From darkhorizons, "The whole point of a grind house film is that it contains material too explicit to be shown in mainstream theaters. Well, now the upcoming Tarantino/Rodriguez "Grindhouse" double feature is facing that challenge in terms of its content.The New York Post reports that there is no way the current version of the film can earn an "R" rating, not a problem for the intended audience but definitely a problem for the exhibitors, marketing people and advertisers who won't be able to promote or display either an NC-17 or Unrated version.
The good news is that the directors have intentionally added splices into their films anyhow so further 'splicing' of naughty content shouldn't prove an issue. Unfortunately most of the problems seem to stem from the faux trailers in-between these features.
Rob Zombie's "Werewolf Women of the SS" features shots of all topless female POW's in a Nazi concentration camp, and one scene where a topless girl is tied down to a table, drained of blood and branded with a steel swastika.
Eli Roth's "Thanksgiving" has a scene in which Jordan Ladd is giving oral sex to her boyfriend and halfway through realizes he has been decapitated, a fully nude cheerleader dies in a trampoline-related accident, and an obese man eats a baby.
It's expected some cuts will have to be made, many saying it's a shame the talk of a 'hard R' rating to replace the utterly useless 'NC-17' wasn't talked about sooner as this kind of film is a perfect first candidate."
7 comments:
So basically, hold off until the deluxe unrated DVD edition is released in July. Done and done.
I am so psyched for this!
Every new detail just makes it better. The fake preview by Rob Zombie? The missing reel in the Rodriguez movie? The scratches?
Tarantino is a bullet through the damp kleenex of irony. It has been true ever since Reservoir Dogs; he likes a certain kind of movie and goes and makes more of them. Art-house film types (the world's most naive cinema audience) are so confused by the blood and bullets (having never seen this stuff before, since they can't watch anything without first getting cultural "permission" from the New York Times Arts & Leisure section) that they think, "well, he's got to be 'kidding' on some level, right? I mean, this is 'trash,' right? All this enjoyment must actually be 'meta-enjoyment' or something sophisticated like that." Then they feel better.
Meanwhile, in the real world, Tarantino keeps making awesome movies and we all keep loving them.
Another poignant, dead-on, casual observation from Jordan. I was mildly fired up about it before, but now I must go on opening night!
Thanks, man.
I have two questions (both prompted by the Rose McGowan picture on this post):
1) How does she pull the trigger?
2) Rose McGowan still has her real leg, right? So how the hell are they doing that? Is is some complex digital effect, Forrest Gump-style? Are we supposed to imagine that the "real" low-budget film we're watching employed a one-legged actress?
These are the issues that plague me...
Regarding Jordan's first comment: well said, sir!
Pulp Fiction came out around the same time as the first Sin City comics, and I noted then (mostly to myself), that it marked a return to pure narrative, to just stop with the commentary already and tell a great fucking story.
A similar attitude spawned Kurt Busiek's Astro City and the slew of titles Alan Moore did with ABC Comics. And both writers wrote introductions that basically said the same thing: Okay, we had the 80's and Watchmen and everything, we did the deconstruction thing and peered inside the machinery of superhero comics and pointed the various parts out to the readers. Now, having done that, it's time to slam the hood shut and, using what we've learned, take it out for a spin.
Regarding Rose McGowan's leg: I think I read that she's always had a gun leg, and this is the first movie she's been in where she hasn't had to deal with lots of greenscreen wrap and whatnot. She fires it by mental command.
Thanks for clearing that up.
You've tried to tell me about the ABC comics before. (I NEVER LISTEN!)
The post-deconstruction concept you're getting at here is very well-put and interesting.
Post a Comment