 by brian
Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
Navigation |
In tents: Bravo responds to the brouhaha over their editing of "Brokeback Mountain"
Last week we mentioned that the gayest not-gay network on the dial, Bravo, would be airing the network premiere of Brokeback Mountain immediately following the GLAAD Media Awards, and was advertising the combination like a sort of gay "rock block". This savvy programming and promotional one-two sounded encouraging at the time, and one imagined that if anyone were actually going to watch what is soup-to-nuts a thoroughly adult movie on basic cable, that Bravo might be as good a pick as any to do the ritualistic replacement of F-bombs and trims for time. But things didn't go as smoothly as expected. It seems that, aside from the obvious cuts for profanity, nudity, and gratuitous use of spit-lube, the network's version of the film cut something that had no reason to be censored: namely, a tender kiss between Ennis (Heath Ledger) and Jack (Jake Gyllenhaal). Fans of the film were incensed at the cut, with message boards ablaze with comments about the edit. Here are some of the more angered responses over on the IMDB boards: "I am absolutely disgusted!!! I'd rather they hadn't shown it at all. F*ck BRAVO! They are HYPOCRITES!" "But this is a LOVE STORY, for chrissakes -- and yet those hamfisted meatheads hacked out the SECOND NIGHT IN THE TENT?? I suppose some moron thought they needed to "protect the children". What BULLSCHITT!!!"
We didn't catch the televised version ourselves but when readers tipped us off to the brouhaha, we contacted Bravo to find out what the deal was. Here's their response: "This was an unfortunate mistake. While editing the film for cable broadcast, the kissing scene in question was removed. The scene will appear in all future airings of Brokeback Mountain on Bravo, as it should have been included in its cable premiere." We can approach this from a few different angles, but I for one am inclined to take their response at face value. Honestly, for them to deliberately remove a kiss (when others were left intact) for the purpose of undermining the gay romance of one of the most universally embraced gay-themed films in history and then to promote the network premiere in association with a gay media event would be suicide. We'll know for sure if the net is on the level the next time Brokeback airs. Submitted by on Wed, 2008-07-02 09:06. |
User login Recent comments
Recent blog posts
New forum topics |
And you're not bothered by
And you're not bothered by "the obvious cuts for profanity, nudity, and gratuitous use of spit-lube" you mention? I really don't understand why TV channels can "fix" a film and nobody protests. Nothing to see, move along.
François
---------------
http://gaycomicslist.free.fr
More on movie editing...
TV censorship is something that we in the States have sadly just come to accept. Would I ever watch a movie on network television, even a PG one? No. But while I understand that some people do and that that they might be experiencing a mangled version of a movie for the first time, it's just what you get if you watch network television, who edits movies for content (based on broadcast stadards) and time (however they see fit). In this case the issue is of course that what was cut did not violate standards, so the question was why it was removed.
But it doesn't end there. DVD and video releases also edit movies without comment or disclosure. Entire video chains owned by conservative groups have edited films for content for years without telling their customers, and even official studio-sanctioned releases of movies onto DVD have been massacred without any notice.
Sometimes it's due to rights issues (for example, the recent DVD release of HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME had every note of the film's gorgeous score removed and replaced with terrible anonymous pop music because they couldn't secure the rights, and the DVD release of the television show POPULAR is missing almost all its music), and other times it's impossible to know why the cuts were made (the official DVD of THE FAN cuts one of the most startling lines from the movie, which involves Michael Biehn asking Lauren Bacall something about a meat cleaver, but it's not noted in the release info that it's not the original film).
Half the time DVD releases (especially of old or rare films) are taken from prints from overseas or from broadcast, meaning swaths can be missing and the film isn't being preserved authentically. It's really sad.
Happy Birthday To Me
I happened to catch Happy Birthday To Me on OnDemand a few months ago and absolutely fell in love with the gorgeous score (best thing about the movie, aside from the delirious Scooby Doo ending); I wanted to get the movie on DVD and was shattered to discover in my research that they'd replaced that lovely score with some generic pop music. How could they not get the rights to the score? I mean, it was written expressly for the film and even received a Genie nomination! Bizarre.
Check out my blog: http://radicalsexy.blogspot.com/
Thanks for the details on
Thanks for the details on the butchering.
That's rather frightening.
Not that I think it never happens in my country.
François
---------------
http://gaycomicslist.free.fr
About that
From what I understand about American Cable TV, they could have aired it as uncut as they want, but the advertisers pressure them not to. What's up with that? Why do the American sponsors want the content censored? Surely there isn't a huge amount to people who would watch it but only uncensored. Or is it because they think if there's profanity etc. people will associate it with the product?
As a side note, when it aired on UK Broadcast TV, Or whatever you call TV that's not Cable/Satellite, it was completely uncensored, so UK advertisers don't seem to have a problem with sponsoring adult content. (Though BBM wasn't that explicit, compared to most straight movies anyway, but they've all been shown uncut too) Why in the US, a more uninhibited nation? How powerful are the AFA?
It's a long story
Basically, the US retains its Puritan heritage, albeit somewhat hypocritcally. Religion has played a pivotal role throughout our history, as it has elsewhere; but unlike, say, Western Europe, which has managed to shake those fetters after the two World Wars, the US went the opposite direction, particularly during the Cold War, when our religious beliefs began to supercede the Constitutional separation of church and state in opposition to the "godless" Soviet Union.
After the upheavals of the 60s and early 70s, with its sexual revolutions, there was what could be called The Third Great Awakening, when large numbers of people began embracing religion again (the first two "Great Awakenings" occurred in the 18th and 19th centuries); the sexual permissiveness of film began to wane, but it really just moved to, ironically, TV, with the advent of premium cable and home video. (Violence, however, increased exponentially on both fronts--as the Supreme Court recently demonstrated, Americans love their guns, and bloodletting is, sadly, one of our favorite pasttimes, and in a sick way, it's associated with religion: the violent conquest of the West was our "Manifest Destiny," our God-given right.)
Anyway, this group become politically savvy, and especially associated with the Republican party, and when they've controlled the levers of government, and even when they haven't, they've been vocal on what is shown on commercial television, particularly as it bears on sex. In one of those bizarre situations that could only happen in the US, when one of the networks first aired Schindler's List as stipulated by Steven Spielberg--unedited--a couple of Republican politicos got all upset about the nudity and sex--not, you'll note, with the casual murder of hundreds of people, and raised a stink; in that situation, they were laughed off (Spielberg is an American icon). But it gives you an idea of the atmosphere when it comes to American comercial television.
So there's this hypocrisy: Americans profess to be "deeply religious" and get "outraged" when Janet Jackson's nipple is shown briefly on TV, yet pornography is one of our most profitable industries, one which several major companies have quite a bit invested. There's this deep, shameful attitude to sexuality throughout our history and its difficult to shake off; hopefully, we'll get there soon.
Oh noes!
You should...
If you liked it as it was, you should really check out the uncut version. You'll like it. Sometimes, a simple scene makes ALL the difference.
A.
"The Greek word Eros denotes want, lack, desire for that which is missing. The lover wants what he does not have. It is by definition impossible for him to have what he wants if, as soon as it is had, it's not longer wanting." - Anne Carson
If you liked the movie ...
... you should read the original short story. Now, I don't know whether the story will have the same impact after having seen the movie (even butchered as it was on Bravo), but it's still a powerful piece of writing.
I read the story first -- the unedited version, not the one originally published in The New Yorker, which for some reason left off the first paragraph. And I was blown away. Devastated. I've read it over and over, and it still affects me. And I saw the movie several times in the theatre, which moved me equally if differently each time.
I wasn't glued to the set when it was shown on Bravo, so I didn't give myself the full (edited) experience -- I'm glad I didn't.
But get the story and read it, if you're interested in seeing where the tale came from. I'd be interested in reactions from first-time readers of the story.
Bravo: going down the tubes
Bravo wanted to see how much they could get away with cutting. If no one had complained they would have left it cut up the way they first aired it.
Managers are the same everywhere. They're like an evil subspecies of subhumans.
Never watch movies on ad-supported TV
I only watch movies on the cable channels that don't stop the film for commercials: TCM, Encore, etc. They're never edited. Of course, a film should properly be experienced in a theater, but that isn't always an option.
I stopped watching films on ad-supported TV when I discovered that 30 minutes of The Sound of Music--including parts of songs--are hacked out to fill a 3 hour time slot.
Check out my blog: http://radicalsexy.blogspot.com/
hell yeah...
You mean to tell me there's more smooching on ATWT
than in Bravo's Brokeback?
ROTFALMAO!!!!!!
I agree--avoid most movies on basic cable
Future epitaph: "It seemed like a good idea at the time."
My partner made the mistake one day of trying to watch "Blazing Saddles" on the Family Channel--yeah, I know, bad idea. The movie was literally almost hacked to pieces. This is why I tend not to even watch movies on basic cable, unless I'm folding clothes for a few minutes and want some distraction.
Re: Logo--they've done OK with some things, but I'd need to compare an original to "their" cut side by side. "Big Eden," I think, was fine, because there was almost nothing objectionable to trim. I thought they did OK with "Latter Days," but again my partner swears that there were at least 10+ minutes missing from it.
Finally, re: "Brokeback"--that 2nd tent scene (or SNIT, at they call it over at Dave Cullen's Ultimate Brokeback Forum) is tremendously important, because after the rough, almost primal connection Jack and Ennis make on the previous night, this is the night where we see Ennis really accept who he is and what he wants--there is so much tension in him sitting by the fire and thinking about going into the tent, and when he finally does he's too embarassed and terrified to even articulate it. It's up to Jack to take the reins (haw) and give Ennis what Jack knows he really wants. The kiss is a major key to their relationship, because it takes it out of the realm of "two drunk guys just needing to get off" (if that were true, they could've used the sheep), and you actually see the tenderness and love beginning between them. It's then the connective thread that links up with when Ennis sees Jack again after 4 years, and is so out of his mind with love and lust that he violates every part of himself that's normally closeted, fearful, constrained, etc., and gives Jack that knockout kiss in an open, public place.
"Brokeback" is a film with so much subtlety in it, especially with regards to what the characters don't say or do out of fear, social constraints, self-protection, etc., that the moments where their true selves emerge is like a prairie lightening strike. Cutting a few swear words or a glimpse of breast is one thing, but cutting such an essential piece of character information was a gross error on the network's part. Otherwise, people seeing it for the first time (except you, Latherr) might be more tempted to say, "Gee, what a slow, choppy movie--don't see what all the fuss was about, any why this was supposed to be such a great dramatic love story."
That scene is vital
I completely agree, that scene is vital in the entire context of the film. Sets the whole star-crossed lovers romance in motion. And I thought Heath and Jake's performances were particularly brilliant in it.
"The Greek word Eros denotes want, lack, desire for that which is missing. The lover wants what he does not have. It is by definition impossible for him to have what he wants if, as soon as it is had, it's not longer wanting." - Anne Carson
Everything on TV gets edited
I remember noticing how repeats of Will & Grace often had some of the funnier jokes sliced out on-air. DVD or unedited downloads remain the best way to see movies, with broadcast lagging far behind.
That said, I doubt that a significant scene could get cut by "mistake". Certainly not a love scene of any kind. This would almost be unheard of in a straight romance. Instead they would clip some transitional scenes if they needed to save time.
Bravo clearly wimped out.
Eating Out editting
There were 2 DVD versions of Eating Out
Unrated version of Eating Out
different DVD art for unrated Eating Out
Standard version of Eating Out has this DVD cover art:
...while the unrated version has this cover art:
At Amazon, they also have 2 different ASIN product codes - B0009WFEOG for standard and B00099415C for unrated.
Thanks, RJ
I never
I never watch ad-supported or network movies since they are butched.
Bravo didn't make any mistake, they knew exactly what they were doing. And the second tent scene with this kiss, has some posters have already pointed out, was crucial to the movie and the driving force behind what was to follow.
I'm really suprised that the kiss was censored. I just don't understand why, since it was just a beautiful tendor kissing scene showing how the two men, especially Ennis, were coming to grips with how they really felt about each other. Quite frankly...I think it's a black eye for Bravo.
I am not defending Bravo, but.... BTW great post Brian!
Like many others, I also refrain from watching theatrically released movies on basic cable or network TV due to commercials and/or cutting for content and/or timing considerations.
But this is not about me and more about many people, esp. teens who may not have gotten to see the movie during its theatrical run or on DVD. This audience deserves the most "progressive" cut that Bravo can offer and that certainly involves all kisses. I hope that they get to see it.
BTW, great post Brian!
Guillermo's Media Guillotine: Entertainment, journalism, politics, and popular culture..
http://springintoaction.typepad.com
"Gratuitous use of spit lube"?
Spoiler alert (for those who haven't read the story) --
The inclusion of Ennis spitting on his hand to lube his c*ck before he enters Jack for the first time is essential for the scene in the movie and for the development of their relationship -- the act is described simply and brilliantly in the original story. That second or two of business speaks volumes about urgency, determination, even a modicum of courtesy in spite of their drunkenness, as well as letting the audience know exactly what act is taking place. And it's important that we know it wasn't just frottage, that Ennis performed an act -- with Jack's explicit invitation -- that bound them in an intimacy that couldn't be undone.
I'm not sure if this is serious or satire
Despite the gaffe, I liked how Bravo handled the aftermath.
Some people could learn a lot from them. (I'm looking at YOU, As the World Turns.) They admitted their mistake, promised to rectify it, and moved on instead of giving more and more ridiculous denials and excuses that make everyone involved look like idiots.
Established Disestablishmentarian - You've seen worse
Well, we'll see ...
That scene replaced crucial dialog from the original story
IIRC, the only "debate" that Annie Proulx had with Ang Lee was over his removing this passage from the motel room scene later in the story:
"That summer," said Ennis. "When we split up after we got paid out I had gut cramps so bad I pulled over and tried to puke, thought I ate somethin bad at that place in Dubois. Took me about a year a figure out it was that I shouldn't a let you out a my sights. Too late then by a long, long while."
He felt adding that second tent scene earlier in the film (which was not in Proulx's original short story) added depth of tenderness earlier on and established quickly that this was not just a physical relationship (as Ennis and Jack both tried to contend earlier in the day - "I ain't no queer" and "Me neither"). Instead of Ennis verbalizing his feelings to Jack, Ang felt is was more in character for Ennis to act on his emotions in the additional scene.
By removing that scene, as dback explains above, it completely changes the fabric of their relationship. It wasn't removed because kissing was a problem...the reunion kiss was far steamier, but the tone/urgency of the scene was once again very physical rather than the mutual tender moment in the second tent scene. That scene had the romance that needed to be there.
I will be watching for it to turn up again on Bravo to see if, indeed, the scene is returned. I understand why they cut the sex scene. I can't understand, unless it was a genuine error, why they cut this scene.
Difference between story and movie
The passage you quote from the story is depicted in a couple of different ways in the movie -- the "gut cramps" Ennis describes in the story are depicted in the movie -- I thought that was a brilliant cinematic recreation of that moment. And then (I think) it's in the hotel room where Ennis says the line about "shouldn't a let you out a my sights."
The second tent scene is hinted at in the story but, as cinema is supposed to do, the movie depicts what is described briefly and generally in the story in a specific, very beautiful way.