Auto Focus DVD Question (1 Viewer)

Michael Pakula · Mar 12, 2003

I was reading the review of the dvd on DVD File
and it mentions that during one scene during the
movie the image is blurred due to the MPAA. I was
wondering if this is the case with the canadian
dvd because I dont remember any blured image
when I saw it in theaters. So just wondering
if anyone knew if the canadian version will
be the same as the american version?.

-Mike

TonyD · Mar 16, 2003

i was just wondering this myself.

i have seen 2 scenes with this.
one near the beginning wasn't blurred it was pixalled.
then near the end a scene was blurred.

was this like this in the movies.

Michael Pakula · Mar 17, 2003

Im going to pick this one up this week.
So I will let you know how it turns out.

-Mike

Gordon McMurphy · Mar 18, 2003

http://us.imdb.com/AlternateVersions?0298744

The region 1 DVD is cut/censored?

So the region 2 DVD will be uncut/uncensored?

Pointless.

Gordy

Colin Jacobson · Mar 18, 2003

The region 1 DVD is cut/censored?

Depends on your definition of censored. It shows the movie in the way it ran theatrically in the US - the masking covered the material on American screens. Apparently - ala Eyes Wide Shut - that wasn't the case elsewhere.

If you want to call that "censored", go ahead, but AFAIK, the DVD's not been altered from its theatrical release...

Click to expand...

Doug:Li · Mar 18, 2003

the scenes that were censored werent really scenes. They blurred the tv screens the characters used to watch themselves on tape, performing certain 'acts'. Thats all that was censored in the theatrical version. It was kinda odd to see it that way on the big screen. But I believe Schrader was trying to make a point about censorship.

Colin Jacobson · Mar 18, 2003

But I believe Schrader was trying to make a point about censorship.

That's not how he expressed himself in the audio commentary. IIRC, he just stated that he masked the bits rather than cut them - I don't remember any indication that he had any greater purpose than that...

Click to expand...

Julian Lalor · Mar 18, 2003

The film is censored. The MPAA insisted on the alterations in order for the film to be released with an "R" rating. Roger Rabbit, on the other hand, is not censored as Disney made the election to change the film of its own volition and and without being required from an external third party.

Colin Jacobson · Mar 18, 2003

The film is censored. The MPAA insisted on the alterations in order for the film to be released with an "R" rating.

But it's not censorship in this case. They required the change to get an "R", but they didn't require the change PERIOD - it's not like the movie couldn't have come out with that footage intact. It would have gone "NC-17", but the MPAA can't make anyone cut or alter footage unless they willingly agree to do so...

Click to expand...

Julian Lalor · Mar 18, 2003

I agree that Sony could have released this film with a "NC-17" or unrated cut, but they chose to make amendments to the film required to obtain an "R" rating. It's certainly closer to censorship than, say, Disney changing WFRR or Lucas altering Star Wars. The unaltered version will almost certainly be available outside the US, where explicit sexual content is not regarded as life threatening to the well being of adults by ratings bodies.

Colin Jacobson · Mar 18, 2003

I agree that Sony could have released this film with a "NC-17" or unrated cut, but they chose to make amendments to the film required to obtain an "R" rating. It's certainly closer to censorship than, say, Disney changing WFRR

No, it's not "certainly" closer to censorship for Auto Focus. The filmmaker agreed to change his film to get an "R" rating. From all I've heard, no one made him do it - it was his choice. In no way, shape or form does this equal censorship. As for Roger, however, if the changes were made without the filmmaker's knowledge, that's a LOT closer to censorship.

Who ever argued that the Star Wars films were censored? Of course they weren't - the filmmaker altered them because he thought the changes improved the movies. I have no clue why you introduced those flicks into this discussion...

Click to expand...

Julian Lalor · Mar 18, 2003

I introduced Roger Rabbit into the discussion on the basis of the other thread where it was deemed a foregone conclusion that the alterations amounted to censorship, and what I consider the striking commentary about Auto Focus not being censored.

Censorship occurs when someone other than the owner of a film (and the owner of a film is rarely the director - hence the reference to the Star Wars movies, which are owned by their director/creator and are, like RR also not censored) requires changes to be made to the film in order that the film be released with a certain rating (or at all). Disney amended Roger without external intervention - hence it is NOT censorship (and, in my view, nowhere near the definition of that word as I understand it's legal usage). Whether Zemeckis knew or didn't approve of the changes is irrelevant to the consideration. Ethically, Disney may be stepping on shallow ground, but legally it is nowhere near as close to censorship as Auto Focus.

Auto Focus appears to have been altered because the Studio wanted an "R" rating and had to make certain alterations to the film to obtain that rating (as was done with Eyes Wide Shut). That is censorship, or at least self-censorship. Censorship occurs all the time with movies; many films on broadcast television are censored for language, violence or sexual content because of rules imposed by broadcasters. The same with airline versions of movies. It's no big deal, but that is what it is.

Colin Jacobson · Mar 18, 2003

Censorship occurs when an official body PROHIBITS something from being released. The MPAA never prohibited Auto Focus from being released in the way it was shot. It wasn't censored. And this argument is making me sleepy...

Bryant Frazer · Mar 19, 2003

But I believe Schrader was trying to make a point about censorship.

Nah. When he showed the film at the New York Film Festival, he showed it without the digital obscurement. The film was bowdlerized (is that a more agreeable word here than "censored"?) before general theatrical release because Schrader was obligated to deliver a film with an R rating — as is nearly every director who chooses to work in the American studio system.

Given that the cuts were purely arbitrary, made to satisfy the current whim of the MPAA rating board, it is kind of disheartening to hear that Sony didn't offer the film in a complete, unrated version. It still boggles my mind that anybody could look at a movie that's as fucked up as Auto Focus and figure that by obscuring a naughty bit here or there they could somehow make it more suitable for mass consumption. How utterly pointless.

-bf-

P.S. Colin, I think the reason why some people use the word "censorship" to describe what the MPAA does is that they are de facto censors. Everyone working in the American film industry today knows that an NC-17 picture will not be released by a major studio. (Even New Line refused to get on board with Todd Solondz when the MPAA slapped the crimson letters on his caustic Storytelling!) That gives the MPAA the effective powers of an industry censorship board. (If Sony was cutting the picture to satisfy its own standards, that would be a different story. But it's not. It's cutting the picture to satisfy the standards of an official industry association.) Whether it's "censorship" by the strictest definition of the word becomes irrelevant, since it's a centralized agency ruling on the content of American movies that has essentially the same restrictive effect as a censor. It's not government censorship, and thank god for that. But it was the fear of state and local censorship that led to the creation of the MPAA ratings system in the first place. It's censorship by proxy.

Click to expand...

Dan Rudolph · Mar 19, 2003

Sony doesn't do NC-17s even on DVD, so we unfortunately had no chance of this. If it had been Universal or Warner, we'd probably have gotten it.

Mark Bendiksen · Mar 19, 2003

It still boggles my mind that anybody could look at a movie that's as fucked up as Auto Focus and figure that by obscuring a naughty bit here or there they could somehow make it more suitable for mass consumption. How utterly pointless.

I agree wholeheartedly. I just finished watching this movie for the first time, and I can sincerely state that this movie is not about titillation. It's about a very sad individual who is lost in the depths of addiction. I'm as red-blooded as any "typical male" and yet the abundant sexual content of Auto Focus did nothing for me except underscore the supreme sadness of Bob Crane's life. What would be the difference if those brief video scenes were unpixellated or unobscured? Nothing at all! The MPAA absolutely amazes me with their shortsightedness. This isn't the kind of movie that horny teenagers would go see anyway. However, it's the kind of movie that horny teenagers should see, in its completed uncensored form.

Just my $.02...your mileage may vary...

Link Removed

Click to expand...

Colin Jacobson · Mar 19, 2003

Whether it's "censorship" by the strictest definition of the word becomes irrelevant, since it's a centralized agency ruling on the content of American movies that has essentially the same restrictive effect as a censor.

I agree that one can view the MPAA as a de facto censor because clearly if they say you have to cut something to get an "R" and you really want an "R", it'll happen. However, I dislike the fact that some (most?) blame the MPAA for the studios' refusal to issue anything "NC-17".

A true censor says "you can't release this material as is" PERIOD. The MPAA never tells anyone that - they just dictate the rating it gets. That's their job, whether one agrees with their criteria or not. If the studios backed "NC-17" flicks, this discussion would be moot. If they released more unrated flicks or DVDs, it would also be moot.

The fact remains that with true censorship, those behind the art have no choice in the matter. With the MPAA, the folks behind the films can do whatever they want - they just have to deal with the consequences of the ratings. The MPAA never prohibits them from releasing whatever they want to release, however...

Click to expand...

Home Theater

Entertainment & Streaming Content

Physical Media

Home Theater Equipment and Hardware

Other Diversions

Bargains and Classifieds

Home Theater Forum

Archives

Auto Focus DVD Question (1 Viewer)

Second Unit

Who do we think I am?

Second Unit

Stunt Coordinator

Supporting Actor

Supporting Actor

Supporting Actor

Stunt Coordinator

Screenwriter

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread

Sign up for our newsletter

and receive essential news, curated deals, and much more

Similar Threads

Forum statistics