• Making an announcement before the film starts to the effect that the content is more "graphic" than we had anticipated. If anybody feels this might be a problem, please come forward and we will issue a rain check/refund.
• There should be an "accident" that causes the film to break just seconds before the offensive material. (Where James Spaeder masturbates.)

Oh! One more bit of information...
This is a Catholic College. Although we were founded by The Sisters of Mercy who preach tolerance and acceptance of other points of view, there are some who feel that this film goes too far. (Masturbation is immoral in the eyes of the Catholic Church.) Neither I, nor my boss feel that there is anything in this movie that really "goes too far". After all, there is only one real graphic sex scene and the rest is, for the most part, innuendo and suggestion.
We have shown movies with brief nudity in them before... even full frontal... without any criticism.

We have even shown "Lolita". (The 1997 version with Dominique Swain and Jeremy Irons.) Not a word was said about it.

Frankly, I see no problem with this. We have shown much worse movies (in both senses of the term) and have had less controversey. I just think there are one or two people who have a bug up their ass about something.

I'm inclined to just let the film roll and give anybody who complains a rain check or refund if they so choose.

So... What would you do?
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-19-2003, 02:59 PM:
 
If you feel some of the audience may be offended, perhaps a short plot synopsis and general description of the questionable content posted at the boxoffice would be a good idea.

Here is a link to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops movie ratings, which may be appropriate for Mercyhurst:

http://www.usccb.org/movies/weekly.htm
 

---

Posted by Chad Calpito (Member # 1562) on 02-19-2003, 03:06 PM:
 
Well Randy, my main solution to this is to inform the patrons of the films content as you have described in your posting. If the patrons decide to accept the rain-check/refund, then that is their choice. I know I would do the same if I was running a controversial show so as to avoid highly probable complaints later on.

Chad
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-19-2003, 03:23 PM:
 
We're going with the first option... Warn people and offer refunds to people who come forward early on. If they watched more than 1/2 the movie before they decide they don't like it they will only get a rain check.

The only reason the second option was mentioned was that when I built the print yesterday, there was some significant film damage in reel #5, the one with the "nasty scene", that caused the projector to shut down. (Had to order replacement reel from T.E.S.) We hypothesized that somebody who had this print had had an "accident" right before the nasty part. Personally, I don't think it's a good idea... for several reasons. Just somebody else mentioned it to me. That's why I said it in my post.

John, Some of the movies that we have shown in the past have had the Bishops' highest rating of "Offensive". (Or is that LOWEST?? ) "Lolita" is one. Few, if any people complained about that one. I, personally, thought that movie sucked! Made me sick to the stomach! On the other hand, I don't fault anybody else's right to watch it.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 02-19-2003, 03:30 PM:
 
don't warn people. many will not appreciate spoilers of any sort (well, i wouldn't). just post a sign saying, in big letters, "if you are easily offended..." and then describe the "problem" in small letters, so the less prudish will not have to bother. the only exception to the above should be if there is some medical concern. when you show irreversible, for example, make damn sure that no epileptics are admitted.

carl
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 02-19-2003, 03:51 PM:
 
i checked out that bishops' ratings site. what a load of horseshit. if they just stuck to enumerating potentially offensive scenes, i suppose it could be a valuable site for prudes. but they presume to cluelessly interpret and evaluate. they claim, for example, that pulp fiction glamorizes drug use. huh? if these bishops had any capacity to contextualize and look at the bigger picture they would see that the consequences of irresponsible drug use are amply depicted. they confuse mere depiction with advocacy. is there any more shallow mode of criticism? and let's not even get into the homophobia of some of their ratings. consult this site for laughs only!

carl
 

---

Posted by Dino Panagiotopoulos (Member # 1579) on 02-19-2003, 04:01 PM:
 
Carl brings up a valid point. I guess you should just screen it the first night or two and find out how your public reaction is then take it from there. If nobody is offended by the film then there should be no reason for you to "spoil" the film for others that are coming in. If you do end up getting those few people who wont agree with it, always remember that in this business you will never satisfy 100% of your customers and its expected.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-19-2003, 04:02 PM:
 
No, we're not going to say much about the plot of the movie unless people ask. The statement is going to be to the effect, "This movie has turned out to be more controversial than we had anticipated."

We DO hand out printed synopses and reviews of all our movies to each parton who wants one as they enter the theater. (Right at the ticket taker's podium.) This particular film is listed as, " Rated R -- Restricted for sexuality, language and depiction of abnormal behavior." It's printed right on the sheet.

I have spoken to a couple people this afternoon as they were buying tickets. Nobody that I have talked to seems to think this is going to be a problem.

Yes, I also agree that the website (and the reviews contained therein) is a crock. However, I think that might provide our "Out", in a manner of speaking. Other movies we have shown have had the "O" rating (Lolita) and nobody has complained about them. If people didn't complain about THAT movie, why are they complaining about THIS movie?

I just think there are one or two people who are trying to "stir up a hornet's nest", so to speak.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-19-2003, 10:19 PM:
 
Just wanted to let y'all know that the movie played fine. There were no major complaints.

We made an announcement before the film and allowed people to walk out gracefully to get a refund. Only one person took us up on the offer. (Out of a house of 400+)

In fact, the overwhelming majority of the audience liked the movie. There was even a round of applause at the end.

Like I said, I'm sure it was only one or two people who were stirring things up.

Happy ending...
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-20-2003, 02:07 AM:
 
I found that the biggest factor that determined how the audience reacted was advance publicity. There was such massive press coverage when Crash and Romance were released that no-one who came to see them was in any doubt as to what they were letting themselves in for. We'd have one or two complaints from people who, frankly, seemed to enjoy being outraged, but that was the limit of it. I imagine Irreversible will get a similar reception.

The worst film I can remember for audience objections was Wilde. It was advertised and trailed as a blue-rinse costume heritage movie. OK, the posters did state that it had an 18 certificate, but there was no hint as to why. The trailer was full of witty Oscar Wilde one-liners but hardly even alluded to issues of sexuality (apart from a brief shot of the trial scene). So as soon as the buggery scenes started rolling all hell broke out, mainly among older customers. On one show we had to give out 20-30 refunds, and eventually had to put up our own posters in the lobby stating that the film included explicit sex scenes.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-20-2003, 01:33 PM:
 
The only film that I can remember which caused a lot of trouble here was "The Last Temptation of Christ". There were elderly ladies who patrolled in front of the theater and warned us that seeing this film could endanger our soul. However, having already read Kazantzakis` book, I was damned anyway and had nothing to lose.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-20-2003, 09:00 PM:
 
What sort of a reaction do films like Max or Im toten Winkel - Hitlers Sekretärin receive when shown there?
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-21-2003, 08:57 AM:
 
There are some movies that have been vetoed even before they got off the ground. There have been 3 or 4 movies that were vetoed. The only one I can think of off the top of my head would be Cyclo, a film from Thailand or some place like that which depiced the life of a street thug who made his living off drugs, prostitution and violence.

There were even a few movies that never even got out of the gate. The list of candidates was submitted and they were simply crossed out even before they were booked.

Here's a funny story:

((Background -- My job here at the college is Technical Director for the Performing Arts Center. We have three stages here and I'm in charge of lights, sound, etc for these venues.))

This weekend, there was a performance of The Vagina Monologues scheduled at one of the other venues on campus. The day after the Secretary played we got a note that V.M. would be postponed indefinately.



<Boring historical background>

Although this is technically a Catholic School, it's pretty liberal. We were founded by the Sisters of Mercy, an order of non-cloistered nuns. They are very much into tolerance and helping the poor, etc. All students who go here must complete a certain number of hours of community service in order to graduate. You don't have to be Catholic to work or study here but there is an implicit promise that you will "behave yourself" (ifyouknowwhatimean) while you are on campus.

Throughout the history of the Sisters of Mercy, they have gotten a lot of "flack" about their "liberal" policies. Catherine McAuley, the founder of the order didn't even really want to be a nun. She ran a "boarding house" for young underprivileged girls but the Catholic Bishop told her that if she wanted to continue running such a place it would have to be a convent.... So she went to a convent, herself, and became a nun. When she returned she turned her house into a convent and founded an order. Thus the reason it's non-cloistered.

</Boring Historical Background>

Like I said before, I think there was one or two people who were stirring things up. Now I think you can guess who they were without me having to go into details.
Frankly I don't think this movie was all THAT bad! We have shown ones that I think were a lot worse. (Some were just plain BAD movies!)

Oh, well! It'a all over now. We're none-the-worse for the wear! We'll just lay low for now. Next week's movie is Bowling for Columbine!
 

---

Posted by Don Bruechert (Member # 1538) on 02-21-2003, 09:06 AM:
 
I guess, to put it bluntly, they're all big boys and girls and they can decide for themselves what they want to watch. One would assume they have seen a trailer for the movie - if not, and they come out in a reasonable period of time, we will let them see something else. If they ask our opinion at the box office we will tell them how others have reacted to it, or what WE think if we've seen it.

We had considered putting out a notice for Gangs of New York that it was very violent, but we decided to just let the chips fall where they may - although we did challenge parents with children that the movie was very violent and they may wish to consider not bringing their kids. No one complained about the movie at all that I am aware of.

Because we only have 6 screens we don't get to show everything, and we have a pretty good feel for what will or won't sell in our town, so unless we get forced into it by the distributor we can easily pass on some of the "less popular" titles, and then bring them in later on if there seems to be demand for them.
 

---

Posted by Tom Ferreira (Member # 70) on 02-22-2003, 05:37 PM:
 
I'm kind of curious if anyone has exhibited the film "Battle Royale". I'm not sure sure if any prints made it here to the US, but I'm sure that would have been a BIG problem.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 02-22-2003, 06:03 PM:
 
i saw battle royale at the pacific film archive last summer. the only problem was that it sold out and they had to schedule another show at a later date (iirc i saw the 2nd show). i don't recall there being anything too gruesome in it.

carl
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 02-22-2003, 06:38 PM:
 
Michael,

Is 'Triumph Des Willens' allowed to be shown in Germany today? I remember reading that there was considerable protest when it was screened at the National Film Theatre in London, sometime in the '60s or early '70s, I think, but it was shown on television a few years ago, and I don't think there were any great problems then. I have heard that, a few years ago, Germany was still quite sensitive about material from that era. I think there were fears that it could be seen as a source of inspiration for young would-be neo-nazis. This was at about the time of the reunification of the Country.
 

---

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 02-23-2003, 01:05 AM:
 
Randy, I'm glad your show went so well! A little late posting but...

My theatre caters to mostly senior citizens so we thought this movie might cause some debate. We did the same as you, warned people buying the tickets about the context but without giving away the plot. This seems to work really good, most of the people just said, "I'm over 18, I can handle it". Its very funny when the little old ladies walking with canes come out and explain bit for bit what part they liked the best.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-23-2003, 10:21 AM:
 
Yeah, it's funny listening to people talk about movies sometimes.

The week before, the film was Dr. Strangelove. (One of MY all-time favorites.) I thought it was great!
Do you ever notice that as people are walking out of the theater, they are chatting about things:
"Oh, that part where the guy said, <something> was good."
"I didn't like it when..."
"Hey, let's go get some coffee..."

Well, they were all dead silent!
The imagery, at the end of the movie, of the world getting blown up combined with the fact that Ol' George Bush is chomping at the bit to blow the living shit out of Saddam Insane must have really put a damper on the comversation! You'd think I handed them a bag full of dead puppies, or something!

The next movie is Bowling for Columbine.
Can you imagine what an emotional roller coaster these last few flix have been putting our customers through? The funniest thing is that they are all LOVING it!
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-24-2003, 02:35 PM:
 

quote:

---

What sort of a reaction do films like Max or Im toten Winkel - Hitlers Sekretärin receive when shown there?

---

quote:

---

Is 'Triumph Des Willens' allowed to be shown in Germany today?

---

Sorry, I didn`t mean to ignore the questions, I hadn`t spotted them since I look rarely into Ground Level.
Anyway, I don`t know if "Triumph des Willens" is or was banned. I have only seen excerpts of it and while it is a shamless glorification of the "Aryan superman" idea, it is not (or at least the parts that I have seen) as aggressive as some other films like "Jud Süss", a vile anti-semitic propaganda film which is indeed banned and can only be watched for educational reasons.
Interestingly, most people don`t know that the end of Star Wars is quoting "Triumph". Leni Riefenstahl (who I think is still alive at over a 100 or so) later took a drastic turn and went to Africa to photograph Massai warriors, this time celebrating the physique of people that her former sponsors had lebelled "subhuman", and also did some very good underwater photography. She somehow seems to have redeemed herself from her time as a propaganda film director and may have been forgiven to a certain degree. Like Albert Speer, Hitler`s favourite architect who spend decades in jail and wrote his famous memoirs, she seems to have been one of those people who were seduced by the prospect of having unlimited means for their work. I think her work is seen today rather as a strange side effect of that era than as something dangerous. I don`t think there is any danger that young Neo-Nazis could be inspired by the movie. There are far fewer Neo-Nazis here than most people would think, and most of them are really just harmless unemployed village idiots who are not taken seriously and prefer to spend their time getting drunk to watching "old movies".

I haven`t seen either Max or the movie about Hitler`s secretary. The latter was on TV last year and generally received very well because it provided an unknown angle on the subject. As I said in another thread, the educated people here are very well informed about and very critical of the past. In fact, I don`t think that any other country has confronted its own history as mercilessly as people have done here since maybe the 60s.
I know the story of Max outlined on imdb, and seem to recall that there is either a book or play on the subject which was also vividly discussed.
We have documentaries about the Nazi era on TV all the time and we spend years in school studying the era, visiting KZs and other historic sites such as the former Gestapo headquarters in Berlin where the Wehrmacht officers who tried to kill Hitler were shot.
Those sites in Berlin that remain have been incorporated into an exhibition project called "Topography of Terror". You can visit those sites and look at exhibitions about the era.
If you make a film or a documentary about the Nazi time, you can be as critical as you like here. There are always lively discussions but rarely controversies in the sense that maybe somebody might feel offended by the unmasked portrayal of Nazi terror. Of course, there are a lot of idiots here who are not informed and a few who still think that the Nazis were cool, but the vast majority of people with some education are aware of what happened and ready to "confront the past".
Indeed, some of the most successful historic films are those which are the most merciless such as "A Piece of Sky" (not sure if that`s the correct English release title) which tells the story of Anne Frank. And of course "Das Boot", which many people outside Germany see as a cool heroic war movie. Here, the book after which the movie was made and the movie were more seen as the the tragic story of young who were thrown away for a senseless war. The German slogo of the movie was "A story of lost men fighting a lost war". To understand this correctly, one has to know that in German, "lost" does not just mean "lost" in the sense of "we could have won, but we lost" but has very strong connotations like "meaningless, pointless, forlorn, desperate".
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-25-2003, 11:18 AM:
 
The problem with Triumph des Willens is that Riefenstahl is still alive and paranoically guards her copyright. Both TdW and Olympische Spiele are in the National Film and Television Archive's '360 Classic Films' repertory at the NFT, and whenever either film is shown Riefenstahl gets a royalty payment.

A major international conference on Riefenstahl had to be cancelled in 1998 because she threatened to sue many of the speakers.

There is, I believe, a German government ban on Der Ewige Jude. I was at a conference on film archives and educational DVDs in Trier last September, and a Danish academic who had produced an interactive DVD around the film which interspersed clips with papers and articles was having trouble getting the Bundesarchiv-Filmarchiv to release the footage.

Incidentally, Fritz Hippler (head of the Nazi Reichsfilmkammer and the director of Der Ewige Jude) is also still alive; or at least he was when a controversy arose over remarks he made on a website operated by the Holocaust denying 'historian' David Irving at his trial a couple of years ago.
 

---

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 02-26-2003, 09:48 AM:
 
Stephen & Michael,

I believe excerpts from Triumph des Willens were shown in London during the Blitz, edited to ridicule Hitler and the Nazis.
In the torchlit scene where Hitler addresses his followers, one asks, "Dem wo kumt ihr"[Sp?] "From where do you come?" They each answer with a place name: The Saar Valley, the Ruhr, etc., to show that all these male warrior types represent the far-flung Fatherland.
But as edited, the sub-titles read: Soldier: "My dog has no nose!." Hitler: "How does he smell?" Soldier: "TERRIBLE!"
There was also the goose-stepping Nazis marching backward, foreward and backward again for comic effect. And of course Hitler doing "the Lambeth Walk" by similar editing, though this might have been taken from Olympia or another film.

The audiences roared, being treated to a bit of levity during
really drastic times, when survival was threatened. Thus the effects of Hitler's propaganda was mitigated.

Gerard
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-26-2003, 04:44 PM:
 
I've seen something along the same lines, though not identical. It's the Rõhm purge scene, uncut (as far as I can tell) and the subtitles read as follows.

'A terrible curse has fallen upon the glorious German Reich. A treacherous traitor - I cannot say who - has suggested that <pregnant pause> my dog, Blondi, has fleas. MY DOG DOES NOT HAVE FLEAS!!! <enters rant mode> And if anyone, ANYONE, DARES to make that suggestion again, well... well... they'd better watch it!'

I couldn't stop laughing for about a week afterwards.
 

---