From Beyond, Stuart Gordon, and MPAA censorship

Feature Ryan Lambie 4 Feb 2013 - 06:59

With the uncut version of From Beyond out on Blu-ray later this month, Ryan looks at the ongoing battles between filmmakers and the MPAA...

First released in 1986, Stuart Gordon's From Beyond is a work of gaudy, chaotic brilliance. Based very, very loosely on a short story by HP Lovecraft, it takes a sci-fi story about a scientist fiddling with the boundaries of human perception and extrapolates it into just under 90 minutes of gooey monsters, kinky S&M gear and splattery violence.

Like Gordon's earlier movie, Re-Animator, From Beyond revelled in its boundary-pushing humour - and the director's maximalist approach to nudity and gore caused particular problems with the MPAA when it came to classification. Originally running at around 85 minutes, From Beyond was submitted approximately 12 times as Gordon attempted to get an R-rating for his movie (then, as now, an NC-17 rating spelled financial death).

Each time, the MPAA rejected the film, insisting on numerous trims to various scenes of bare flesh or outlandish bloodshed. By the time Gordon had the rating he needed, From Beyond was several minutes shorter than its original cut - resulting in an entertaining yet rather less full-blooded film than the director intended.

For almost 20 years, it seemed that the MPAA's insistence on cuts had permanently damaged Gordon's movie; once removed, the offending snippets of footage were apparently lost when From Beyond's original distributor closed in the early 90s. It was the chance discovery of some rough-cut film in MGM's archives more than a decade later that made a definitive, director's cut of the movie possible, and this month sees the release of a full, uncensored version of From Beyond for the first time in the UK. 

Among the interviews on the disc, Gordon talks about the nightmarish process of getting a satisfactory cut of From Beyond past the MPAA. For the most part, the board only demanded that brief snippets of gore or nudity be cut - Barbara Crampton's teeth clamping down on Jeffrey Comb's distended pineal gland, or the repeated bashing of an ambulance driver's head against a concrete floor, for example - but one scene in particular horrified the examiners.

In it, Jeffrey Combs' character - the now bald and crazed Dr Crawford Tillinghast - displays a ravenous appetite for raw human brains. As he squats on an institution floor munching on a chunk of grey matter, he's interrupted by a stern Dr Bloch (played by the director's wife, Carolyn Purdy-Gordon). Tillinghast, still hungry for fresh brains, lunges at the unsuspecting victim, bites out her eye, and starts sucking her brain out through the cavity. The MPAA was not impressed.

“It was like going to the principal’s office to get scolded," Gordon recalled. "They sat me down, and the woman I was meeting with said, ‘This is disgusting. Instead of pulling away, you keep pushing in and pushing in and pushing in!’ and I was like, ‘I’m sorry, I’m sorry!'"

With the film's release date fast approaching, almost 30 seconds was cut from the scene, robbing From Beyond of what was intended to be its most shocking moment - and from a storytelling perspective, marking the final stage in Tillinghast's transformation from ordinary nice guy to rampaging monster.

"They really took out some of the best stuff" was how Gordon put it. "This process just went on and on, and the distribution people were screaming, ‘We’ve got a release date, you’ve got to make those cuts.’”

Gordon was no stranger to censorship of one sort or another. As a young theatre director, his stage version of Peter Pan got him arrested for obscenity. His taste for both genre storytelling and boundary-pushing extended to his debut feature film, Re-Animator. Shot for just $900,000, it was full of gory excess and knowing humour, fashioning one of the most memorable horror movies of the 80s from HP Lovecraft's 20s tale of terror. 

Perhaps knowing that Re-Animator would horrify the MPAA, Empire Pictures released the film without a classification in October 1985, since in America, unrated movies can still be shown in cinemas, albeit at the theatre owner's discretion. A relatively low-budget movie, Re-Animator was released in 129 theatres in the US, and made a healthy $2million - not bad for a film whose popularity spread largely through word-of-mouth.

(When Re-Animator appeared on video in the UK a year or so later, several scenes, including an infamous moment involving a naked Barbara Crampton and David Gale's disembodiedhead, were cut to achieve an 18-rating. These snippets were later restored in Anchor Bay's DVD version of the film.)

Gordon's circumvention of the MPAA with Re-Animator may have been partly why the board came down so heavily on From Beyond ("They were very upset and, I think, trying to get revenge for the unrated Re-Animator," the director later reflected). Whatever the reasons, From Beyond simply had too much riding on it to dodge certification - with a budget of around $4.5 million, it was considerably more ambitious than the grungy Re-Animator.

From Beyond may be more than 25 years old now, but the same duel between boundary-pushing filmmakers and the MPAA still exists. In late January this year, we heard the news that director Fede Alvarez's promising Evil Dead remake would be cut to achieve an R-rating - in an unedited state, the MPAA said, the movie would be slapped with the dreaded NC-17 certificate, immediately reducing its potential audience and its chances of making a profit.

Although Alvarez has said his film will be a "Hard-R", it's not yet clear just how much footage will have been snipped out of the theatrical version, or whether we'll see an unedited release on disc in a few months' time. 

Whatever happens to Alvarez's Evil Dead, From Beyond presents us with a timely historical case study. Not only does the film's story show us just how damaging enforced edits can be - were it not for that chance discovery at MGM, and some painstaking restoration work, the original version of the film would have been lost forever - but how pointless they are.

What is shocking to a classification board in one decade is deemed utterly harmless to another board in the next. Just look at how the UK version of Re-Animator, considered to be too extreme for home release by the BBFC in the 80s, was later passed without cuts a few years later. With the passing of time, it's not the films that raise eyebrows, but the decisions of the classifiers themselves.

Fortunately, Gordon's tussle with the MPAA over From Beyond had a happy ending. On Blu-ray, the lovingly-restored film positively shimmers, with the screen bathed in violet light, crimson blood and acres of flesh. But as the classification system in America currently stands, filmmakers are forced to choose between two depressing options: either release their movie with an NC-17 rating, meaning that fewer people will go to see it - and worse, that fewer cinema chains will even agree to show it - or cut their movie into a form acceptable for a younger audience.

If the NC-17 rating were as widely supported by theatre owners and movie-goers as the 18-rating is in the UK,  the decision would be an easier one; as it stands, directors including Stuart Gordon, Fede Alvarez, and too many others to mention, are being forced to choose between butchery or obscurity.

From Beyond is out on Blu-ray and DVD on the 25th February in the UK.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

There is only one thing that needs to be said about From Beyond. Barbara Crampton......yum!

I hear ya man. Yum indeed. The bondage part on my original VHS copy is a little fuzzy from over playing. Ahem. I was 16 and it involved raging hormones. *sigh*

I reviewed the From Beyond Blu-ray for another site recently and it's great. The uncut scenes make the film. Beautiful transfer too.

From Beyond is really hard to find on DVD so I'd be tempted to buy the Blue Ray version. I saw From Beyond very recently and I feel the effects hold really well. However, I feel Re-animator is the better of the two, with David Gale and Jeffery Combs chewing up the scenery. I actually saw The Re-animator at the Edinburgh Cameo last summer. They had a special showing, as Stuart Gordon was at the cinema to promote Re-animator the Musical, which was also playing in the city at the time. It was great meeting Stuart Gordon and he took questions from the audience. The horror comedies that were being produced in the 80s, like Brain Dead and the latter two of Evil Dead are so much fun to watch.

Somebody needs to explain - how does Peter Pan get someone arrested for obscenity?

Barbara Crampton made me feel funny when I was younger

Oh, what a load of crap. It's not censorship or even forced compliance on the MPAA's part. No one made Stuart Gordon do anything to his film. He went to them because he wanted an R-rating. If they'd given it to him without asking for cuts, then there'd have been no point in having a ratings system at all. It's like the Weinsteins trying to get a PG-13 even though they knew they'd put about a dozen f-words too many in the film. Whether you agree with the ratings systm or not, it isn't censorship by any definition of the word. All it is is a way for the audience to gauge just what kind of movie they're about to see; not how good or how bad but what kind. And if they don't want to see a movie with a man eating a woman's brains out through her eye sockets, then it's not the MPAA's fault.

"Just look at how the UK version of Re-Animator, considered to be too extreme for home release by the BBFC in the 80s, was later passed without cuts a few years later. With the passing of time, it's not the films that raise eyebrows, but the decisions of the classifiers themselves."

Well, that's one way of looking at it, but the obvious flip-side is that we're more inured to violence and grue with every generation, and that every horror film maker wants to outdo their forebears. Not making a moral judgement about this one way or another, but it's pretty clear.

"All it is is a way for the audience to gauge just what kind of movie they're about to see; not how good or how bad but what kind. And if they don't want to see a movie with a man eating a woman's brains out through her eye sockets, then it's not the MPAA's fault."

But surely the MPAA made that decision, not the audience, which didn't have a chance to judge.

Of course they had a chance to judge ... by going to see the movie! An NC-17 rating doesn't mean a movie's bad; just that you're not allowed to take anyone under 17 to see it. There are plenty of people who don't take their kids to see R-rated movies, either, because they're too violent or too gory or too sexy; that's the kind of audience you "automatically" lose when you include those elements in your film. No one tells these people what movies to see and what movies to not see. Last I heard, Midnight Cowboy was still on the top of a lot of movie critics' lists.

But it wasn't released uncut, so they couldn't see that version to judge it - that was my point. They can now, of course.

The MPAA is a censorship organization
plan and simple. There is no reason for the NC17 rating to exist.

I took my wife to see "The Re-Animator" during it's initial run She was the only woman in the audience. During the bondage scene, she was surprisingly pleased to notice the rest of the audience going wild - openly cheering, clapping, hooting and giving other signs of extreme approval. "So, my husband ISN'T the only pervert in existence ALL men are like that? What a relief."

"When correctly viewed;

Everything is lewd.

I can tell you things about Peter Pan;

And the Wizard of Oz:

THERE'S a dirty old man."

Tom Lehrer "Smut"

Sponsored Links