Ragtime on dvd?
Does anyone have any idea if this underappreciated masterpiece is ever comming to dvd? I heard some rumblings in an article that the director Milos Forman was planning to release a directors cut at 3 hours. any thoughts???
shareThis is one show I wish Paramount would get on the stick with. Some catalog titles don't get the priority they deserve. One concern here is the rating. In 1981 the PG rating drew significant criticism, many felt an R rating was more appropriate. Even with the advent of the PG-13 rating nearly 3 years later, this film would probably get an R rating if re-released today viewing the hostility towards African-Americans at that time period exhibited, and the prolonged scene of nudity. If the theatrical release was any indication, the directors cut would almost certainly garner an R from MPAA/CARA, and these don't do as well financially as PG/PG-13 rated films (the opposite is a misconception). This will factor into a studios priority list in restoration work, and subsequent digital transfer process. All this costs, and older catalog R rated films don't have the cost recovery success that the later has.
share[deleted]
Actually the biggest retail sale obstical as far as ratings are concerned is Blockbuster. Keep in mind MPAA/CARA is purely a voluntary system unlike Britain or Australia where their respective ratings Boards are mandetory. Blockbuster Home Video has a pretty stuanch policy about unrated material or stuff that garners an NC-17 rating. Blockbuster would do best to reevaluate this policy and leave it up to regioanl or local managers to impletment this on a store by store basis or just abolish it out right. Values will vary from place to place throughout the USA wheather we agree with them or not. People with more secularized values will be less tolarent of violence, even within a historical context (notice how many thought "Saving Private Ryan" deserved an NC-17 rating) and insist on heavier ratings for such material. Similarly people with religious values prudish or not are going to insist upon heavier ratings for sexuality. Keep in mind Hollywood often exagerates history wheather we like it or not. This is simply one of many things the Ratings Board has to take into consideration.
I for one don't consider myself a prude, and am not something that does something in the closet (sorry to disappoint you!). I do however believe in a higher degree of accountability from institutions such as the Ratings Board. One problem that exists now is the single "catch-all" R rating. It along with the PG-13 rating are quickly turning MPAA/CARA into an advertising gimmick. I for one feel that the R rating should be split into two brackets. As it stands right now High School aged kids can't get into an R rated show without parental accompanyment short of their senior year. This is something I disagree with. Hence I think that transitional mature themes such as a directors cut or "Ragtime" should be in a R-15 bracket (the theatrical release can go PG-13). And heavier shows such as "Pulp Fiction" should be in an R-17 braket where it further restricts the accompanied viewing audience to 14-16 year olds. This is what would eliminate the "advertising gimmick" aspect of film ratings in the USA. When 2 out of every three shows presented to CARA recieve an R rating I think more ratings are needed. This way teens have a some additional latitude as to what they can see, and parents have one more option. And deverse values throughout the country can be better addressed.
Actually, the biggest problem with a director's cut is purely financial. Not only did the film fail at the box-office, but it belongs to more than a dozen different companies across the world: it probably would not be viable for Paramount to restore the film for a single territory (the US) where the film has a low profile.
In 'Forman on Forman' the director does talk about showing his three-hour cut to E.L. Doctorow in the hope that he could persuade Dino not to cut the film: he indicated that Doctorow was just as interested as Dino in getting one more show a day and sided with the producer...
Mind you, I'd still love to see it.
Incidentally, the German DVD of the theatrical cut is in 2.35 with English sound and removeable German subtitles. No extras, but it's much better than the abysmal panned-and-scanned UK DVD, which just reuses the old EMI video master from 1982! You can find it on Amazon.de
I saw this film with my parents when it came out (I was about 13). I was surprised by the nudity but because it wasn't in a sexual context (she was just lying around nude after her robe slipped off), I guess it was PG material. The violence was pretty jarring (Stanford White getting shot in the head)--but Raiders of the Lost Ark came out the same year and had as much, if not more, violence, and that got a PG.
This movie would be PG-13 if it came out today. A Soldier's Story came out in 1984, after the PG-13 was created--and the F word was used multiple times. That got a PG.
Milos Foreman had another movie that probably should have gotten an R--Hair.
That 1979 film had nudity and constant drug intake. Nowadays, you can't MENTION drugs without getting at least a PG-13. AND..The Director's Cut of Amadeus (originally PG) got an "R." Due to "brief nudity." Same for the director's cut of Cinema Paradiso (another original PG).
The ratings system baffles me. I have several posts on this website about it.
I guess no one on the MPAA watches TV. What's on TV now is far worse than any of the aforementioned movies.
But Ragtime is a masterpiece and the rating doesn't really matter. I heard that Robert Altman was originally supposed to direct this. I wonder what he would have made of it.
Focker why do you hate cats?
Look for former USDA Secratary Dan Glickman to make some changes to the ratings system at the MPAA in the next few years. He has indicated that the current system isn't set in stone whereas Jack Valenti was always VERY reluctant to make changes (if there was a PR crises).
The most likely change will involve the PG-13 and R ratings, since unlike Britain or Australia the MPAA relies on the single "catch-all" R rating (set at a near adult age of 17) that some say is much to stingent on suxuality at the near adult (advanced mature) level and is also to stingent on acceptable violence at the trasitional level (age 15-16). Look for the R rating to be split into two "Parental Accompanied" ratings set at age 15 and age 17 (PA-15 & PA-17). Only then will USA ratings make any sense to anyone no matter what values they come from, religious or secular.
Maybe they should just eliminate the R rating altogether.
TV has programming that is just as bad as R-rated films (and I would argue, almost NC-17 territory: "Fear Factor" anyone?)
The ratings should be simple.
G, PG, and A (recommended for Adults). NC-17 can remain instead of the X.
The A category could be A: Violence, A: Graphic Violence, A: Drug Usage.
Actually that could get confusing.
I guess there is no easy way to do it.
However we lived with the G, PG, R and X for many years without problems.
Times have changed because of the 20 screen multiplexes, home movie watching, parents always working--so kids are exposed to more these days. So there is an argument for a simplier rating system. Kids probably have seen it all anyway. I believe the whole TV rating system (TV 14, TV M, etc.) has created extremely risque television. Before TV was rated, I think the programming was not as harsh.
Just my thoughts
Focker why do you hate cats?