Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo

1900 New Release talk


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
14 replies to this topic

#1 of 15 OFFLINE   Peter Neski

Peter Neski

    Supporting Actor



  • 902 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 14 2005

Posted July 26 2006 - 07:05 AM

I got this from someone who posted it on The Terrance Matlick list
DON"T KNOW IF IT TRUE

"the long-awaited remastered and uncut versions of Novecento with more
language features are on their way in both in R2 and R1. According to
Novecento fans at the imdb (and their sources at London's Virgin
Megastore), both 20th Century Fox in London and Paramount in
Hollywood are preparing a remastered uncut Special Edition of '1900'.
The 20th Century Fox version ( 302 mins, 1.85:1, Remastered, Italian
with English sub-titles) was originally planned for release in
October this year, but without extras. Apparently Fox heard that
Paramount are currently putting the extras together for their Region
1 DVD, so Fox London have decided to wait until the Paramount edition
is finished so thay can also include the extras on their UK DVD. This
means that the Region 2 DVD will be delayed from October this year
until anywhere from December 2006 to February 2007.

#2 of 15 OFFLINE   Gordon McMurphy

Gordon McMurphy

    Producer



  • 3,530 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 03 2002

Posted July 26 2006 - 09:13 AM

Great! Any news on The Conformist?

#3 of 15 OFFLINE   Jeff Adkins

Jeff Adkins

    Screenwriter



  • 1,765 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 18 1998
  • Real Name:Jeff Adkins

Posted July 26 2006 - 01:11 PM

Not to get too politcal, but I'd be surprised to see the complete, uncut version released in the U.S. while the Bush Administration is in power. There is at least one scene that could easily be interpreted as child pornography in today's climate. I think the scene is pretty harmless, but I'm sure it would be very controversial.

The current MGM release could definitely use a new transfer though.

#4 of 15 OFFLINE   Jeffrey:K

Jeffrey:K

    Second Unit



  • 287 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 10 2006

Posted July 26 2006 - 04:14 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Adkins
Not to get too politcal, but I'd be surprised to see the complete, uncut version released in the U.S. while the Bush Administration is in power. There is at least one scene that could easily be interpreted as child pornography in today's climate. I think the scene is pretty harmless, but I'm sure it would be very controversial
Why would it be any more controversial than, say, PRETTY BABY? Or MURMUR OF THE HEART? Or a dozen other films I could name that were all released to DVD in the U.S. during the current administration?

Can you name one mainstream (i.e. non-porno) film that's been prosecuted by the federal, state, or local goverments during the past six years? Hell, can you name a porno film that's been prosecuted?

I don't think any of the scenes in 1900 "could easily be interpreted as child pornography" by even the broadest application of existing statutes. And any DVD of the film is unlikely to be even noticed by the nation's moral watchdogs.

#5 of 15 OFFLINE   Jeff Adkins

Jeff Adkins

    Screenwriter



  • 1,765 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 18 1998
  • Real Name:Jeff Adkins

Posted July 26 2006 - 06:00 PM

Quote:
Why would it be any more controversial than, say, PRETTY BABY? Or MURMUR OF THE HEART? Or a dozen other films I could name that were all released to DVD in the U.S. during the current administration?
It's been awhile since I saw the film and I've never seen either of the two films you mentioned, but wasn't PRETTY BABY just a nudity issue?

Imdb says the following:
Original uncut version is 5.5 hours long, and features pornographic sequences with Alfredo, Olmo, and Neve. It also featured prepubescent boys examining each other's penises, which could possibly qualify as child pornography in the US.

So obviously, I'm not the only one who thinks the film could be a problem. I seriously doubt any prosecution would ever stick, but I doubt Paramount would want that kind of publicity. Again, I think the film should be released uncut, but I remember thinking that some prosecutor somewhere will have a problem with that scene. I hope I am wrong.

Quote:
Hell, can you name a porno film that's been prosecuted?

While they lost the case, the U.S. Justice Department prosecuted Rob Black in 2003 for obscenity.

http://abcnews.go.co....=433956&page=1

#6 of 15 OFFLINE   Jeffrey:K

Jeffrey:K

    Second Unit



  • 287 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 10 2006

Posted July 26 2006 - 06:35 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Adkins
Imdb says the following:
It also featured prepubescent boys examining each other's penises, which could possibly qualify as child pornography in the US.
But this scene is just a nudity issue as well. One of the boys is naked and briefly touches his own foreskin. There's no sexual contact, and it's filmed in a rather dark medium shot. Hard to make a case for prurient intent.

Far more troubling, in my view, is the scene where Burt Lancaster pushes a young girl's hand into his trousers to demonstrate his impotence. But this scene made it intact into the R-rated version, and the actress was likely not a minor.

There's also the sexual assault and murder of a young boy, but the rape takes place offscreen and we only see the aftermath.

Getting back to matter at hand, I don't see any evidence of excessive censoriousness in the nation at large under Bush's watch (aside from the FCC, which only has jurisdiction over broadcast TV and radio).

#7 of 15 OFFLINE   R-T-C Tim

R-T-C Tim

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 192 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 26 2006

Posted July 26 2006 - 09:39 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey:K
But this scene is just a nudity issue as well. One of the boys is naked and briefly touches his own foreskin. There's no sexual contact, and it's filmed in a rather dark medium shot. Hard to make a case for prurient intent.

Well, Superman (1978) made it out with a nude scene involving a young boy, so I doubt this unrated/NC-17 film with a clearly intended adult audience should cause too many problems (but then who knows...)
Mondo Esoterica.net - From the Wild West to Gothic Europe...

#8 of 15 OFFLINE   Larry Schneider

Larry Schneider

    Second Unit



  • 356 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 09 1999

Posted July 27 2006 - 12:16 AM

A few years ago there was an incident in Texas where a local Sheriff went to the local video store, located the names and addresses of people who had rented - and possessed - The Tin Drum. He then sent out the troops to raid the people's homes and confiscate the porn.

#9 of 15 OFFLINE   Steve Tannehill

Steve Tannehill

    Producer



  • 5,536 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 06 1997
  • Real Name:Steve Tannehill
  • LocationDFW

Posted July 27 2006 - 01:33 AM

Quote:
A few years ago there was an incident in Texas

Oklahoma, not Texas...

- Steve

#10 of 15 OFFLINE   andySu

andySu

    Screenwriter



  • 1,952 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 07 2006

Posted July 27 2006 - 02:37 AM

Was this film ever released in Dolby Stereo, because the title is familiar?

#11 of 15 OFFLINE   Jeffrey:K

Jeffrey:K

    Second Unit



  • 287 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 10 2006

Posted July 27 2006 - 03:16 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Tannehill
Yes, and the prosecution eventually lost. And this prosecution happened during Clinton's watch; it was during the Bush Reign of Terror that THE TIN DRUM got a Criterion DVD release, however, with the controversial scene intact.

#12 of 15 OFFLINE   Jeff Adkins

Jeff Adkins

    Screenwriter



  • 1,765 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 18 1998
  • Real Name:Jeff Adkins

Posted July 27 2006 - 07:56 AM

Quote:
And this prosecution happened during Clinton's watch; it was during the Bush Reign of Terror that THE TIN DRUM got a Criterion DVD release, however, with the controversial scene intact.
That was a state prosecution, not Federal. Again, I don't want to get into a political debate here. I never used the phrase "Bush Reign of Terror", I merely speculated that it could possibly cause more of a problem with this Justice Department.

Quote:
But this scene is just a nudity issue as well. One of the boys is naked and briefly touches his own foreskin. There's no sexual contact, and it's filmed in a rather dark medium shot. Hard to make a case for prurient intent.
I don't doubt that. It's been well over a year since I watched the DVD.

My main point is that Paramount wouldn't even release Thief Of Hearts uncut so I was surprised to hear that they were considering a fully, uncut 1900. If it had been Kino or Wellspring or even Lions Gate, I wouldn't have been so surprised. It's the same thing with Salo, which MGM doesn't seem interested in releasing here, even though they've released it uncut in the UK.

#13 of 15 OFFLINE   Gordon McMurphy

Gordon McMurphy

    Producer



  • 3,530 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 03 2002

Posted July 27 2006 - 11:03 AM

The German DVD release of 1900 recieved an "18" certificate, and by law, films with this certificate cannot be sold online. The USA-based Xpolited Cinema.com import and stock it, though.

The scene is question is definitely a "WTF?!!!" moment, something you'd certainly never, ever get away with in an english-language country, then or now. Frankly, it is a shot that could be cut without any loss in continuity. Bertolucci certianly concieves some strange, ponderous scenes for his films. The whole film has a weird tone to it and personally, I feel that it is a highly flawed film, very tart and tedious at times. But a mystique has built up around it and its reputation is inflated; most casual viewers are likely to be disappointed by it, but it is certainly one of those films that you have see once before you float up to the Great Movie Palace in the Sky.

#14 of 15 OFFLINE   Peter Neski

Peter Neski

    Supporting Actor



  • 902 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 14 2005

Posted July 27 2006 - 12:11 PM

sorry Gordon I think your wrong about the film about its reputation being
inflated,sure its not the perfect film......buts its easliy twice as long as
most films
Its not your taste so be it,I think it most be the greatest single job of
Cinematography when you think of how long the film is.One reason
Storraro is so great ,is unlike other great camerman ,he worked with
Bertollucci on this and other Bertollucci films

#15 of 15 OFFLINE   Gordon McMurphy

Gordon McMurphy

    Producer



  • 3,530 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 03 2002

Posted July 27 2006 - 12:42 PM

There's no question about the sublime quality of the cinematography, but the general story, dialogue, pacing and how the passage of time is conveyed are all underdeveloped; in short, the film lacks coherence. It has great moments, but they don't congeal into a strong piece of storytelling; there's a clumsiness to it all. Compared to many other Bertolucci films, it trails way behind. Top marks for trying, though.


Back to DVD



Forum Nav Content I Follow