Director De Palma disturbed over Iraq film edit (distributor redacts "Redacted")

[Barrett808]

Source: Reuters

Director De Palma disturbed over Iraq film edit
By Christine Kearney

NEW YORK, Oct 19 (Reuters) - Veteran Hollywood director Brian De Palma has lashed out at what he calls the censorship of his new film about Iraq and the chilling effect of corporate America on the war.

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.

"I find it remarkable. 'Redacted' got redacted. I mean, how ironic," De Palma, who made his name directing violent films like "Scarface" and "The Untouchables," said in an interview. "I fought every way I could in order to stop those photographs from being redacted and I still lost."

Read more: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N18464892.htm

[DeepModem Mom]

1. Just wanted to add this from the article, from the production company's point of view --

"De Palma has loudly argued the issue in public, including sparring with Eamonn Bowles, the president of Magnolia, during a recent forum at the New York Film Festival. Bowles countered that possible future lawsuits by the families of the dead Iraqis meant the photos had to be edited.

Bowles said Magnolia had been put in 'an untenable legal position,' and that De Palma lost rights to the film's final cut in recent arbitration with the Directors Guild of America.

'We were always open about letting him make the sort of film he wanted to make,' Bowles said in an interview, adding not many distribution companies would have supported the film at all."

[jeff30997]

2. Following their logic...

The end of Schindler's List should have been censored too.:grr:

[Usrename]

11. Arbitration?

It sounds pretty arbitrary to me.

:mad:

[McCamy Taylor]

3. Putting a face to victims of atrocity makes it more atrocious

On the other hand, a dispute between De Palma and his own producers will give the movie much needed publicity before it is released, and since this sounds like a worthy project that a lot of people should see, maybe the producers are doing a good thing by removing a few faces in order to ensure that more people see the final product.

[pattmarty]

4. Don't think that there is no censorship in the U.S.

[stephinrome]

5. Contact info for Magnolia Pictures

[e-mail]

NYC
[phone]
[phone] fax

Austin
[phone]
[phone] fax

Let 'em have it!

[girl gone mad]

10. See my post below..

as well as the post by Warren Stupidity. I believe Magnolia is in the right here and they should be commended for financing this film. The legal issue here is not trivial.

[Cronopio]

6. A line from the CBS lawyer in the movie "The Insider" comes to mind.

"The greater the truth, the greater the damage."

It's unfortunate that Magnolia Pictures doesn't have the financial clout to match its courage in supporting "Redacted."

But there's always the DVD "special features" option. The truth WILL out, no matter what the beancounters want.

[TroubleMan]

7. The worst part of censorship is:

[Warren Stupidity]

8. The only thing redacted from redacted were

the faces of real people who haven't signed releases or who's families haven't signed releases. De Palma was warned that he could not use these photos, was offered the opportunity to simply stage equivalent pictures, and refused to budge. This was on the heels of The Kite Runner debacle, nobody was interested in a repeat. While DePalma is off yelling censoship, Magnolia funded and is releasing this devastating anti war movie. Before you decide who is the bad guy here, you might want to see the film and figure out if these pictures were even at all critical to the movie.

[girl gone mad]

9. I think De Palma's criticism is misguided..

because I know Mark Cuban and I don't for a second believe he would shy away from controversy or be offended by the showing of these photos. It probably is a genuine legal issue. Showing photos on a website montage is a completely different animal than showing them in a for-profit film.

That's just my opinion.

edit: typos

[John Kerry VonErich]

12. Understand the concern by DePalma....

But still Magnollia is a business, nothing really he can do about it. But there is always the DVD.

[regnaD kciN]

14. The DVD will presumably also be coming from Magnolia...

...and will be subject to the same legal restrictions.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see someone there sneak out an un-redacted copy and put its torrent on the web, though.

[donco]

13. Why all of the gnashing of the teeth?

Its all hype, go by a ticket and see for your self .

[Doctor_J]

15. A big corporation censorsing a film about corporate corruption?

Who could have guessed? :eyes: