Vadaima Koutuk
Vadaimar Jinda Mora
For more infomation >> 顏佑庭YoshiYen【只想要妳一個吻 】Official Music Video - Duration: 2:43. 
For more infomation >> Boy Band Gaming Music Video!/男孩團體的遊戲音樂MV! Dear Ryan (中文字幕) - Duration: 8:47. 
Warner Brothers was doing the devil's work, according to the
National Cathedral in Washington, when it released
The Devil's Advocate in 1997. The devil is in the details.
Welcome to Video Recall, a new series about movies that were
banned and buried on DVD and VHS. Sex scandals, legal
battles and creative feuds are just a few of the reasons why
you'll probably never see these rare versions of famous
films. So sit back, buckle up, and adjust your cup holders,
'cause we're about to take a spin through the darkest and
most remote back-alleys of home video history.
Of the many recalled DVDs in this series , surprisingly few were
recalled for content issues in the actual features, and
The Devil's Advocate might be the only example of a major-studio
film substantially changed based on litigation involving
its production design.
The year is 1997, and anadaptation of an earlier script by the controversial
Larry Cohen is making waves with a timely tale of greed,
seduction and politics. In Devil's Advocate, Keanu reeves
is an ambitious young lawyer lead astray by employer Al
Pacino, who turns out to be the devil incarnate. But by
the end of the year, the film was also getting some unwanted
attention from religious advocacy groups, and even
found itself in legal hot water with the National
Cathedral in Washington. The Cathedral, along with sculptor
Frederick E. Hart, alleged that the film not only copied,
but grossly perverted a work of art Hart created for the
cathedral. Hart issued a statement that he was 'deeply
disturbed that 13 years of work to create a sculpture of
the profound mystery and beauty of God's creation would
be so debased and perversely distorted' when the carved
figures come to life in the film and 'begin engaging in
sexual acts', according to the lawsuit. Either Warner
Brothers didn't have a lawyer with Al Pacino's unconquerable
legal qualities, or the Cathedral really did have
divine intervention in its favour, because despite a lack
of demonstrable similarities between the on-screen
sculpture and Hart's original work, a federal judge
threatened to block the film's home video release if Warner
Bros. couldn't reach a settlement with the artist.
The issue couldn't be resolved soon enough for Warner Bros.,
who had already spent considerable money preparing
and advertising a major home video release. A lengthy
disclaimer on the back of the box clarifying the Cathedral's
lack of endorsement for the picture was deemed an
inadequate measure to address the problem, and even a
sticker repeating the same small-print on the cover
wasn't enough to satiate Hart.
'They've got this whole team here, they're throwing
everything but the kitchen sink at this case!'
As if to detract attention from the looming legal shut down, Warner Brothers even
altered the original key art for the home release to
further obscure the vague stonework surrounding the
film's stars in the theatrical poster. I don't know, I kind
of think it's an improvement. On the day of
the home video release, Warner finally relented and reached a
compromise with Hart. Warner Bros. would be allowed to move
475,000 copies exclusively to rental stores, but would have
to recall the consumer release until it edited the original
picture to address Hart's concerns. It's unclear if
additional copies were actually put on store shelves
and consequently pulled, or if a number of the 475,000 first
pressing somehow circumvented the rental market, but one way
or another, tens of thousands of unaltered DVDs soon became
sought-after relics as one of few ways to experience the
picture in its intended, unaltered form.
- 'Look, you wanna get in the $5 bin don't you?' - 'That's it!'
Warner Bros. turned to the burgeoning magic of CGI as a bandaid for their
legal woes, and the resulting course-correction could rival
George Lucas's afterthought CGI Star Wars 'improvements'
for most unwarranted and unwanted post-release changes
in the history of film.
'It would have been literally impossible for him to walk
behind the Jabba character because of the tail, so
George had the idea, "why don't you have him step on his tail?"'
[squealing] 'You think I had a choice?'
The actual alterations to the sculpture don't look that bad, but the piece becomes so
abstract and simplistic that the shots that place it so
prominently now seem completely out of place.
[Jeopardy music]
- 'Are you stifling a yawn?' - 'No sir.'
The most egregious decision, though, is to show different
versions of the sculpture throughout the film with no
regard for continuity.
'For God's sake, man!'
You could put this down to the
fantastical animation of the artwork apparent later in the
film, but its dramatic and unjustified change from a
modern, empty frame of sweeping lines into a tapestry
of human figures completely undermines the later
transformation. Basically, the statue is now in its
simplified CGI form for the first two scenes it's featured
in, before transitioning into its original appearance
shortly before the actual, scripted transformations some
ten minutes later. If you're confused, well, watch the movie,
(and then probably still be confused, like me).
This added transition appears as Keanu enters Al
Pacino's flat, and his reaction to its transformation
seems...well, rather sedated, even by Keanu Reeves
sedated kind of acting standards.
'I doubted everything. Even my mind.'
Probably because he wasn't actually reacting to
anything in the original script. It works to a degree
because the character of Kevin has already begun to see
through the fascade of Pacino's mortal presence. On
the other hand, the effect it has on the film's pacing is
not in any way insignificant, effectively cutting out a 10-minute
respite from blatantly fantastical shenanigans, and
prematurely betraying the statue's thematic
significance. Most infuriatingly, this end
sequences raises the question: Why make all these changes at
all if it was deemed acceptable to see the full
statue in its uncensored form for the last ten minutes of
the movie anyways? The last ten minutes, by the way, that
Hart specifically, vehemently objected to.
Seriously, Bros.?
So this entire futile exercise – the lawsuit, the disclaimers, the court proceedings,
the rental situplations, the recall and the expensive CGI
was really just to eradicate this one piece of set dec
(which is still in the f***n movie) –
from two earlier scenes in the exact same cut.
I mean, you could call it the most expensive, contrived unecessary and deliberate
continuity error in the history of cinema.
'His own private, cosmic gag reel!
But for all that hyperbole, unlike the infamous Star Wars revisions, it's still subtle
enough that those who don't know Warner's dirty little secret and saw this version first
probably wouldn't be any the wiser.
As for the sculpture, Frederick Hart, his days were sadly numbered,
which – let's face it – might be the only reason
this thing saw the light of day in the first place.
Hart passed away just two years after the film's theatrical release,
and while I think his claims were unfounded, unwarranted and misguided,
the guy was a great artist, what can you say?
Was it all worth it? In the end, the film still has sculptural art reminiscent
of renaissance-inspired modern Christian mosaics. Whereas in
the original, you could interpret it as a genuinely
Christian art form perverted through the devil's powers of
physical and moral manipulation, it now comes
across as decidedly more agnostic but inoffensive
modern art that suddenly and without explanation changes
into mock-Christian imagery with the same anti-Christian
sentiments.
So in other words, no, it really wasn't worth it.
'I hope you're kidding.'
Perhaps the original could have communicated the old adage, 'the devil is in the details',
suggesting the line between Christianity and Satanism
isn't as clean-cut as most of us would like to believe. If
that's a damning interpretation of religion,
it's also one I would argue would fortify the beliefs and
actions of Christian viewers and cause others to reevaluate
their belief systems in the context of a film that
subjectively favours those who turn against the Devil.
Could anyone really be stupid enough to interpret that as an
endorsement of any given religious institution or
artist towards Warner Brothers, Al Pacino or Satan?
I mean if they did, it would be a baseless generalization.
Kind of like believing that all
mediocre CGI revisions are motivated by shortsighted
corporate or political interests. Oh, wait...
So, if you want the undoctored Devil's Advcoate, look for the
good ol' beloved cardboard snapper-case editions and
check for the disclaimers. The easiest way to tell if you
might have one of the coveted first releases is by looking
on the spine; the 'Special Edition' text wasn't added
until the 2nd run with added CGI. So you want the one
without the 'Special Edition' on the spine. But it's still going to say it on the cover.
So it's just sort of the less special 'Special Edition'...I guess.
If you want to double check, look for this catalogue number on the disc
inside. The unaltered DVDs run for about $25 on eBay, which
is a bargain considering their relative rarity. But if it
just feels wrong to spend that kind of money on an SD release
of a Keanu Reeves movie from the 90s, keep your eyes open
at your local thrift store, flea market or media exchange,
because most sellers won't even know the banished satanic
propaganda in their possession.
I'm Joseph, and you've been watching Video Recall on Buzzcuts,
a channel that celebrates unpopular culture and
no-budget, independent filmmaking.
Be sure to like and subscribe, and stay tuned for more Video Recall!
Đăng ký:
Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét