big stink about "moral values" and then turned around and essentially ignored that justification when they started to accept "unrated" versions of the R versions that were shown in cinema (NC-17 in reverse, in effect).

Moreover, just as they have the right to not carry such films, I have the right to express my opinion about the sanctimonious hypocrisy that informed that decision. Additionally, the blame for the failure of the rating can easily and logically be laid at their feet as it was THEIR decision to boycott such films that led to studios to abandon attempts to meet that rating--opting instead for "unrated" home video versions that are MORE likely to A) contain NC-17 material and B) end up in the hands of those that NC-17 was intended to prevent from having access to that material. So much for "moral values".:rolleyes

I have never said that Blockbuster did not have the right to do as they did. I, however, reserve the right A) to point out the asinine nature of the decision, B) to point out the subversive effect of the decision (particularly in light of the "moral values" justification used for the decision) and C) boycott them. When corporations do things I find objectionable, I exercise my rights as a free citizen to not give them any of my money--and Blockbuster is not the only corporation that does NOT make any money from me.

 

[Jon Martin]

The difference is, when the NC-17 rating ban was announced, they also would not stock unrated films.

In the late 90's, they began carrying unrated films so that is why, early on, I questioned whether they still ban NC-17 films. They have loosened up over the years.

 

[PaulDA]

"Unrated" films were almost unheard of then--they came about as a response to NC-17 boycotts. It still makes no difference. They claimed to be upholding "moral values" and that was a crock of bovine excrement. They paid lip-service to the knee-jerk reactionary crowd without thinking through the implication of their policy. It was a short-sighted (especially for the "moral values" crowd) and stupid policy.

 

[Jon Martin]

Not quite. There were unrated films in the 80's. It was the independent films that weren't submitted to the MPAA. Blockbuster wouldn't carry them.

But this whole new wave of unrated films isn't a way to get around the NC-17, it is a marketing ploy. Most unrated versions of R rated films would still get the R. They are just preying off the audience who think they may not be getting the R. BB would carry these.

 

[PaulDA]

You are still missing the point of my criticism. NC-17 was actually a reasonably serious attempt by the MPAA to create a category that would not stifle filmmakers while also making it EASIER to block those under 17 from seeing certain films. This is something that a "moral values" supporting company like Blockbuster, if sincere about their stance, should have SUPPORTED, not opposed. They are the ones who touted "moral values" as their justification for not carrying films with that rating. That is what I find objectionable about their decision. If they had been honest and said something like "we don't think there is a market for such films so we will not carry them" rather than "we think such films are (wink, wink) 'morally objectionable' so we won't carry them (but we will carry 'unrated' versions' (wink, wink again)", I would be less critical of their motives (though I would be just as critical of their lack of foresight).

As for the "unrated" films--many of the ones I've seen (often the only versions available on home video ) simply reinsert the scenes they were REQUIRED to remove in order to get an "R". As such, they would have been NC-17 (if the rating were still viable, rather than a technicality).

It is clear you don't have any objections to Blockbuster's policy (nor am I likely to convince you, at this point) but you don't appear to be addressing the heart of my criticism--namely the hypocrisy and short-sightedness of the policy. The right to pursue the policy has never been in question.

 

[SD_Brian]

Funny story: Back in the early 90's I worked at Blockbuster for a while and our store labeled every "Unrated" video as "Youth Restricted Viewing." The rental policies for these YRV films was the same as those imposed on R-Rated videos (Namely, anyone under 18 needed a parent's permission to rent them). What was funny was that the policy applied to things other than movies. Unrated exercise videos and nature documentaries, for example. Yes, back then, Blockbuster was even protecting young people from the immoral evils of Jazzercise and Sweatin' to the Oldies.

 

[Jon Martin]

It's not that I don't have objections, it is just that Blockbuster doesn't matter to me. I've been with Netflix for years. They carry everything. My local BB store closed a year or so ago, I haven't rented from them since the 90's.

But I constantly see them being the target of topics as to "Why the NC-17 rating doesn't work".

The target should be the studios. They rely too much on BB and multiplexes and those under 17 so that it doesn't make economic sense for them to release films with the rating.

 

[Thomas T]

After I saw Lust, Caution in theatres, I came out of the cinema scratching my head. THIS was an NC-17 film? I didn't find anything in it that hasn't been seen in an R rated film. What it boils down to is the hypocrisy of the whole MPAA ratings system. Lust, Caution was a small, independent film with no stars in a foreign language. You can bet your last dollar that if Lust, Caution was a $30 million budget film financed by a major studio with Tom Cruise and Julia Roberts in the leads, it would have gotten an R rating.

 

[PaulDA]

They are the topic of such discussions because they fired the first volley against the rating, did it knowing it would sabotage the rating (were even proud to do so), have hypocritically circumvented their own policy's stated justification and cowed the studios into abandoning the rating. I don't have anything to do with Blockbuster either (they haven't seen a dime from me since they instituted their policy) but I was originally responding to the question of why I boycott Blockbuster. Usually, I give no thought to Blockbuster whatsoever.

 

[Jon Martin]

Actually, LUST CAUTION was financed by Focus, a division of NBC / Universal Pictures. It was Ang Lee's follow up to the multiple award nominated BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. So, it was hardly a little independent.

And Tom ran into ratings trouble with EYES WIDE SHUT.