Orange square?


I just saw the R and Unrated versions on the DVD, and I never saw an Orange square anywhere during the rape.

reply

I'm guessing your post is in response to some of the reviewers' comments about the DVD. I haven't seen the movie in DVD format, however I just saw it on Starz and the rectangle is clearly visible. I also recall seeing the writer/director on Conan O'Brien's show when the movie was first released. They talked about the rectangle then and I can only guess it was shown that way in theaters.

The only thing I can think of that would explain why you would have an R-rated DVD that doesn't have the rectangle while one of the reviewers does might be the region. Maybe a Canadian or European DVD has been edited differently than an American DVD.

Hopefully someone else will reply to your post and shed some light on the situation.

reply

Okay, well first of all wasn't the square red?
Anyway, did you watch the R version from start to finish? Because maybe skipping scenes might have messed up the dvd... dunno. I have the US version of the dvd and i've had no trouble seeing the censor box. Maybe you have a defective DVD or something...
Anyway, good luck.

That little punk drove a golf cart through my bar mitzvah, that & he was dressed up like a beaver!

reply

If you were looking for the notorious orange (which is actually red) square (which is actually a rectangle) during a rape scene, you may have been watching the wrong film. There is no rape scene in 'Storytelling', unless you insist on allowing for consensual sex between adults in your definition of rape. I understand that Vi's character is somewhat manipulated by the more powerful party, her teacher, but as I recall, she was in a moment of weakness out to 'hook-up' with someone. Also granting that the sex she had was quite likely not the sex she sought. Blah blah blah, enough of my anal-ysis.

The deal is, when I saw the film in the theatre, there was a large, red rectangle blocking our view of the sex scene between Vi and her African-American writing instructor. We saw Vi naked, awkwardly awaiting what would happen next, but as soon as the sex commensed, 1/4 of the frame was obscured by the red rectangle, so that we simply couldn't see it. The audio continued to portray what was obviously quite intense, forceful sex, and it was obvious from the arrangement of the frame that they were standing and that she was up against and facing the wall. The only reason that I point this out, and in such detail, is that I think all of this was sort of a smart-assed side joke that Solondz through in to both appease the ratings folks, and to mock our dis-ease with inter-racial and inter-generational sex (not to mention in awkward scenarios and in awkward positions). But that's just my take on it.

reply

[deleted]

Yes, essentially it is, and apparently this was necessary to appease censors in the US. I just think Solondz uses the 'red box' unconventionally and ironically to take the audiences eyes off what was happening while still forcing them to deal with the content. And as is often the case, what we don't see can be even more disturbing than what we do see (like in the first 'Alien' film...).

reply

I´ve seen the german DVD Version and there is no red/orange square/rectangle whatsoever.

reply

Yeah, in the version I downloaded there is no red rectangle.

reply

There's no rectangle on the DVD I've got (purchased in Asia). Moreover, I can't quite see what it would be concealing. Neither actor's genitals come into view. Robert Wisdom's butt is exposed, but if that's enough to give the US censors a problem then we might as well hand over the White House keys to the Taliban.

It's a distressing scene, but it's meant to be distressing. How anyone could possibly be aroused by such a (deliberately) sordid coupling escapes me. Adding a rectangle to conceal part of the image makes the whole think more titillating and "sexy" than it actually is.

Several stories coming in from the States over the last few weeks (Janet Jackson, Howard Stern, proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, etc) have led me to the conclusion that the so-called forces of "decency" in your great nation have taken leave of their senses. What's going on? The final victory of political correctness? A surreptitious coup by that religious maniac John Ashcroft?

I'll say it again - I cannot believe that so many people will fight so hard to protect the Second Amendment (protecting guns, that kill) while letting the First Amendment slip into irrelevance (essentially protecting bare boobs and swearwords, which may upset a few fragile souls, but never killed anyone).

Anyone who actually supports this creeping Puritanism, please post here and state your arguments.

reply

I'm not here to defend US policy, but if you had a good enough lawyer the scene could have been ruled as rape. She mentions that there was scaring (I assume she is speaking metaphorically and literally) and in many cases signs of forced entry are rather damning. Regardless of what we think a court of law would have to make the decision and I'd say she would have a good case.

Anyway, the rape scene (which I admit calling it so takes an extreme liberal interpretation) is why it is censored. Furthermore, the reason for my response is to remind you that Puritanical America wasn't the first to ban a movie (because the red rectangle version is a different movie in the literal sense, thus the original was banned) based on a rape scene. Our good ole founders accross the sea did it first back in the seventies. Peckinpah really messes with your head concerning sexual consent in Straw Dawgs. And if I'm not mistaken, it is still banned in the UK to this day. But strangely enough it isn't banned in the US. Go figure.

reply

I have the VHS. There is a red orange rectangle. When I saw it in the theater back in the day, it was there as well. My ex-boyfriend had a DVD version with out the rectangle.

reply

[deleted]

Alright, here's the dillio...
The censors said that Solondz couldn't show that scene in his movie. Solondz could have taken the scene out, or he could have found some other ways to get around the rules. He chose the latter. The orange square is also kind of a way of pissing off the MPAA by showing people how restrictive they are. It's like saying, "Well, we're watching this little red box because the MPAA is a bunch of pussies...." Read Roger Ebert's review of the movie on RottenTomatoes.com-- he talks about it some more...

And if I ever have a son, I think I might name him...Bill or George--anything but Sue!!

reply

What bothers about the square is that bullets entering people, limbs being torn off or cut off (Kill Bill), etc. is considered just fine for R-rated movies, but seeing more than just a waist-up image of two people having sex is not allowed.

Which is more natural, limbs being cut off, or people having sex? What the f@ck?!?

If it's an R-rated movie, then ideally, you're 17 or older. At 18 you are legally an adult. Why would seeing sex be considered an offense? Personally, I am more disturbed by violence than I ever will be by sex. Actually... I kinda like sex.

Stupid censors.

reply

I'm still not entirely sure what was behind the orange square. I mean, since The Idiots, Irreversible, Ken Park, Baise-Moi, etc, surely we can see male and female bits as nature intended.

Or were they all blah-ed out for the States as well?

reply

When I first saw Storytelling I rented it at of all places Blockbuster! And thank God I had the option of watching it R rated or uncut. Of course I watched the uncut version because I hate to miss scenes! After watching it I was curious what got cut out and when I got to the red rectangle I laughed hysterically! But when I saw that it was coming on the Stars channel I taped it and the red rectangle really bummed me out! And I taped it at 4:30 am!


If I had a nickel for every cigarette your mom smoked, I'd be dead.

reply

you know, there is a great scene at the beginning of the people vs. Larry Flynt where he is showing pictures of naked women and pictures of war attrocaties and asks "which is more offensive" It wasn't even movie violence, but stuff you see on the evening news. I think he makes a great point about why this country gets so worked up about nudity. I think it's okay if people don't want to look at porn or even r rated movies with nudity. The problem is when they start prevent others who dont have a problem with it from viewing it. If you dont want to watch a scene like this in a movie, dont watch it.

reply

I Tivo'd the R rated version that was shown on IFC a couple weeks ago and was absolutely SHOCKED by the red rectangle. I have not seen the unrated version of this movie, but I can't figure out what would have been so wrong with this scene that it would have to be censored. Why not censor the scenes in Unfaithful? Or Boogie Nights? Or Kids? I just don't get it...

Now I HAVE to see the unrated version, just to see what the big deal is!

I guess there's just two kinds of people... my kind of people, and @ssholes! ~~ Connie Marble

reply



the dvd i rented had both the unrated and r versions. they are exactly the same, except during sex with the prof, there is a red rectangle blocking out part of it. i thought it was strange because while its kind of graphic, you really dont see anything worth blocking out in the unrated version.

reply