Jump to content

Censored DVD - Young Adam

Recommended Posts

I was fortunate enough to catch Young Adam in the theatres on its uncut limited release. I quite enjoyed it. I just purchased the DVD this morning, and, was quite disturbed to find that the first sex scene between Tilda Swinton and Ewan McGregor was butchered. The scene, shot in near darkness, shows Ewan, in a medium shot, giving oral pleasure to Ms. Swinton. Of course, as soon as he began to kiss her thighs, the film abruptly cut away to the last few seconds of grunting and moaning, ripping the scene out, and, thus taking away from the intensity of the filmmaker's original vision.


Just wanted to say that this really angered me, because we simply need to grow up regarding the issue of sexuality. Honestly, the film shouldn't have got an NC-17 in the first place, considering that this is the most sexual thing in the film, and, by any rational standard, it is completely tame.


This, to me, shows the infantile, puritannical and bourgeois mind of the MPAA at work, as was discussed in earlier, interesting threads. By the way, why in hell was that first censorship thread shut down? It was rather interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're not allowed to have a rational discussion on this website because eventually some fascist hawk has to chime in with the ballad of the common man. This situation nonetheless angers me, and I am saddened by such disrespect for an artist's work.


I cannot see how anyone can honestly justify preventing one from bringing their child to see a film. This is just as bad.


I'm a proud conservative who opposes all forms of censorship. All real conservatives are rather against any forms of it. people have got to get that correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You sound like Roger Ebert. :)


Y'Know, The Dreamers went through something similar to this. The studio pigs released the uncut NC-17 DVD and a mutilated R-rated blockbuster version.


But, I checked on Amazon.Com, and this is the only version available. That's plain unethical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can have a rational discussion involving cinematography and cinema in general as long as it remains a rational discussion. Only when it steps beyond this does Tim ever feel the need to intervene. I personally think he shows great restraint and frankly I've had to prod him when I think others have gone too far. I think I can count on one hand the times he's intervened since he started this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sergie, you're assuming it was the MPAA that was at fault.

Where did you buy your DVD?


Because Blockbuster frequently, and unapologetically edits movies, and in spite of the fact that some on this board think I'm a wacky right-winger, I'm against censorship and won't even step into a Blockbuster for this reason.

The MPAA doesn't recut movies.

Blockbuster does, and they make no effort to whatsoever to consult the filmmakers before doing so.

THAT more closely fits into the description of censorship than rating a film does.

The problem here is, the NC17 rating was created precisely to get rid of the negative connotation of the old X rating, but the print & TV media, refuses to recognize that, and will not print the adverts for those films as a result.

The studios and distributors COULD, but WON'T, do anything about this, because Blockbuster is so huge, so they are at least as much to blame for this as anybody is.


So everyone needs to stop whining about the MPAA and start doing business with Hollywood Video, NetFlix, or anybody but Blockbuster.


Whining is not the same as doing something about the problem.

You actually have to DO something.


Matt Pacini

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, Matt:


You're 100% correct about those Blockbuster people. But, this is the only copy available in the U.S. There is only an edited copy.


And, regarding my remarks on the MPAA, I do think that their views on this matter are a bit childish, but, like all things, its subjective.


Actually, I expected this thread to go unnoticed. I'm a bit suprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if that's the only copy being distributed, then that's a shame.


I still think the problem lies more in what people are doing with the ratings, and not the ratings themselves, and let's remember, when Clinton was in office, he called a bunch of top industry types to Washington and threatened them that if they didn't clean up their act, laws would be imposed on them.

So it's not just "those wacky fascist right-wingers" who are behind censorship. This was the most blatant, grand effort at censorship any modern US Government has engaged in, and this was initiated by the liberals favorite President ever.

So it's not a conservative vs liberal issue, and to frame it that way, is just a distraction that OBVIOUSLY is not doing anything about solving the problem.


We're always going to have ratings, otherwise the government is going to step in an impose something MUCH worse, believe me, and it will happen under either a Republican or Democratic administration, as the above Clinton example shows.


The example of this film being recut, shows that the distributor has decided to change their tactics based on the ratings.

The MPAA didn't tell them to recut it.

It's a fine line, I'll grant you, but if everyone in the industry would just say "who cares how it gets rated", the newspapers would stop their ridiculous habit on not running advertisements for NC-17 films, and the video outlets (Blockbuster) would stop interfering, everything would be fine.


In other words, I have no problem with films being rated - it's just an opinion about the content.

Nobody other than the actual consumer should adjusting their behavior based on the ratings, and that's what the whole concept of the ratings is meant to be.

It's the MIDDLEMEN; those who stand between the filmmakers and the audience, that are the problem, because THEY are the ones over-reacting to the ratings.


Matt Pacini

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...



I fail to see how the term "fascist" means "Right-Winger." For example, Hitler was a leftist fascist-- national socialism, anyone? It seems a bit egocentric to assume that repubs have a patent on censorship. And to call Clinton the "liberal's favorite president is nearsighted. Give Christopher Hitchens a read sometime to see what the left thinks about old Bill Jeff.


And what is the exact definition of the term liberal?


'Tis a damn shame that this is the only copy available, but one can only write a letter that will probably go unopened.


- Regards

Edited by Sergei Levy
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I fail to see how the term "fascist" means "Right-Winger." For example, Hitler was a leftist fascist-- national socialism, anyone?


Exactly my point!!!

And that was exactly my point a while back, when I said the left have become the new fascists (sorry David, I didn't mean to offend you, but I was making a point. How does it feel to be called a fascist? Now you know what conservatives put up with).


I'm not even that conservative (I'm against capital punishment, I was against the war in Iraq, I HATE the Patriot Act, I'm in the middle on abortion rights), yet I've repeatedly been called a fascist, a nazi, and over the last year, an idiot by insensitive liberals personally, and in the press and in the media in general.

Sure, titles like "liberal" or "conservative" are never concrete, but I'd have to say that someone who says "conservatives are fu*&ing idiots" clearly qualifies as a liberal, wouldn't you?


It's my opinion that people on the far right, and far left, start looking essentially the same, (Hitler being the best example, as you pointed out), and in our modern day culture, conservatives are unfairly defined as being people that want to impose their own opinions on everyone else, etc.

I would argue that the left is at least as guilty of that (if not more) than the right is, but they don't see it that way, because they assume they have the moral high ground on everything because they're right, so that somehow makes it different altogether.


For example:

Is the left not trying to impose their opinion on everyone regarding logging the forests, drilling for oil in the arctic, or a thousand other issues?

I don't hear liberals saying "I believe a woman has a right to choose abortion, but hey, I don't want to impose my morals on anyone else", or "I don't think we should drill for oil in the Arctic, but that's just my opinion, I don't want to impose it on anyone or anything like that".

No, it's absolutely their way, or the highway on everything.


Now don't everyone chime in about how important those issues are.

That's irrelevant to the question of whether or not you're trying to impose your views on the population at large.

Get the point?

EVERYBODY who thinks they're correct, thinks it's OK to impose those views on everyone else, whether it's a parent telling their kids to brush their teeth, or a Christian who insists on prayer in schools, or gay rights advocates wanting pamplets handed out in 7th grade classrooms telling the kids it's OK to be gay.

It's not just conservatives, and the thing that bothers me about the modern American liberal, is that they just do not EVER admit that they are guilty of this, and just keep using stuff like this as an excuse to hate and publicly berate conservatives for doing what they themselves do just as often. if not more.


There's been all this talk about how America is so devided over the last year.


If we're going to live together in peace, you guys have to stop thinking it's OK to call 51% of your countrymen fu*&ing idiots in every 3rd conversation, with absolutely no sensitivity over whether or not you "may" be talking to a conservative.

You would never dream of doing that with any other group, whether it was Asians, Blacks, Gay people, Jews, or even radical Muslims, but somehow it's OK to be bigoted towards conservatives.

I don't think it's OK to be bigoted towards anyone, personally, but hey, that's just my opinion. I don't want to impose it on anyone else.


Matt Pacini

Edited by Matt Pacini
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I don't think it's OK to be bigoted towards anyone, personally, but hey, that's just my opinion. I don't want to impose it on anyone else"


you just did. what does it mean to be conservative to you? why the need to belong to a category?


if, as you say, you feel it unfair to be bigoted towards anyone why do you bash liberals? perhaps it's important to yield multiple perspectives and look out into the world of suffering, misery and so much mis-communication. i don't belong to either side, but i question the current goverment's policies that don't seem to give s&*! about peace, communication or regard for the world beyond the US.


humanity is quite amazing; simultaneously fragile and enduring. always full of surprises but civilizations and species rise and fall (become extinct) and WE are no different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, you're making my point.

I don't really fit neatly into the "conservative" camp. In fact, I'm somewhere between Independent, libertarian, and conservative, with liberal overtones!

All my conservative friends think I'm too liberal, and vice-versa.


I'm liberal on many issues, yet I don't identify with "the left", because I think there is huge amount of hypocrisy coming from the modern liberal viewpoint. At least most conservatives are straight with what they believe, and the name calling only comes from the fringe-wacko element.

In 1970, I'd probably be considered a liberal.

My conservatism, comes form the fact that I think we're over-taxed, and I don't see any evidence that paying more ends up accomplishing more, because it's just burned up on politician's pet projects, beaurocratic waste, and frankly, I think their constantly asking for more money, is just an excuse to try to blame the taxpayer for their own failures to accomplish anything.

Their story is always that they can't do anything right because they aren't getting enough of our money. Yet I see no evidence whatsoever, that when we're paying more, they accomplish more.


I'm more in line with the "60's liberal", because I distrust the ENTIRE government, not just the republicans (as liberals did in the 60's), yet now, the Democratic party has managed to hijack liberals for their own political (and monetary) benefit, and I think most liberals don't see this, and to me, it's absolutely obvious.

(Remember, our involvement with the Vietnam War was LBJ's baby - a Democrat!).

I don't see either side as being the good guys or bad guys, I'm suspicious of both sides.


Anyway, I'm not "bashing liberals", because I'm not name-calling.

Bashing is name calling.

It's not "bashing" to argue with someone's beliefs, disagree with someone's conclusions about issues, etc.

What I have a problem with, is the name-calling, the accusations that come from the left, that the simple stating of an opinion by anyone they disagree with, is in essence, the act of trying to impose one's beliefs on someone else.

Yet they exclude themselves from that same judgement.

I hate double standards, I hate lack of logic; like trying to ban cutting down trees in the forests without doing anything whatsoever to diminish the supply!

Sting (who I'm a huge fan of) can whine about deforestation, then build huge mansions all over the planet that probably required tens of thousands of trees to be cut to build, and everyone thinks he's helping the problem BECAUSE OF WHAT HE SAYS, not because of his actions.

This is what I'm talking about.


I think it's healthy to debate the issues, but you simply cannot debate politics with a liberal for more than 2 minutes, without them degrading into either:

1. Name calling.

2. Accusing you of trying to force your beliefs on everyone else.

3. Accusing you of "Bashing".


Matt Pacini

Edited by Matt Pacini
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey man, i'm not accusing you of anything; i'm simply making an observation based on your words. i'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you. you bring many valid points to the table and the "sting" example is a good one; but he is part of the pop culture machine that is loaded with hypocrisy. these rock stars compare themselves to picasso and bach in the same sentence, but that's another issue.


this forum isn't the place to continue this discussion and get into the existential realm related to failure of accepting individual responsibilty and realizing the nothingness of the universe or the meaninglessness of our accidental being.


nice talking with you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't saying you were accusing me of anything necessarily, I was just putting the "bashing" statement into context, because honestly, if you say anything from even a slightly conservative angle while discussing politics, you'll get the treatment I described, so you guys simply don't know what it's like.

Try it sometime. I mean, just pretend you're a conservative and engage in a political conversation with a liberal who doesn't know your politics, and see how the conversation goes.


And my "that's just my opinion, I don't want to force it on anyone" was a bit of satire to make a point. Get it?

(I do have a sense of humor, you know? har har!)


And I would suggest that the "pop culture machine loaded with hypocrisy..." is not seen as such by a large part of the population, but rather they are seen as credible, caring individuals who know more than us because they're famous and important.


Some of the ridiculous things they spout end up being part of 'common knowledge", like for instance them making this huge deal out of Bush' not winning the popular vote in 2000 (which is true), as fodder for their "he stole the election, he's not the REAL president!" rubbish, but not mentioning that Clinton didn't either!

They're fine with the electoral college when democrats win by it.


OK, this has become boring.

Let's end this...


Matt Pacini

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I should clarify that.

Clinton did (I think???) win the popular vote in his second term, against Dole, but his first win running against Bush Sr., he won with only 42 percent of the vote.

Ross Perot got 20 percent of the vote, which is why Clinton won.

The Democrats have no problem with 3rd party candidates, as long as they're "siphoning votes" (to use their term) from Republicans, and they have no problem with the electoral college, (or anything else, for that matter), as long as THEY win, and this is a big problem for me.

They're for changing the rules to benefit themselves, but then whine when the pendelum swings the other way, and the rules are then against them.

Case in point; their angry (and extremely un-demcratic) activity of filing lawsuits to block Ralph Nader being able to run in all states.

They tried to block him being on any states ballots, which if you ask me, is basically trying to rig votes.

Anyone think that's fair?

I'm still hearing about the "disenfranchised voters" thing with the 2000 election, which is basically that some polling places had security guards, which made some "voters" too afraid to go to the polls, and leave. (Why would someone do that, unless he was fraudulently voting?).

This was called "disenfranchising black voters", while the democrats had no problem "disenfranchising" all the military absentee ballots.

They tossed them without counting them, disqualifying them on the basis they were not individually postmarked. (Of course they weren't, they arrived by military transport).

Military voters are overwhleminly Republican, and they knew this when they tossed these ballots.

You don't ever hear this mentioned now, because apparently, it's only bad to not count democratic votes.

This kind of thing is a problem for our country that is much larger than "who wins", but the democrats don't really care about rules or fairness.

Nor do the republicans, but I'm pointing this out, because pretty much one side is all that gets told in the media, and this stuff just takes on a life of its own, and everyone states it as fact eventually.

Like the false assumption that republicans are hawks, and democrats are anti-war, even though far more military actions/wars have been under democratic administrations, including the most unpopular (Vietnam), with our involvement initiated by Kennedy, and escalated by LBJ, not only both democrats, but Kennedy, who is the democrats hero of all time!

Kennedy was basically Ronald Reagan as far as military/anti-communist agenda goes.

At the point of Kennedy's assasination, the US had 16,000 troops in Vietnam, he was willing to get us into WWIII with the Soviet Union over the Cuban Missile Crisis, he sponsored the bay of Pigs invasion, and made many speeches about how we HAVE to stop communism, and he also made speeches about how we needed to lower the tax rate to boost the economy.

Of course, now we've engaged in so much revisionist history about Kennedy (thanks to guys like Oliver Stone), that would make Stalin proud.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

?now we've engaged in so much revisionist history about Kennedy (thanks to guys like Oliver Stone),?


It?s true, Mr. Stone has revisionized a lot of history. I still find him to be a remarkable filmmaker. ?Wall Street? was excellent. I didn?t agree with some of the politics, but if you looked up ?perfect screenplay structure? in the dictionary, it would be at the top of the list. The guy that wrote a film as brilliant as ?Scarface? at such a young age (at any age), deserves the respect of anybody interested in making films. Nonetheless, sometimes I prefer to hear the truth, whether it be a movie or an encyclopedia. I guess that?s why I watch so much Discovery Channel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I forgot about Wall Street. Great film.


I'm not anti-Oliver Stone.

He's certainly a brilliant filmmaker, and fantastic writer, no question, and he has an astounding body of work.

Let me clarify where I'm coming from on "Ollie":

I'm certainly not slamming his entire career, that would be insane and blind.

He could make crappy films consisting of nothing but closeups of duschbags with cows mooing as the soundtrack for the rest of his life, and I'd still comment on him being a brilliant filmmaker, just on his past body of work.

I'm a fan of his astounding skill, as probably everyone is.


I'm coming from the "what are you doing NOW" point of view.

Just what he's been doing lately, that's all.

I look forward to more films by him, even if they end up with closeups of duschbags in them.


Matt Pacini

Edited by Matt Pacini
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...