Giles

in a similiar vein (no pun intended), Francis Ford Coppola had to add an alternate page of the Kuma Sutra book scene that was originally seen in his 'Bram Stoker's Dracula'. He talks about it on the commentary track on the Criterion Special Edition laserdisc, in that the MPAA would have given the film an (X) NC-17 rating if he had included the original shot.

Josh Z

Was this a real comic book that exists outside the context of this movie, or was it something made up for the movie? Is the whole comic blurred out, or just the naughty bits?

I'm wondering if this is less an issue of censorship than perhaps the producers of the movie didn't have the proper rights to republish material from that comic?

pro-bassoonist

I hope enough people voice their concern and Sony recalls the disc!!! I also wish that they do not touch Almodovar at this point. I am certainly going to keep a VERY CLOSE EYE on Eros and any of the Almodovar films set for 2006 release. If anything remotely close happens with these releases I will be importing R2 discs (even if they lack English subtitles). Certainly Kar-Wai's 2046 metal box was more than worthy the effort. Especially when a certain market knows how to treat important cinema with a deserving quality.

Ciao,
Pro-B

ps
Josh...this has absolutely nothing to do with publishing rights!! Nothing! This is a real comimc book which depicts a pre-historic of sorts semi-orgy scene followed by a shot which revelas a girl in a sexual act with two men. The whole segment is no more than 20 seconds and covers a small story which Lila tells her friend. There are plenty of classic paintings which depict sexual intercorse between a man and a woman (and two men and a woman), there are plenty of classic books such as Balzac's early writings which go much farther...so does that mean that if there was to be a documentary about the Prado collection of early 17th centruy paintings they would blur the paintings every time the camera zooms around? Or, re-write Balzac and "correct" the "obscene" parts in his books? Or, Zola's Nana....

The blurring first splits the screen where the man is shown with his penis, the face is certainly fine. Then the blur splits the screen even higher almost half in half as the girl is shown sideways with the man, followed by an occasional blur that covers the girl's vagina, followed by yet a a bigger blur that covers this time the two man engaged in a sexual intercourse with the girl, etc....the whole process is very consistent. I am a grown man and I fail to see how "adjusting" part of the story (a comic book) can affect the moral stability of America? This is lunacy (after all we should not even discuss it...had they left the film untouched no one would have even talked about it).

Giles

from what I've heard Sony did the same thing with Young Adam - release it theatrically with a NC-17 rating, then recut it as a R-rated edition and release that version on DVD - (with the NC-17 rated footage as a supplement) - WTF?

pro-bassoonist

Well, that's pretty bad because I can not think of a single reason why I would want to support this studio. Someone clearly thinks that he/she has the power to "revisit" other people's work...which stinks of the morality odor 90% of the film industry is covered with. Don't use ratings then...or even better don't touch the films at all so someone else less concerned about the moral health of America could release this film. As I said, a lot of Almodovar's films include full frontal male nudity...so what are you going to do...blur it? Or because he is a "worthy" director we will use NC-17 rating (as they did for Bad Education) and let it pass by? This is so ridiculous....

I will be keeping a very close eye on Eros after this fiasco though I have more faith in WB than Sony. With this film Sony clearly hit the bottom for me and I doubt it I will be supporting their moral experiments any more....

Ciao,
Pro-B

ps
Giles:

The Trailer for the film is in my signature (hit film annonce and choose Haut Debit)

pro-bassoonist

Ok...unless I am mistaken Lila and her friend are looking at Nagarya...and this shot is completely blurred out...
http://adultartlist.com/porncomics/n.../cnc/1/022.jpg

Ciao,
Pro-B

jamieoni

Then Josh could have a point. There could be a rights issue with the use of the comic in the film.

Granted, given that the studio has some history with this kind of censoring, the other explanation could be true, but I don't think Josh's suggestion can be dismissed outright, either.

It's a shame whichever way.

Josh Z

If they're only blurring out portions of the images, as pro-b says, it's not a rights issue. It's definitely censorship. If it were a rights issue they'd be forced to blur out the whole book.

I wasn't doubting pro-b, I was just trying to rationalize why they might do this.

Giles

this is slowly becoming a thread about Lila Says, did anyone see this theatrically? Samuel Goldwyn Films released this and I thought I remembering noting that there was no rating but with an implied adults only warning: "Strong Adult Content". I might be a rights issue, but then again it's also possible that the MPAA had their say and axed the scene for Sony Home Entertainment to get it's coveted marketable R-rating. Of course it's hypocritical of them to do since Almodovar's Bad Education was released on home video from them with it's NC-17 rating.

pro-bassoonist

Maybe we got a bit offtrack here but not entirely. I think that it is a very good idea to sneak in the information above in this thread (as both releases are de facto upcoming) so people can look at Eros with extra care.

With this said, let me make one final comment...this is not a rights-issue folks. It is blatant hack-and-paste censorship. A very ugly one at that as well, imagine half your screen pasted with a blur, so what...you only watch the upper half because the bottom half is "unacceptable". This has to be the most idiotic thing ever. A cartoon penis/sexual act being attacked by the MPAA. In addition, the book is most definitely not blurred 100%, you see the main cover (in full as there is no nudity) then a little bit of the "story", then you dont get to see anything as your screen is half blurred, then a bit more, etc....otherwise how do you think I found that image above? I paused the scene where Lila closes/opens the book and you could MOST clearly see the titles (I am sure with more care you could get further information as well). You didn't think I had the comic handy, did you? (while I am utterly upset at the censorship as it destroys the viewing for me 100% I am not a big supporter of the comic series...or at least it looks like a series).


Ciao,
Pro-B

scott shelton

When I saw LILA this past summer, there was no blurring.

The only instance of blurring in recent years that I've witnessed was found in DEMONLOVER.

ShagMan

Which release? Both?

scott shelton

I was talking about theatrical release, not DVD.

Giles

it in regards to DEMONLOVER an unrated version of that film was released months after the R-rated theatrical cut - talk about random inconsistent stories of film censorship.

Josh Z

So, funny thing, I have the R1 Warner release of Eros and... it indeed is an edited version of the film.

This is a very weird, messed up disc. The Antonioni short is dubbed into Italian with English subtitles, despite the fact that it was shot in English in the first place. The dubbing is very obvious and distracting. It's also missing at least 2 minutes in comparison to the Hong Kong release of the film but, get this, it isn't nudity that's been removed. What's missing is a brief portion of footage where a woman gets out of her car, wanders down to the beach, starts drawing squiggly lines in the sand, and strips off her clothes. The R1 disc jumps right from the car pulling up to the beach directly to the woman being buck naked dancing around.

The video transfer is also darker and much, much softer than the HK release, losing a significant amount of detail and texture, especially in the War Kong Wai short.

I should have a full review ready by Monday.

Edit: I take some of that back. I did a more thorough examination and the footage I described is in the R1 DVD, but it's been edited differently and moved forward a scene (the structure actually makes better sense this way). However, the run time of the Antonioni film is definitely 2 min. 18 sec. shorter on this disc than the HK edition. I scanned through both versions and nothing jumped out at me as obviously missing. This doesn't appear to be a PAL-to-NTSC conversion issue (both of the other shorts are the exact same length on both DVDs). I don't know what to make of this yet.

BuddhaWake

thanks Josh, keep us updated since I'm sure many like me are waiting to see which is the version to pick up. Looks like the HK version it it though.

Josh Z

Alright, I went through the Antonioni short with a fine-toothed comb last night, playing both DVDs side by side. It is indeed nearly 2 minutes of nudity and sex that's been removed. This doesn't appear to be "censorship" so much as just shortening. Nothing that's been removed is much different from other footage still seen in the movie; it's just that there's less of it. For example, now there's only 1 minute of the girl fingering herself rather than a minute and a half.

I submitted my review this morning. It will include screencaps showing the vast difference in video transfers.

The HK disc is much, much better than the R1. More nudity (and hey, that's the only thing worthwhile in the Antonioni film in the first place), better video, DTS, and better supplements. It's all-region NTSC. There's no reason to buy the R1 disc unless you love the movie and want to own both versions of the Antonioni short for curiosity's sake.

Josh Z

Review is up:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=20029

pro-bassoonist

Too bad Warner provided such lackluster effort. Seeing that they also mismanaged the SE for Kaufman's film...I don't quite think that this is a good month for them.

Ciao,
Pro-B

BuddhaWake

thanks for the review Josh, now I guess the question is, the regular version or the limited edition. CDwow has the regular for $10 and the limited edition for $18 which to me seems a bit too much of a difference. Is the second disc worth $8?

ShagMan

Thanks for the review Josh, I know to skip this release now!

Josh Z

Here's my original review of the LE disc, which spells out the supplements on it:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=17005

It's up to you whether those three main interviews are worth the extra $8.