Rich, I beg to differ with you. Unaware that Criterion was planning to release a new version of ITROTS on DVD, I recently purchased the Fox Lorber 2006 version (according to the slipcover's copyright date for the DVD artwork). Upon scanning the DVD, certain that I had previously seen the disputed "child abuse" scene in this version, I did find the scene and it seemed fully intact, with no blur and no zoom effect. Please correct me if there is another scene involving a woman being circled by two nude children, with the woman subsequently grabbing the little boy by his genitals and holding on while the boy tries to wriggle free from her grasp. Unless another such scene exists, I do believe this Fox Lorber version does, indeed, contain the scene as intended by Oshima.Rich Malloy wrote:Manicsounds, you are incorrect. The scene was not included on either of Fox Lorber's two DVD releases, nor the prior VHS release. The 56 seconds or so that comprise that scene have been cut from all US releases.
Additionally, after reading this thread along with the DVD Beaver comparison review of the various versions available, I bought the new Criterion version from my local DVD store. I found said scene in this version as well, exactly as it appeared in my Fox Lorber version; no blur and no zoom effect. The scene, however appeared approximately two minutes later in the Criterion version than in the Fox Lorber version. I only had time for a cursory scan to compare the quality of the transfer between the two discs and to verify the existence of the scene in question on both, but I will try to determine if this discrepancy is due to additional footage between the film's beginning and this scene on the Criterion disc.
BTW, I live in the US and both versions that I own are domestic.
Unless there are more than two Fox Lorber releases of ITROTS - and, judging from the many different release dates that I have found quoted for Fox Lorber versions on various review and sales sites, I'm beginning to suspect there are - I am guessing that I own the second release since it has a 2006 copyright date. This particular version, however, is framed at 1:33:1, contains the Japanese language soundtrack and provides optional English subtitles. By your statement, my Fox Lorber disc could not be the second release! Could it be a reissue of the first release with new cover art? But why would Fox Lorber choose to re-release the 1:33:1 version but not the 1:66:1 version? Then again, they were stupid enough to release the 1:66:1 version only in an English-dubbed format, so I wouldn't be surprised.As I recall, there were two Fox Lorber DVD releases, the first framed at 1.33:1 and with the Japanese language soundtrack. I owned this one for years, as well as the essentially identical VHS release that preceded it. The second Fox Lorber DVD release was framed at 1.66:1, but - inexplicably - replaced the original Japanese track with an English dub.
Once again, I must differ with you on this point. I carefully viewed the scene and did not find anything truly controversial about it, especially upon considering the period in which it was originally filmed and intended for viewing. I really believe that our current western culture has become so uptight and overly sensitive over so many issues and "political correctness" has become such an utter joke that we have a difficult time viewing films from periods gone by without judging the filmmaker's "pc" choices and questioning the ethics/legalities of these choices. Seriously, we're questioning the ethics of filmmakers and films made decades ago from the perspective of the "pc era" - films that were produced before the term "pc" was even coined! After all, this film was made when naked baby photos were not considered child pornography and spanking a child in public did not arouse suspicion of child abuse!Had the scene in question been limited to the two nude children running around the room, playing and interacting just out of Sada's desperate grasping, I'd have not a single issue. But when she locks onto the male child's penis like a vice, and he looks out-of-frame crying out in either painful agony or distressed anxiety (both, I suspect), I think the scene has crossed over the line in several ways. First, the child is being abused. From his reaction, I don't think any even barely sensitive person can disagree. Second - and this is more of a judgment call - his reaction and what appears to me to be a desperate appeal to someone off-screen for help destroys all sense of verisimilute by breaking the fourth wall, thus rendering the scene a failure on a purely aesthetic basis.
The two children and the woman are simply playing a children's game. I can't speak for everyone, but I was raised during the 70s, when children often ran nude around the house and played silly naked games. These games were innocent and carried no evil connotations. Yes, Sada grabs the boy's penis and, yes, she holds onto it, but I never sensed that she locked onto it "like a vice"! They seemed to be playing "catch me if you can" and she caught him. The way in which she caught him is just testament to her obsession over the male member and foreshadowing of the tragic event yet to come.
I consider myself very sensitive, but I never felt that the child was in any pain or discomfort; he was simply caught by surprise and his expression seems to reflect this. If he's appealing to someone offscreen, my guess is that he's being given instruction by someone offscreen and, being a child, he does not understand an actor's responsibility to retain the fourth wall during filming. Honestly, Sada seems to have a gentle grip on his genitals because, at one point, she nearly loses her grip. Furthermore, I really find it hard to believe that the actress would be comfortable grabbing the boy's bits, as you say, "like a vice", and I doubt Oshima would have directed her to do so. From my perspective, the scene was shot tastefully and sensitively and without harm to the child. Sure, an adult is touching a child's private parts; an act, which, in our world today, would raise suspicion not only of child abuse but of child molestation. But she is not touching him in a sexual manner, although our knowledge of the film's storyline and the character's psyche may imply otherwise; such a conclusion would be the fault of our own preconceptions and interpretations.
I've seen films which depict scenes of adults bathing children and washing their genitals (eg. Halfaouine: Child of the Terraces and The Story of the Weeping Camel) as well as films that contain lengthy scenes of children cavorting in the nude in the presence of adults (eg. The Blue Lagoon and numerous "coming of age" titles both foreign and domestic), and this particular scene appears no less innocent than those scenes.
Finally, I have one question: why does the trailer on the Criterion site state that the film is rated R by the Motion Picture Code and Rating Administration?