actor profiles
animation
book reviews
director profiles
documentaries
experimental &
avant garde
exploitation
film festivals
film noir
film reviews
gay & lesbian
hong kong films
horror
interviews
japanese cinema
music & musicals
silent film
tranny cinema
- - - - - -
To be automatically notified when the next issue is posted, join our mailing list.
 |
 |
The battle over Eyes Wide Shut's NC-17 rating appears needless when stacked against the imposing films mentioned above. Yet I agree with several critics who had suggested that Warners should have accepted the NC-17 rating, kept the film uncensored, and have it play less widely than had been planned. Realistically, the ratings decision — despite the received wisdom that NC-17 is "box office death" — probably would have had little impact compared to the number of viewers who eventually saw the film. Despite a good opening weekend, weakened a little by the death of John F. Kennedy, Jr., Eyes' audience diminished and in five weeks was gone from the 2,000 first-run theaters it had opened. In fact, publicity over the ratings controversy simply made the public sick of the movie faster.
The wrangling over the rating and potential number of customers excluded by an NC-17 reflected, on the one hand, the studio's desire for a profit, and on the other the inherent schizophrenia in the marketing of Kubrick's last film. Despite the presence of Tom Cruise and the growing popularity of Nicole Kidman, I can't help believing that Warners knew that it had a bomb or, at best, a disappointment in the works that might only be salvaged by world grosses, which tended to be strong for Kubrick's films. The anticipated return of Stanley Kubrick was, in fact, a mixed blessing. He had been gone from the screen so long that many people had forgotten that audiences and critics received Barry Lyndon, The Shining, and Full Metal Jacket lukewarmly. The fans of auteurs, unfortunately, can be counted on one hand. Warners could have bitten the entire bullet, left the orgy scene intact, and accepted the bitter reality that it had the most expensive arthouse film ever.
The critical broadside, with many broadly snide remarks, did its damage but probably not as heavily as the word of mouth, which was bluntly saying the damn thing was a bore, a legitimate response from a moviegoing public used to a swift pace, sentimental lessons about life, and easy humor. The dearth of overall acceptance reduced the ratings controversy to nothing, and may, at best, generate comments in ten years that Eyes Wide Shut was overhyped, and in a curious play of cause and effect, the hype will have been blamed for the failure.
* * *
As the film was being laid to rest and the producers could mollify their economic angst with the thought of overseas grosses, a letter was sent to Warner Bros.:
To Whom it may concern at WarnerOn behalf of American Hindus Against Defamation (AHAD), we would like to express serious concerns about the inclusion of one of the most prominent Hindu scriptural quote [sic], in the movie "Eyes Wide Shut". Midway in this movie, the character played by Tom Cruise goes to a mansion where what could best be described as an orgy party is taking place. When he enters a large room where several sex acts are taking place, the background music subsides and the shloka (scriptural recitation) from Bhagwad Gita, one of the most revered Hindu scripture is played out. The shloka is: "Parithranaya Saadhunam Vinashaya cha dushkrithaam Dharmasamsthabanarthaya Sambhavami yuge yuge …" which means "For the protection of the virtuous, for the destruction of the evil and for the firm establishment of Dharma (righteousness), I take birth and am incarnated on Earth, from age to age." Hundreds of Hindus have contacted us to express their shock at the use of Hindu scripture as a background for this scene in the movie. There appears to be no connection, or apparent justification for the use of this shloka. It appears to be totally out of context! We, American Hindus Against Defamation are baffled, disgusted and annoyed by the use of the shloka, and fail to understand your intent and the relevance of its usage. We have also been contacted by major media organizations, including BBC-London, NY Post, etc., seeking our comments. Before we make any comments to them, we have decided to first contact you and seek a prompt and honest explanation as to why it was decided to use this scripture during this scene in the movie. We are not launching a protest at this time, however, we do request an explanation as soon as possible. American Hindus Against Defamation (AHAD) is the pioneer Hindu rights coalition consisting of several major Hindu organizations. AHAD was responsible for movement that successfully sought withdrawal of Aerosmith - Nine Lives album cover, and recent withdrawal of Universal television's Xena episode "The Way" from circulation. For more information about AHAD, please contact....
I found this letter on an Internet web site nine months after the protest and Warners’ apparent response to future AHAD demands, which can be found on the same web site as the original protest letter:
1. Warner Brothers apologize to the Hindu community for the indiscriminate and abusive use of Hindu scripture.
2. The movie be altered to remove this shloka.
3. CD containing this shloka (verse) be withdrawn and re-released.
4. The video distribution of the movie not contain this shloka (verse).
5. The TV/cable distribution of this movie not contain this shloka (verse)
We certainly hope that Warner Brothers has depicted this shloka as an oversight and not to hurt the sentiments of a billion strong Hindu community around the world. We are also certain that Warner Brothers will respect the demands we have made above. If Warners does not accept the Hindu demands, the Hindu community will not be a silent spectator to the humiliation of its religious beliefs and scriptures.
By the time Warner Bros. released Eyes in England, it had altered the music, with the consent of the director’s widow, Christiane Kubrick, and executive producer Jan Harlan. I compared the disputed passages of Jocelyn Pook's music during the orgy walk in the HBO version, to the CD, which I had bought before the protest, and recognized a difference. The film's music sounded similar but is what can only be described as a Muzak version of the original. In response to an e-mail query, Jan Harlan wrote that the disputed passage was replaced by a similar sounding but innocuous passage.1
Before censoring (left) and after (right)
Usually I'm unsympathetic to religious groups that have great sensitivity to everything except individual rights and freedom yet are offended by the slightest thing regarding their beliefs. Religions, like it or not, must subordinate themselves to greater realities than their own righteousness and warped senses of absolutism. The use of shloka, sacred or not, does not come to close an abridgement of a religion’s right to worship and believe. Religions are free to condemn but not to make demands to suppress speech. Because in this instance the demands were made to a corporation, another entity enjoying freedoms but, historically, little mindful to individual freedoms, the corporation decided to act against the integrity of the artist and the work of art. The corporation hoped to avoid a boycott, a boycott of a film which would be lucky to earn a profit, but Warners was ever hopeful for a miracle to keep India's billion-viewer market open.
The hell with Kubrick's intentions. As with the NC-17 controversy, Kubrick's absence again took the producers off the hook; yet it appears as if the maneuver will have made little difference. In a sense, Time-Warner choked financially on a speck of Hindu dust raised by the protest, apparently under the impression something worse had stuck in its throat. The appeasement strategy failed miserable.
Possibly, Warners affected its own karma by digitizing bodies to obscure the orgy scene because, you may have recognized, the scene offending the Hindus was the very same. Respecting the beliefs of these Hindu representatives, as greatly as Warners understood the art of Kubrick's film, the conglomerate again changed Eyes Wide Shut. Had I known this at the time, I wouldn't have had the heart to bother Warners by e-mail protest about that scene again: I had basically asked if they could release the original movie at some point and, you know, slip one past the half-shut eyes of the Hindu censors. Yet, I wonder why Warners had bothered to answer the protest. Did the "suits" understand the movie well enough to defend it? Did Mrs. Kubrick and her brother understand?2 AHAD had left open the possibility when it said that "there appears to be no connection, or apparent justification for the use of this shloka. It appears to be totally out of context," and AHAD wanted an "honest explanation." Not that anyone believes that this was what AHAD really wanted, which is why I will get some pleasure from giving an explanation.
NEXT: The specter of the caste system
NOTES
1. He also said that the intent of the music was purely for its exotic atmosphere. Pook had recorded the shloka a few months before and nobody knew what the verses were. I am skeptical of this explanation and would excuse it as a defensive reflex, one which in the circumstance when religious feelings are hurt, one could call "the Rushdie defense."
2. Jan Harlan insisted to me that there was no reason to "interpret" the scene, there was no conscious meaning attached to the shloka's inclusion in the film. I will take his advice and only offer an explanation for its presence.
