Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: UK cinemas to show two different cuts of Bruno

This is topic UK cinemas to show two different cuts of Bruno in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=002241

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 07-13-2009, 05:03 PM:

From BBC NEWS:
link
----------------------------------------------------
Bruno cut for under-18 audiences

UK cinema-goers are to be presented with two alternative versions of hit comedy film Bruno from Friday, 24 July.

A 15-rated edit of the movie will be distributed alongside the original cut, which has an 18 certificate.

It is the first time alternate versions of a film have been released in the UK at the same time.

Universal Pictures said it had re-cut the film after cinemas reported turning away large numbers of teenagers during the opening weekend.

Only 1 minute 50 seconds had been lost from the original, it said.

Sacha Baron Cohen's mock documentary went straight to number one in the US this weekend. It is expected to achieve a similar feat in the UK, despite its restrictive certificate.

Universal said the movie had taken an estimated £5m at the UK and Ireland box office since it opened on 12 July.

If that figure is verified, Bruno will have achieved the biggest opening weekend of all time for an 18-rated film.

Centred around an Austrian fashion TV reporter, the film sees Baron Cohen stage a variety of audacious, and often explicit, encounters with the public.

It has already survived several encounters with the editor's scalpel.

Some scenes were shaved in the US to stop the film being given a restrictive NC-17 rating, which would have banned anyone under the age of 17 from seeing it.

And, shortly before release, a scene involving Michael Jackson's sister La Toya was removed "out of respect" for the Jackson family.

-------------------------------------------------
This seems to been an awfully complicated way of doing things, it would have been much more easier to just have released the 'cut' version this weekend, and release the uncut on DVD. I'll be interest to see how many sites actually pick up the cut version (especially since it will have been the 3rd week of release.)

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-13-2009, 07:45 PM:

No prizes for guessing where the 1'50 was taken from.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-13-2009, 09:30 PM:

I wish they would do that here, then we'd have the pleasure of not playing both versions.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-13-2009, 10:14 PM:

[thumbsup]

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 07-13-2009, 10:55 PM:

quote: Michael Brown
Some scenes were shaved in the US to stop the film being given a restrictive NC-17 rating, which would have banned anyone under the age of 17 from seeing it.

From what I've heard, it should have still been given this rating. I've had many people walk out and leave within the first 10-15 minutes of the film with most commenting that its pretty much soft porn. And its not just older folks leaving. Most have been males between 25-40.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-14-2009, 06:46 AM:

Hopefully they all got refunds.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 07-14-2009, 10:21 AM:

I am amazed that the film wasn't NC17 because I didn't think male parts could be shown. Is there a list of things that can't be shown in an R rated movie?

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-14-2009, 10:43 AM:

There are plenty of movies that show male parts without being NC-17. And there is no set in stone rule, AFAIK, for what is R and what is NC-17. What used to be NC-17 would be an R now. Things change.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-14-2009, 12:12 PM:

Nudity alone isn't enough to warrant a NC-17, not even full frontal male nudity. Recent example: Watchmen. The blue CGI character "Dr. Manhattan" walked around naked with his dork hanging out in numerous scenes.

Still, the MPAA is inclined to slap a movie with a NC-17 rating if the judges get too uncomfortable with how sexual activity is depicted. That especially holds true if the movie is from an independent studio. They don't have any set rules. They just use the criteria of how they feel at the time.

What's really funny is cable networks like HBO, Showtime & Cinemax often televise adult oriented programs that show full frontal male and female nudity and strong sexual content, some of which is not simulated. They may not be showing the actual in-out details like a hardcore porn video would show, but you still know the two people are really doing it anyway. In that regard, the NC-17 rating is pretty much obsolete when it comes to rating simulated sexual activity on screen.

Of course, we all know the MPAA is much more tolerant of graphic violence. But that's true of American society in general. I see bloody, graphic violence on broadcast network TV shows that would have been edited out 20 years ago. Some of it really is R-rated caliber stuff -all free to view in prime time.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-14-2009, 12:55 PM:

I also think that comedic context is allot easier to get by the board than when the exact same "parts" are shown in a drama. Humor tends to dissipate the discomfort level of those six sitting on the MPAA rating board whence comes a glimpse of genitalia their way. I would think it's a bit difficult to get all uppity over at the sight of a penis when you're in the throws of laughing your ass off.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-14-2009, 01:01 PM:

I haven't seen the Bruno or Watchmen, but if you have both nudity AND sexuality, you're just about guaranteed an R. If you take either of those out, it's PG-13. If you show "penetration" or other overt sexuality in a "real life" context, that's an NC-17. If the movie is animated or otherwise "cartoonish," you can have more nudity than you might otherwise but you would probably still get an R unless you show actual penetration.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-14-2009, 01:30 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
If you show "penetration" or other overt sexuality in a "real life" context, that's an NC-17.

quote: Mike Blakesley
I haven't seen the Bruno

The most obvious sign that you haven't seen Bruno is that you think penetration automatically gives you NC-17. I only saw bits and pieces of the movie, and there's a fair bit of penetrating.

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 07-14-2009, 07:20 PM:

Bruno still did massively well here, believe it is the biggest ever opening for an '18'. Can't say I have seen any walk-outs yet, imagine most people knew what to expect.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-14-2009, 10:39 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
The most obvious sign that you haven't seen Bruno is that you think penetration automatically gives you NC-17. I only saw bits and pieces of the movie, and there's a fair bit of penetrating.

Does the movie contain any camera shots of a penis going into an orifice? I haven't seen Bruno yet, but I would be very surprised if the movie actually showed fully explicit penetration.

That's been one of the very clear dividing lines between "hardcore" material and everything else. If the camera actually shows a man's penis going into a woman's vagina (or any other orifice) it removes all doubt the activity is simulated. A number of other things can be listed that clearly go into the not simulated/hardcore category.

I believe there is a very clear dividing line between porn and strong yet still simulated sexual content. It is a physical, not artistic line. That's why I think the MPAA should have kept both the "X" and "NC-17" ratings and used either in the appropriate context. Instead they simply wussed out. And that ended up placing serious limits on depicting sexual content in movies even if it is all simulated.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-14-2009, 11:29 PM:

Touché. The actual penetration is covered up but when I happened to walk by they had repeated shots doing the same kinds of stuff, all obvious penetration. Those parts felt like I was watching porn.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-18-2009, 01:12 PM:

I'm sorry, but I just don't find Sacha Baron Cohen funny. I've seen bits of Borat, and things he's done for TV, and I just can't see anything in it.

I don't object to his material, but it's just not my thing. One part of Borat that I have seen was the "In my country there is problem (throw the Jew down the well)" thing. Was the audience in that real? They look like a load of total morons, but surely they must have realised that Borat wasn't genuine. The words of even the first verse before there was any mention of the Jew were so ridiculous that the audience must have realised that they were being set up, surely? It didn't sound like an anti-semitic song; it sounded like what it was, a ridiculous parody of one. If He'd sung what sounded like a genuine anti-semitic song, and got a positve reaction from the audience, then that would have said something, and something worrying, about the audience, but this said nothing. What was it supposed to be anyway? Was it supposed to be comedy, or documentary about the fact that there are some really stupid people in this World, or what?

What's this new film about? I've seen posters for it on the sides of buses, but that's all. I don't think I'll be going to see it.

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Hopefully they all got refunds.

Why should they? I've never heard of any cinema giving refunds to people who decide they don't like the film, and choose to leave. I don't think I've ever left a film before the end, other than a couple of times when things have been running very late, and I wouldn't have been able to get home. If somebody is likely to be offended by the film, then they probably wouldn't go. If they do go, and decide to leave, then that's up to them, but they shouldn't get refunds.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-18-2009, 02:28 PM:

My opinion is this: buyer beware.

I think customers are entitled to refunds if the theater seriously botches the presentation quality of the show or the movie stops playing and cannot continue. I don't think customers should get a refund if they merely didn't like the movie itself.

This is a big reason why we have movie critics and why word of mouth is so important in helping a movie succeed or fail. Customers just need to do a little research, like check the Rotten Tomatoes "tomato meter" score. If they blindly walk into a movie that turns out to be a piece of crap it is 100% that customer's fault.

Movie trailers usually provide a very good idea on what sort of material the show contains. Really a lot movie trailers give away too much of a movie. The ad campaigns for both Borat and Bruno give enough of a hint that anyone would have to be pretty stupid to not realize what kind of movie they're buying a ticket to see. If they get offended, again it's they're own fault.

Finally, the more complex and detailed MPAA ratings of recent years remove any remaining justification for a movie customer to demand refunds because he/she got offended. The rating is right there on the poster, often in the TV ads and also included in many critics reviews. Rotten Tomatoes also lists the detailed ratings too.

Some of this gets back to the broader problem of many Americans not owning up to their own responsibility for making stupid choices. They always have to blame someone else for it. Instead of just shrugging it off and saying, "yep, I wasted $9 on a shitty movie," some just have to say, "I'm demanding a refund from the manager!" Assholes.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 07-19-2009, 12:45 PM:

Leaving in the first 15 minutes is very different from leaving halfway through or in the last 15 minutes.

Refunds (if requested, but a readmit pass for another film is OK too if the customer accepts) are just good customer service for a case like this. People didn't know what the movie was going in, but want to actually see a movie at your theatre. I would expect most of them would happily choose a different film to watch (perhaps at another time, perhaps at the same time).

When someone leaves 1/2 or 3/4 through the movie, you suspect they are trying to take advantage by seeing most of the movie out get out of paying for it. That's obviously not what's going on with Brüno and we shouldn't treat the two cases the same.

--jhawk

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-19-2009, 01:49 PM:

I don't know. I just have a hard time believing anyone would choose to see a movie like Bruno and not realize what the movie has in store for them to see. From the outset, I expected the movie to have a very strong R rating, if not even NC-17.

I have an even more difficult time believing that anyone prone to be offended by dirty, gay humor would choose that kind of movie to see. A few of my friends are very conservative and/or very religious. They wouldn't choose to see that movie unless someone forced them to do so at gunpoint.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-19-2009, 03:10 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I don't know. I just have a hard time believing anyone would choose to see a movie like Bruno and not realize what the movie has in store for them to see. From the outset, I expected the movie to have a very strong R rating, if not even NC-17.

Can you say "hasty generalization"? You know of at least one person who saw the trailer and immediately expected it to be almost NC-17 and therefore all other people will feel the same way. While I knew what to expect for the most part, the trailers and ads I've seen on TV didn't exactly imply the amount of extremely explicit material.

quote: Bobby Henderson
I have an even more difficult time believing that anyone prone to be offended by dirty, gay humor would choose that kind of movie to see. A few of my friends are very conservative and/or very religious. They wouldn't choose to see that movie unless someone forced them to do so at gunpoint.

Do you really think the people walking out mostly are because they dislike dirty and/or gay humor? There's a big difference between dirty humor and having a dildo attached to the end of an exercise bike or having someone's scrotum sucked into a hand-vac, don't you think?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-19-2009, 07:12 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
While I knew what to expect for the most part, the trailers and ads I've seen on TV didn't exactly imply the amount of extremely explicit material.

The R-rating on its own spells it out pretty well: "for pervasive strong and crude sexual content, graphic nudity and language." The main character in the movie is an over the top caricature of the flaming gay stereotype. That pretty much tells me the kind of "graphic nudity" in Bruno is not going to be of the more visually pleasing female variety.

Also, the term "explicit" is very much a moving target. When I use the term "explicit" to describe on-screen sex I'm only going to use it when the stuff happening is real and not merely acted.

I see very little in regular movies that truly fits the definition of "explicit." Tongue kissing between two actors is often real, because that sort of thing just can't be faked. But it doesn't get a bunch of viewers' panties in a twist unless it is two men tongue kissing each other. Once in awhile a movie will have a love scene where a man is sucking on the nipples of a woman's bare breasts. What else is there? Groping of breasts and ass? Pretty minor stuff really.

quote: Chris Slycord
Do you really think the people walking out mostly are because they dislike dirty and/or gay humor? There's a big difference between dirty humor and having a dildo attached to the end of an exercise bike or having someone's scrotum sucked into a hand-vac, don't you think?

That doesn't sound much different than what one would see in a Jackass movie, a bunch of over the top gross-out humor. Burn After Reading featured a character building a sex chair that featured a dildo rising upward as the chair rocked back and forth. In the movie Bruno does the camera actually show someone mounting the exercise bike with a clear view of the dildo going into the guy's butt?

I think the people are walking out because they're lazy. They didn't look into the product before they made their purchase. Again, buyer beware.

I used the term "dirty, gay" humor to be a little more "nice" and general about the material. Sacha Baron Cohen has been crossing boundaries far into the area of bad taste for more than a decade. He already has a reputation for making viewers uncomfortable. Some people have a lot of fun being challenged by that sort of thing. Obviously Sacha Baron Cohen's brand of comedy is not for everyone.

The moviegoer has to exercise at least some responsibility in choosing movies to see that won't get them outraged or offended. I think the offended customers would have a more legitimate gripe if Sacha Baron Cohen had no previous work or reputation, if the marketing campaign was too vague and if the R-rating was generic. Even still, there are dozens of critics reviews that clearly warned Bruno will offend a lot of viewers.

Of course there's lot of people who smugly say, "I don't read critics reviews." Often that statement is made to justify their choice of seeing an obviously shitty movie. It's still a statement of ignorance. If someone wants to spend upwards of $20 for a movie ticket and refreshments to see a movie he knows nothing about then the blame is largely on him if the show turns out to be crap or downright offensive.

Some of this reminds me how people blindly purchase lots of other things, computers and electronics in particular. They don't feel like burdening themselves with any technical mumbo jumbo research and the reading of product reviews. So they just blind buy and then get bent out of shape when their new gadget turns out to be a lemon.