Director De Palma disturbed over Iraq Film Edit

[scottinnj]

Story Here (http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN1846489220071019?feedType=RSS&feedName=entertainmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true)


De Palma's film, "Redacted," is based on the true story of a group of U.S. soldiers who raped and killed a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and murdered members of her family. It has stunned audiences for its shocking images and rattled American conservative commentators before its U.S. opening next month.

But De Palma says he is upset that the documentary-style drama -- its name derived from his view that news coverage of the war has been incomplete -- has been censored.

The film's distributor, Magnolia Pictures, ordered the faces of dead Iraqis shown in a montage of photographs at the end of the film be blacked out.


Now I am one who is personally not a fan of this movie being made. But if it is going to be made, it should be made to the satisfaction of those who are the makers of the movie, not the dummy censors who are scared of reactions from conservatives such as myself.

I am not a big fan of what has been going on lately. Congress has "condemned" Media Matters for the General Betrayus ad, Rush Limbaugh over his phony soldiers comment, and now this.

The American people are grownups. I think we can filter the media and make up our minds without the government or corporate lawyers telling us how to think and what we are allowed to see.

[Yerdaddy]

I'm not too bothered by this. The showing of faces was made an issue in the beginning of the war with the US accusing Al-Jazeera of violating the Geneva Convention by showing the faces of dead Americans while Fox and some of the real news agencies were showing the faces of dead Iraqis. I think that high-profile spat does raise the likelyhood of lawsuits over the unauthorized use of identifiable images of the dead. The images also don't appear to be a part of the actual narrative of the film but an emotionally provocative montage at the end - probably during the end credits. De Palma wants to use these images to show the horrors of the war and that's valid, but if it disrespects the dead or their families - and he can't verify whether it does or not - then it's not worth the trade-off.

In any case it doesn't sound like he's going to pull a Kubrick and threaten to put the film back in the can and leave the country, and he's got the free publicity from the "controversy". I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the whole thing was manufactured by the production company just for the free publicity which is more and more routine to marketing strategies anyway. I'm just glad the movie's being made and I hope DePalma didn't over-politicize it in the making of it.

[scottinnj]

I still am mad at the fact that the movie studio tampered with the film, but like I said the movie I think stinks on ice....so

I AM GLAD IT IS A BOMB! (http://www.nypost.com/seven/11252007/gossip/pagesix/de_palma_iraq_flick_bombs_582058.htm)

[ChrisTheCop]

Yeah, dead or not, theyre people, with families.
And I would guess some are even naked or exposed in some way...
I think putting little bars across their faces is the right thing to do.

It is their film, the company can do what it wants, yeah? Even change the title, or background music.

[epo]

I still am mad at the fact that the movie studio tampered with the film, but like I said the movie I think stinks on ice....so

I AM GLAD IT IS A BOMB! (http://www.nypost.com/seven/11252007/gossip/pagesix/de_palma_iraq_flick_bombs_582058.htm)

It's kinda of a stupid claim by the Post to say that it's a total bomb on 15 screens in the entire nation. It's a small film that naturally isn't gonna take in a ton at the gate anyway.

Plus they are judging it fiscally off of the old Hollywood fiscal model, which Mark Cuban doesn't seem to be following anyways. He's using the film on HDNet and actually debuted the film on that channel.

The reviews were somewhat mixed (http://www.mrqe.com/lookup?redacted&pane=1), but the nation's finest film reviewer Roger Ebert (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071115/REVIEWS/711150303/1023)gave it 3.5/4 stars.

As for the studio "tampering" with the film...it's interesting that a guy like you Scott would be so set against a studio having final cut of the film. It was in the contract and the business exercised it's rights. It's not like DePalma paid for the film out of his pocket.

[scottinnj]

As for the studio "tampering" with the film...it's interesting that a guy like you Scott would be so set against a studio having final cut of the film. It was in the contract and the business exercised it's rights. It's not like DePalma paid for the film out of his pocket.

Well, being an amateur photographer, I look at it like this:
If Cuban financed it, he should have had the final say. The distributor who bought the film shouldn't have done that. If anything, I would have felt more comfortable if they had dropped the montage altogether.

If I submit a photo to a gallery to display, I would expect them to show the picture, not change the photo to suit the gallery's ideas. If they are to change the picture, they should just send it back to me unused.

It's a weak argument, but art is art. I don't agree with the film, or it's agenda, but the distributor knew what it was getting and shouldn't have tampered with it. For a matter of privacy to the families, they should have dropped the montage scene altogether.

[TheMojoPin]

I'm disturbed that Brian De Palma still has a career. The man hasn't made a watchable film in about 20 years. If hiring guys like him truly reflects on Cuban, maybe I don't want him buying the Cubs.

[epo]

Well, being an amateur photographer, I look at it like this:
If Cuban financed it, he should have had the final say. The distributor who bought the film shouldn't have done that. If anything, I would have felt more comfortable if they had dropped the montage altogether.

If I submit a photo to a gallery to display, I would expect them to show the picture, not change the photo to suit the gallery's ideas. If they are to change the picture, they should just send it back to me unused.

It's a weak argument, but art is art. I don't agree with the film, or it's agenda, but the distributor knew what it was getting and shouldn't have tampered with it. For a matter of privacy to the families, they should have dropped the montage scene altogether.

Here is the weird thing about this argument:

Have you seen the film yet? (I'm guessing the answer is no.)

Then as a fellow artist, how can you judge the work & the merit of the montage?

[epo]

I'm disturbed that Brian De Palma still has a career. The man hasn't made a watchable film in about 20 years. If hiring guys like him truly reflects on Cuban, maybe I don't want him buying the Cubs.

After Snake Eyes, DePalma should live in shame. Seriously it's two hours of my life that I'd like back.

[scottinnj]

Then as a fellow artist, how can you judge the work & the merit of the montage?

Of course no, but partly because it isn't here in South Jersey. I'll probably see it, but when it comes out on DVD, like I did the Michael Moore films.


And by amatuer, I mean amatuer so my views as an artist please take with a grain of salt.
But the montage scene has something to do with De Palma's overall work of the film, so I'd like to see it unfiltered by the corporations that edited it. When I do see it, maybe it will help shape what I feel he is trying to get across. Maybe not. For example, the Apocalypse Now, Redux version was a waste of time for me, but the original picture I must have watched 15 times in one week, and thought it was a great picture.
So maybe the edited version will open my eyes to something, but I doubt it because it seems to take an isolated event that happened, and make it look like that is standard practice in the military. PPV is a great thing though. I'll see it when it is on PPV. I just don't like seeing original films edited by companies. If De Palma took it out himself, fine. If the distributor dropped the scene, fine. I just don't like watching something that has been "filtered" by the company that owns it.
Which is why I don't watch network tv anymore. I'm all over the cable, but I couldn't tell you anything about "Heroes" "Lost" or these other shows that Ron and Fez talk about. I just have stopped watching NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox a while ago, save for the sports broadcasts. You'll catch me up in the high 200s on Directv, where the cable channels seem to allow the shows a bit more freedom in what they can do or say.

[Yerdaddy]

Cuban: Bill O'Reilly Is "My New Best Friend" (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000361/news)
12 November 2007 (StudioBriefing)
Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, who also heads the film company 2929 Entertainment and the TV channel HDNet and writes a regular blog, has called Fox News's Bill O'Reilly "my new best friend." Speaking at the Blog World Expo in Las Vegas Friday, Cuban acknowledged that his upcoming movie Redacted, directed by Brian De Palma, about how comments by some American soldiers fighting in Iraq have been censored by the military, had received little attention until O'Reilly began attacking it. As a result, he said, his "small film" has "grown bigger and bigger by the day. So I'm very grateful to him." He added, however, "At the same time, there is every bit of me that just wants to say, 'Bill O'Reilly is a moron.'"

The film, inspired by the case of the rape and murder of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl by U.S. soldiers, has been condemned by Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly, who called on his audience to bring signs to theaters reading "Support Our Troops" and predicted that the movie "will incite anti-American hatred around the world." He also called the film's executive producer, Mark Cuban, an "anti-American" and encouraged fans of the Dallas Mavericks, which Cuban owns, to protest against the film at the team's games. O'Reilly described De Palma as "a true villain in our country."

If O'Rielly ever called me an "anti-American" I'd find him and beat the living fuck out of him, then write a book about it and make a fortune.

[epo]

But the montage scene has something to do with De Palma's overall work of the film, so I'd like to see it unfiltered by the corporations that edited it. When I do see it, maybe it will help shape what I feel he is trying to get across. Maybe not. For example, the Apocalypse Now, Redux version was a waste of time for me, but the original picture I must have watched 15 times in one week, and thought it was a great picture.
So maybe the edited version will open my eyes to something, but I doubt it because it seems to take an isolated event that happened, and make it look like that is standard practice in the military. PPV is a great thing though. I'll see it when it is on PPV. I just don't like seeing original films edited by companies. If De Palma took it out himself, fine. If the distributor dropped the scene, fine. I just don't like watching something that has been "filtered" by the company that owns it.


Scott it's funny that you mean Acopcalypse Now in this discussion, as this was the film I wanted to compare it to in the first place. Not in terms of the film or content or the journey of making the film, but rather the "director's investment".

When Coppola made A.N. he invested everything, literally so that the film got made & made his way. He signed over his house, vehicles, the vineyard....all of it over to the studios/banks to keep creative control. In fact to this day Coppola still has control over it all.

That's an investment. And if the studio had chopped the film unjustly, then Francis could have bitched...and rightfully so. The original version we've all seen isn't the studios fault, but rather how Coppola edited it for theatrical viewing.

DePalma made no such investment. Very few directors do. It's the entity that leverages something that always gets final control, and hence in my view DePalma has no say in this matter.

[NortonRules]

No one's going to see the movie anyway. Who gives a shit?

[TheMojoPin]

Thanks for contributing.

[scottinnj]

The original version we've all seen isn't the studios fault, but rather how Coppola edited it for theatrical viewing.

DePalma made no such investment. Very few directors do. It's the entity that leverages something that always gets final control, and hence in my view DePalma has no say in this matter.

Okey Dokey, I'll have to go with you on that...you always seem to be my movie goto guy when a question is raised.

[epo]

Okey Dokey, I'll have to go with you on that...you always seem to be my movie goto guy when a question is raised.

If you ever get a chance, I would recommend picking up a copy of Peter Cowie's "Apocalypse Now Book". It really tells the story of the film from most of the angles and gives you an appreciation for the mess that it was.

In fact you can find it on amazon for a couple of bucks (http://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Now-Book-Peter-Cowie/dp/0306810468/ref=pd_bbs_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196400293&sr=8-9).

[Dan G]

No one's going to see the movie anyway. Who gives a shit?

I watched it.

[scottinnj]

I watched it.


You have an opinion you'd like to share with the class? :innocent:


Seriously, what was your impression?

[earthbrown]

De Palma is a liberal cunt, who is attempting to undermine the perception of the public on the troops.

We spend 6months showing panties on savages' heads, and the media covered this rape and murder.

He should have done a film on the Invasion of america by the 20 million illegals, some of whom commit rape, murder, theft and other crime....along with a majority of illegals receiving government benefits.


K

[Dan G]

You have an opinion you'd like to share with the class? :innocent:


Seriously, what was your impression?

I watched the film before I heard the controversy surrounding it. When the credits began to roll, a montage of images of dead people with their eyes looking like a "Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap" album cover appear. I didn't understand why they were covered. I've seen some of the images and ones that were similar before without being covered like on Fahrenheit 911 and even the news.

I still don't understand what grounds anyone would have to sue for showing images of dead people.

As for the film itself. Eh, it was alright. It was interesting how it was filmed as all the camera angles were either POV style, surveillance, webcam, etc... So basically it was as if there wasn't an actual cameraman filming the movie.

[epo]

De Palma is a liberal cunt, who is attempting to undermine the perception of the public on the troops.

We spend 6months showing panties on savages' heads, and the media covered this rape and murder.

He should have done a film on the Invasion of america by the 20 million illegals, some of whom commit rape, murder, theft and other crime....along with a majority of illegals receiving government benefits.


K

Congrats, that might be one of the top ten most ignorant posts I've ever read.

[TheMojoPin]

De Palma is a liberal cunt, who is attempting to undermine the perception of the public on the troops.

We spend 6months showing panties on savages' heads, and the media covered this rape and murder.

He should have done a film on the Invasion of america by the 20 million illegals, some of whom commit rape, murder, theft and other crime....along with a majority of illegals receiving government benefits.


K

This simply cannot be a serious post.

If it is, well, I loved your work with Scorsese.

http://www.theboxset.com/images/reviewcaptures/504capture_gangsofnewyork02.jpg

[Yerdaddy]

De Palma is a liberal cunt, who is attempting to undermine the perception of the public on the troops.

We spend 6months showing panties on savages' heads, and the media covered this rape and murder.

He should have done a film on the Invasion of america by the 20 million illegals, some of whom commit rape, murder, theft and other crime....along with a majority of illegals receiving government benefits.


K

Everything you said is wrong and you are a disgrace to multicelular organisms. I've known many Iraqis in my lifetime and you are more of a savage than every one of them. Kill yourself. It would be the most patriotic thing you could do at this point.

[scottinnj]

De Palma is a liberal cunt, who is attempting to undermine the perception of the public on the troops.

We spend 6months showing panties on savages' heads, and the media covered this rape and murder.

He should have done a film on the Invasion of america by the 20 million illegals, some of whom commit rape, murder, theft and other crime....along with a majority of illegals receiving government benefits.


K



Like I said at the top of the thread, I am probably not going to like this film when I get to see it, (I'll withold final opinion on any alledged "agenda" De Palma may or may not have) but I can't go down this road with you bro. I don't even truly understand your rant about De Palma and some connection to the media's coverage of Abu Ghraid (spellcheck please?) even though we are supposedly on the same side about this.

[TheMojoPin]

Everything you said is wrong and you are a disgrace to multicelular organisms. I've known many Iraqis in my lifetime and you are more of a savage than every one of them. Kill yourself. It would be the most patriotic thing you could do at this point.

Easy with the "kill yourself" stuff. Don't do it again.

[Yerdaddy]

Easy with the "kill yourself" stuff. Don't do it again.

You're right. I should be more like the Democrats and play by the rules of civility when confronted by the mass movement of hate-filled liars who advocate a vision of America as Nazi Germany - and are making slow steady progress towards their goal. It's working so well for the Dems.

If it means giving up this forum to pieces of shit like him then do me a favor and ban me now.

[TheMojoPin]

You're right. I should be more like the Democrats and play by the rules of civility when confronted by the mass movement of hate-filled liars who advocate a vision of America as Nazi Germany - and are making slow steady progress towards their goal. It's working so well for the Dems.

If it means giving up this forum to pieces of shit like him then do me a favor and ban me now.

You're not "giving up" anything. Trolls that extreme never stick around in one way or another, and you know it. Bottom line, telling people to kill themselves for a stupid message board post makes it hard for the staff here to justify taking action when we feel someone has crossed the line. It's easy enough to mae posts like that look as ridiculous as they are without resoorting to such replies.

Back on topic...this film is getting savaged in the reviews I've seen thus far. De Palma's stinkfist strikes again.