SCREEN-L Archives

July 1999, Week 5

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Darryl Wiggers <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 30 Jul 1999 08:59:22 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (72 lines)
>According to several reports, Warners probably did touch a frame, quite a
>few of them.  General press fluff has it that Kubrick had finished the film
>but they're obviously recycling each other's copy while more substantive
>coverage has offered evidence (some drawn from the film itself) that it
>actually wasn't finished completely.  J. Hoberman even passes along rumors
>that Pollack or Spielberg may have had a hand in tidying up the film.

Can you identify these sources? Is there any hard evidence besides
"rumours"? EWS has been plagued by wild rumours since it began production
(none of which made sense when I heard them) and they have since proven to
be nonsense. I'm well aware that the film wasn't "finished" when Kubrick
died. That's why I made the suggestion that the version we're seeing isn't
a "fine cut." The day he died he reportedly spoke with a Warner Brothers
exec about doing some tweaking with the sound, but that's it. Mind you,
Kubrick isn't around to confirm, but we also know Cruise and Kidman
screened the film before his death. I'm sure they would have a thing or two
to say if changes were made.

>much of the defense of the altered orgy scene--such as the laughably obtuse
>Kubrick crony on NPR--tends to rely on the point that Kubrick did it
>himself which takes a concept of artistic integrity too far; Kubrick's
>authorization doesn't make it acceptable.  The fact that this was not done
>for European prints shows that the villains are Warner Brothers AND the
>MPAA.

Do you really think Kubrick ever had such rigid "artistic integrity"? The
man didn't become rich that way. He was a businessman too. He willingly
chopped out footage before to please censors, and increase its audience
potential. Both A Clockwork Orange and Lolita were altered for this reason.
I've seen at least 2 versions of each hence, the discrepency between
European and North American prints for EWS dosen't surprise me. Kubrick
knew the MPAA would give EWS the dreaded NC-17 rating in its unaltered
state (which he was contractually obligated to avoid)... all of this is
covered in the media (including the assertion from producer Jan Harlan that
Kubrick obviously preferred the European cut) but it's also supported in
the history of Kubrick's handling of previous films (as noted above).

As for the changes made to Strangelove, 2001 and The Shining, these were
pacing issues and you'll notice that Kubrick is the only filmmaker who
hasn't had a "director's cut" of his earlier films released on video
(except for Spartacus, which he disowned anyway). Once these cuts were
made, they were made for good. In the case of 2001, he was rushing to meet
a release deadline. He was cutting that film right up until the moment of
its premiere (17 minutes was cut from this "premiere" version, btw). By the
time he made EWS, he had an arrangement with Warner Brothers to take as
much time as he wanted. That's why the film became the longest film shoot
in history. That's why the release date of EWS kept being pushed back. It
was first scheduled to be released in North America last year. Then in
March. Then in July... and until Cruise and Kidman chime in and scream
injustice about studio cuts -- has anyone heard a peep from them about
this? -- I have no reason to suspect otherwise. Cruise, in particular, has
enough cloat in the industry to open his mouth if he wants to. And,
considering his obvious strong affection for Kubrick (willingly putting his
career on hold for at least 2 years, whereas actors like Harvey Kietal and
Jennifer Jason Leigh were less willing to be flexible), I'm sure he would
have... this isn't a "fact." It's just common sense. Cruise risked his
career to make a "Kubrick film."  Anything less would have pissed him off
for sure.

People love to blame the studios for tampering with "art" (if you can call
film that). Remember the misguided noise about Heaven's Gate? Of course,
all of this dosen't excuse the puritanical state of the MPAA. I wish they
could lighten up, and I'm all for protesting for changes in their stance.
But this won't happen until some fundamental changes are made in American
politics and culture -- a much bigger kettle of fish.

darryl

----
To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2