The Differences Between Black and White

A few months back, just prior to the release of Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut, I wrote an article on the MPAA and how it was forcing American filmmakers to bastardize their own art in the name of commerce. This week, there's a new chapter in the ongoing war with the MPAA and filmmakers.

James Toback, the director responsible for Two Girls and A Guy, has had a new run-in with Jack Valenti's gang of moral hoodlums. His new film, Black and White, has come under fire for a particular scene which involves a menage-et-trois in the forest. What makes this particular battle with the MPAA unique, however, is the fact that Toback has made both edits of the scene in question available for viewing via the Internet (I'll give you the link in a minute).

I've always found it intriguing how slight the differences are between NC-17 and R rated films with the MPAA, so this particular case study offered an opportunity to see the exact differences between the two ratings. Especially since the only edit made in this case was because the MPAA was offended.

To see the two versions of the scene in question, go to

http://www.sputnik7.com/blackandwhite/.

I will warn you, these scenes are definitely adult in nature, and are not intended for a family audience, but they're nothing more shocking than you would've seen in a thousand movies before it (or in a lot of television shows).

Now, if you've just come back from watching the scenes, you may have noticed that there's pretty much no difference between the scenes besides the ending of the scene. It seems that in this case, a few frames of a moving hand are the difference between NC-17 and R. Are these frames absolutely necessary to maintain the integrity of the scene? Probably not, but then again, we're seeing the scene out of context, so it's impossible to say. Even if the frames are, ultimately, unnecessary, isn't that the decision of the director and editor, not the MPAA?

Of course, this is far from the first time the MPAA has reared its ugly head. Earlier this summer, several films were blasted by the MPAA. South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone found an interesting way around the problem. Every time they sent South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut to the MPAA, they'd receive a letter back stating what the objectionable scenes were. They'd then proceed to add more violence, more language and more risqué foul play and then resubmit the film. Stone and Parker have publicly stated that the version of the film which ended up on the screen is easily the "worst" in terms of adult content. Even MPAA head Jack Valenti went on record saying that South Park should've received an NC-17. If Valenti can't figure out the ratings system, how are filmmakers supposed to do it?

Another example of a film which was needlessly cut because of the MPAA is Universal's comedy American Pie. This film was sent back to the MPAA four times for various edits before receiving an R rating, and I had the opportunity to view an earlier cut of the film recently. The earlier cut had a little bit of different language, and the infamous "pie" scene had the character in question on top of the pie, rather than the (slightly) more unassuming edit in the final film. Having seen both versions, I can honestly say that there's absolutely no way one version is less adult than the other. Both of these edits are intended for an adult audience, period.

Quite frankly, the MPAA as it stands has got to go. They wield too much power for a ratings board which is supposedly "voluntary". It's time for them to be replaced by something more informative to parents. Something simple, which tells parents not only what the appropriate age range for a film is, but why that range is appropriate. I've covered this in the past, but let me reiterate. The system should be replaced by a ratings system which says very simply what the issues with the film are. i.e. 18VSS, for a film which has some violence and a moderate amount of sex. Save the NC-17 rating for adult films. Roger Ebert's solution of inserting an "A" rating between the "R" and "NC-17" would probably work as well. We have a rating like that in Canada, and it seems to work very well.

To move onto a different topic, the big buzz on the net seems to be about the price INCREASE on the feature-devoid Disney animated DVDs coming this Fall. I was originally planning to purchase a number of these titles, in fact, pretty much all except The Lion King II. Now that Disney has decided to up the price, I'm only going to purchase those titles I really want. Maybe two or three of the total. I've had enough, and I'm not going to allow Disney to screw me again. I'll be buying the DVDs because of the movie on the disc, not as any kind of support for Disney itself. I'd like to not purchase any, but I plan on having kids at some point down the road, and I'd like to have some DVDs which would be appropriate for them to watch. The fact of the matter is, Disney's animation is the high water mark for family entertainment, so I'm forced to purchase some (but not all) of these DVDs. Oh, and Dreamworks' The Prince of Egypt is on the top of my list, even before Disney. Moratorium or no moratorium, I'm going to support those companies which REALLY support DVD first.

Speaking of supporting DVD, there are rumblings that Dreamworks is getting ready to announce a Saving Private Ryan DVD. I'm hoping these rumors are true, as this film really does deserve the DVD treatment. I will fully understand if it can't be out until sometime in early 2000, but I'd love to see it before the end of the year.

Heck, the rumors have started me thinking about how if nothing else, two of Spielberg's films should be released on DVD. Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List are the films I'm thinking about. These films shouldn't be held back because of "market size" or any other commercial factor. These films transcend commercialism. They're above the "dollars and sense" computations of Hollywood, and should be released because they are incredibly moving pieces of art. Spielberg is, and should be, proud of these two works, and if he wants to truly show his pride, he should allow home viewers to watch them in the best possible way, DVD.

Wow...OK. I've rambled on a few topics this week (at least a few of them were DVD related, eh?). I'll start to wrap things up now. Last week's quote of the week went unanswered, and was from Go. If you haven't seen this movie, you should stop reading and run out to get a copy of it. Or better yet, order it from one of our on-line sponsors. That way we'll be able to keep bringing you news and reviews.

This week's quote is from one of Disney's animated titles. That's the biggest hint I'll give you... well, OK. It's from one of Disney's good animated titles (did that narrow it down for you?).

"My little baby, off to destroy people."

If you know which film the line is from, email it to me at

ken@dvdfuture.com