Elizabeth Berridge's breast on view for all to see.
Anyone get any customer complaints about this one?
The scene was included in the 'deleted scenes' on the deluxe laserdisc box set I still have in my collection. Miss Berridge actually showed more of her brests when she was taking a bath in a teenage horror movie set at a circus or carnival. For some Reason, I just cannot think of the movie's title at the moment. Sorry!
-Claude
U Nudity
Occasional natural nudity, with no sexual context
PG: Nudity
Natural nudity, with no sexual context
12: Nudity
Nudity is allowed, but in a sexual context will be brief and discreet.
15 Nudity
There are no constraints on nudity in a non-sexual or educational context.
18
There are no constraints at this level on theme, language, nudity or horror.
I am not sure exactly what is meant by 'natural' nudity, but an exposed breast would seem to be acceptable in all classifications, and this alone would not prevent the film from being classified as a 'U'. It is some time since I last saw the film, but, overall, I would say that the 'PG rating is about right, I don't remember anything in it which I think would justify a '12', but I doubt that this film would appeal to many under-12s.
If there was anything in the film which could be distrubing to a younger child, and might therefore justtify a rating higher than 'PG', I think it would be the mental institution scenes at the beginning and end of the film, not the odd exposed breast.
Chrles said:
quote:
Amadeus was rated PG for its original 1984 release and R for the director's cut this year.
Charles, can you explain the exact meanings of the American 'PG' and 'R' classifications please.
I didn't know about the director's cut until today, the day it closed at to one London cinema which seemed to be showing it. How does it differ from the original?
PG stands for Parental Guidance. It means the movie may contain content that parents may find objectionable for pre-teens. A PG movie will usually not contain any frontal nudity, but if it's brief and of a non-sexual nature, exceptions can be made. There are usually no explicit four-letter words (although I do remember hearing Bill Murray saying "Fuck you" several times in "Tootsie," which was a PG) and violence is not especially graphic.
R stands for Restricted, meaning the film contains adult-oriented material that parents would probably find objectionable for teenagers and children. People under 18 are supposed to be accompanied by a parent or guardian to see R-rated films. An R-rated film can contain just about anything short of full-on sex shots. As long as the genitals are not shown (for long), you can get away with almost anything and get an R rating. Big studios and A-list directors seem to get more leeway than indies. (This is true for all the ratings, not just R....witness the PG-rated body counts in all the Star Wars movies.)
G: All Ages Admitted
This is a film which contains nothing in theme, language, nudity and sex, violence, etc. which would, in the view of the Rating Board, be offensive to parents whose younger children view the film. The G rating is not a "certificate of approval," nor does it signify a children's film.
Some snippets of language may go beyond polite conversation but they are common everyday expressions. No stronger words are present in G-rated films. The violence is at a minimum. Nudity and sex scenes are not present; nor is there any drug use content.
PG: Parental Guidance Suggested:
some material may not be suitable for children.
This is a film which clearly needs to be examined or inquired into by parents before they let their children attend. The label PG plainly states that parents may consider some material unsuitable for their children, but the parent must make the decision.
Parents are warned against sending their children, unseen and without inquiry, to PG-rated movies.
The theme of a PG-rated film may itself call for parental guidance. There may be some profanity in these films. There may be some violence or brief nudity. But these elements are not deemed so intense as to require that parents be strongly cautioned beyond the suggestion of parental guidance. There is no drug use content in a PG-rated film.
The PG rating, suggesting parental guidance, is thus an alert for examination of a film by parents before deciding on its viewing by their children.
Obviously such a line is difficult to draw. In our pluralistic society it is not easy to make judgments without incurring some disagreement. So long as parents know they must exercise parental responsibility, the rating serves as a meaningful guide and as a warning.
PG13: Parents Strongly Cautioned.
Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13
PG-13 is thus a sterner warning to parents to determine for themselves the attendance in particular of their younger children as they might consider some material not suited for them. Parents, by the rating, are alerted to be very careful about the attendance of their under-teenage children.
A PG-13 film is one which, in the view of the Rating Board, leaps beyond the boundaries of the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, or other contents, but does not quite fit within the restricted R category. Any drug use content will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. In effect, the PG-13 cautions parents with more stringency than usual to give special attention to this film before they allow their 12-year olds and younger to attend.
If nudity is sexually oriented, the film will generally not be found in the PG-13 category. If violence is too rough or persistent, the film goes into the R (restricted) rating. A film's single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, shall initially require the Rating Board to issue that film at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive must lead the Rating Board to issue a film an R rating, as must even one of these words used in a sexual context. These films can be rated less severely, however, if by a special vote, the Rating Board feels that a lesser rating would more responsibly reflect the opinion of American parents.
PG-13 places larger responsibilities on parents for their children's moviegoing. The voluntary rating system is not a surrogate parent, nor should it be. It cannot, and should not, insert itself in family decisions that only parents can, and should, make. Its purpose is to give prescreening advance informational warnings, so that parents can form their own judgments. PG-13 is designed to make these parental decisions easier for films between PG and R.
R: Restricted
Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian.
In the opinion of the Rating Board, this film definitely contains some adult material. Parents are strongly urged to find out more about this film before they allow their children to accompany them.
An R-rated film may include hard language, or tough violence, or nudity within sensual scenes, or drug abuse or other elements, or a combination of some of the above, so that parents are counseled, in advance, to take this advisory rating very seriously. Parents must find out more about an R-rated movie before they allow their teenagers to view it.
NC17: No one under 17 admitted.
This rating declares that the Rating Board believes that this is a film that most parents will consider patently too adult for their youngsters under 17. No children will be admitted. NC-17 does not necessarily mean "obscene or pornographic" in the oft-accepted or legal meaning of those words. The Board does not and cannot mark films with those words. These are legal terms and for courts to decide. The reasons for the application of an NC-17 rating can be violence or sex or aberrational behavior or drug abuse or any other elements which, when present, most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children.
quote:
The film has a PG rating.
Elizabeth Berridge's breast on view for all to see.
Anyone get any customer complaints about this one?
What! You should be anonymously phoning the newspapers to alert them to this outrage!
Then lay in extra popcorn & coke for the crush.
Are you in this business for your health or something?
They get the pieces that the director orginally edited out because of whatever reason he did -- usually pacing and emotional "feel," and they pick up this scrap footage and stick it back into the film so they can resell it as something "better" than the original. They do that all the time with DVDs and it's nonsense. "With scenes not shown in the theatres," is plastered over the DVD display -- sure the scenes were not shown in the theatres -- HELLO.....the director EDITED THEM OUT!
I don't even trust directors to be totally neutral in this process. If they stand to make a bundle with a re-release, they may be influenced, even unconsciounsly to manipulate the film to make it pleasing to a modern audience. Or they may look at a "Director's Cut" as something prestigious. Again I ask, who cut it to begin with? And was his original cut a piece of crap that he has to go back and fix it? What was he high on crack when he was editing it the first time? This is especially true when a director wants to change his work because he might think of it in terms of today's policical climate which might be very different than it was when the film was made. He might want to change it for reasons that are far from artistic -- ones, for example that will make him more politically correct. Does he have a right to do this? Sure. But don't try to cloak it in some altruistic mumbojumbo about being true to the director's artistic intention. Just tell it like it is -- "we though we could sell more DVD copies because guys like to look at Elizabeth Berridge's breast, and we like making gobs of money. Period. Truth in advertising.
=TMP=
"Coming this Summer, the all-new, re-re-release of Saving Private Ryan! Where the word 'Nazi' has been changed to 'People with political differences' and all the guns have been replaced with walkie-talkies." -- South Park
In most instances, a director does not get final cut, the studio does. When the film is released and it turns out to be a hit, I think what happens in some cases is that the studio says, "okay, maybe the director was right after all" and they're willing to put out a version that has cut material restored. This is happening more and more because it's a way to promote the DVD and give a buyer more of a reason to purchase. Frankly, I think that's okay (even though it's extremely rare for me to purchase a DVD.)
Sometimes it works, sometimes not.
One interesting example, which had critics on both sides, was the expanded edition of Cinema Paradiso, which I had mixed feelings about, because the new material changed the original intent and storyline of the film.
Another was the expanded edition of "Dances with Wolves," which I saw in London some years ago and liked quite a bit. The extra material explained much of what wasn't seen in the original cut, like why the soldiers were living in caves.
Another, which I don't think was ever released theatrically, was the TV Godfather, which was brodcast before Godfather III was produced. It recut the first two films into one chronological progression. It also censored some of the language and scenes from the original films, but it added a number of very important scenes from the book which really helped the film, IMO. I don't know whether these are part of the extra scenes included on the DVD boxed set of the three theatrical films.
And there was the recut of Close Encounters, which eliminated much of the "mashed potatoes" scene, which Spielberg was originally criticized for and added the additional ending inside the alien ship, which Spielberg originally did not have enough money to complete.
And..the reissues of Star Wars, which gave Lucas the ability to enhance some of the speical effects.
The recent restoration of Metropolis is a good example of a film which has rarely been seen as the director intended. Greed is another. For many years, King Kong was shown without a scene in which Kong playfully peels off Fay Wray's clothes and another fight scene with a spider(?) that was deemed too violent for audiences of the day.
Besides, regardless of whether the restored material makes the film better or not, if it gets it into theatres again, I think that's valuable in any case. And if it makes people happier to purchase the DVD, I think that's ok also, especially if the DVD has a choice between viewing different versions of the film.
quote:
especially if the DVD has a choice between viewing different versions of the film.
As long as the DVD includes the theatrical version in addition to the Director's/Studio's marketing plan, that's ok. But when we start seeing several different versions on several different formats, it starts to get irritating. I'm sure "Titanic" will see upteen anniversary, Director's cuts, Producer's cuts, DiCaprio's cut, gift sets, boxed sets, deluxe sets, expanded editions, extended editions, editions not seen in theaters, editions not seen at all, versions we never knew existed, and a collector's series before it's all said and done. And then when you think it's over, there will be some newly-discovered-long-lost-never-before-seen footage they found in James Cameron's basement and there will be another theatrical release.
I saw Cinema Paradiso some years ago and loved it. I'm afraid to see the "New Version" ( 
) because I'm afraid it will ruin the movie for me. As for Metropolis, that's a restoration. They're not butchering an already complete film.
=TMP=
Firm Sues Hollywood Directors in Bid to Edit Films
Reuters
A Colorado company on Thursday sued 16 Hollywood directors, including Steven Spielberg and Sydney Pollack, seeking the right to edit "objectionable" material such as sex and violence from movies. CleanFlicks of Colorado and Robert Huntsman, who has a patent pending for a new way to edit movies, filed the lawsuit in federal court in Denver seeking a judgement that would declare it constitutional to provide edited movies to the public for private home viewing.
But one could probably conceive a product that skirts the copyright issue, such as: let's say their system is some kind of ancillary device where the customer uses his already purchased studio DVD and this company then sells a corresponding CD-ROM or ROM chip or whatever, that has timecode control cues on it, corresponding to the time code of the DVD. Both the studio's DVD and the company's CD-rom go into a double draw DVD "clean" player. The Clean-Movie company, or whatever they call themselves, would be supplying the cues that would control the DVD. The consumer then selects "no foul language" and the company's control CD-ROM would mute the audio in the preselected spots; or the consumer might have a choice to select to eliminate very violent, moderately violent, or any violent scenes, etc.; the company's cues would control the DVD and force it to skip those scenes....same with sexual content. This would not involve any copying of the original copyrighted content. Any other method which involves making a "clean" version of the original, well, unless this company thinks their lawyers can go into court and prove that the First Amendment negates the entire body of copyright law, they are dead in the water. It will be an interesting fight. Unfortunately if their "clean machine" involves any kind of duplication, it will be a fight this company will certainly loose.
This claim is almost as ludicrous as the network executive (can't remember who) who stated recently that the Tivo (spelling?) system which allows consumers to skip commercials should be outlawed because it violates the "unwritten contract between the broadcasters and the viewers;" he also claimed (no doubt while still in his crack/ectstasy cocktail induced stupor) that the network's responsibility is to supply free programming and the viewer's responsibility is to WATCH the commercials that pay for it. These new hard-drive time-shifting devices allow the viewer to skirt their "responsibility" to watch the commercials! So remember boys and girls, when you have to get up to go to the john, you are obligated to just sit there and HOLD it, because the network executives believe you have a responsibility to watch their commercial content if you expect to get to watch their free programs. Also, when those commercials come on at twice the volume of the program, it's your obligation NOT to push the Mute button on the remote -- that certainly would be a violation of your contract with the networks. In fact, if this logic be extended to it's conclusion, the remotes themselves should be declared illegal.
By the same token, if I watch all the commercials BEFORE say LAW AND ORDER, but then am interrupted by a phone call, can I claim a refund check from NBC -- I watched the commercials but didn't watch the program?
How the new hard-drive recorders are any different from what I have been doing for decades and that is, recording any of prime-time programming that I might want to watch (not much, actually) on VHS tape and then watching it later in the wee hours when I get home from the theatre. I guess I will need to surrender within the week to the broadcast police, because in my crime spree of commercial skipping, I must have fast forwarded through hours and hours of commercials in my lifetime. I admit it -- I am a career criminal. I shirked my obligation as a network viewer....I've broken that "assumed contract." Take me away. I am sure that in broadcast prison, the only thing playing on the TV will be the lead-in to the programs, and then an entire hour of COMMERCIALS.
It would be funny if it wasn't so certifiably insane.
"Airplane" is rated PG and has an in-your-face shot of an ample bosom. "Sixteen Candles" is another PG film that showed a close up shot of a girl's perfect breasts --complete with a "boing" drum sound effect. Many millions of people saw Kate Winslet's tits in "Titanic". The opening of Jaws had a naturally well-endowed surfer girl flopping in the breeze as she skinny dipped into the ocean. No nippleage was shown though ("Jaws" could have justifiably been tagged with an R rating for its violent, gory content).
I don't understand the fuss over some exposed breasts. If anything, more people should be raising strong objections about the often violent and cruel content of so many films these days. Also, it seems okay for the most purile, basist subject matter to be talked about at length and dramatized on daytime and primetime network TV.
It is pretty damned ridiculous that the standards of morality for programming simply come down to bleeping out a few curse words and fuzzing out exposed nipples. Explode people's brains, have extra-marital affars with the next door neighbor's daughter and champion dishonesty as a way of doing business --and that will be okay with the censors. F**king idiots.
The saying used to be, "vanity, vanity....all is vanity." Today it's "hypocrisy, hypocrisy...all is hypocrisy." All the vehemence about nipples and "curse words" is nothing but a smoke-screen to cover the monumental lack of real morality or any kind of ethical center. We focus on wholly irrelevant issues and substitute them for real moral qualities like honesty, respect, kindness. Polluting the planet a mortal sin? Not in this culture -- it's not even a concept. We have reduced our ethics to what happens between the navel and the knee-caps -- everything else is irrelevant and fair game.
Rant done.
And i guess, that's what there is in it.
By the way: There were no money at all this time 'round. -Sad !
p.