'Wolf of Wall Street' Cut to 2 Hours 59 Minutes to Avoid NC-17 Rating
If you haven't heard by now, Martin Scorsese's delayed Christmas release of The Wolf of Wall Street has clocked in with a running time of 2 hours and 59 minutes (53 minutes if you don't count the credits), making it his longest film yet by one minute (Casino is 2 hours and 58 minutes). In addition to confirming the running time, THR also has word on just what was cut from the film to reach that goal, and it also just happened to save the film from getting an NC-17 rating. The film originally had much more nudity and explicit sex, but some of that has been cut to secure an R-rating, though we're not sure what specifically.
Obviously Paramount Pictures was never going to release an NC-17 version of the film, but we're just bummed that we'll likely never see this original cut that Scorsese put together. And since the director has never released a director's cut of any of his past films, even when films of Gangs of New York have infamously longer original cuts, we're betting not even a home video release will replace the scenes. Anyway, we're just happy that the film is arriving on Christmas Day, and we'll get nearly three hours of Martin Scorsese goodness with Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill, Matthew McConaughey and more.
So bummed about this. Why doesn't he do director's cut?
DavideCoppola on Nov 29, 2013
because he believes in the collaborative process of the studio and the co-ownership of a film beyond his own ego.
Guest on Nov 29, 2013
it's an honor and respect thing...first off, he's such an auteur that he would never claim a "director's cut" existed unless he was truly unhappy with how the film turned out, and with Scorsese, everything is so tightly controlled by him, he'd never let a movie run away from him. So for him, the director's cut is the cut that everyone sees, or else why would he let it be released(as an artist, he assumes that pride in his authorship), and secondly, he believes in the collaborative effort of the studio to get the film released, including having to cut things, and being able to rationalize cuts...it's the nature of the business, in many ways, director's who release post-mortem extended editions are basically just saying that they weren't happy with the one that was released, but it's usually these days a marketing ploy to sell more home video copies and extend the life of a unsuccessfully released movie that under-performed. If the movie is a big hit, there is usually very little reason to do a director's cut unless the director's ego was really hurt by what was cut...but like I said, from what I've heard from Scorsese, he is a rational member of the studio system. But we'll see.
Linkfx on Nov 29, 2013
Thanks for the replies! I agree that a director's cut doesn't necessarily mean a better movie, but for me for an auteur I truly love his vision is all I want to see, no interferences. I guess I'm a bit selfish and snobbish, I realize his choice is better for business (and thus ultimately for more chances of him getting new projects), but I just have this irrationally negative feelings towards any kind of censorship.
DavideCoppola on Nov 29, 2013
I completely agree with you that a director's cut doesn't necessarily mean a better movie, but for me for an auteur I truly love his vision is all I want to see, no interferences. If you're snobbish, than so am I. Proud too
conradthegreat on Nov 30, 2013
best film comment of the year
conradthegreat on Nov 30, 2013
Paramount, it's a Martin Scorsese movie. He is one of the greatest directors known to cinema. Why won't you bumbles just leave his film alone and give it the real rating it deserves! Stop flying out thinking the audiences won't see it what do you think this is!? It's a film for adults not teens! This is absolutely ridiculous. What cinema has grown to today. Absolutely unbelievable.
Charlie Hard on Nov 29, 2013
Hate to break it to ya, but most people are too afraid of social stigmas to even try new things, and there is no greater fear than to be "that kind of person". It doesn't even matter what I'm talking about. Anything deemed "outside of the social norm" is considered wrong/disgusting/taboo... So yes, even if it is a great film with the most utmost respect to its content, actors, and audience any NC-17 film is just... gasp... wrong! Besides, how graphic was the violence, horror, and full-frontal nudity of Schindler's List? Doesn't matter, because it had to be seen, unedited, on prime time tv (before even South Park uttered the word shit), because it was deemed too immoral... not to show it. It's not the film's content, it's the fact that most people are too afraid to be associated with "that kind of stuff" that will keep them away.
Akirakorn on Nov 30, 2013
Knowing the MPAA it's probably just Leo's face bobbing up and down too many times between a woman's thighs.
cobrazombie on Nov 29, 2013
Terrible Decision Same Matter Happen for Snowpiercer and the movie doomed(for cut scenes i mean). Every Great Director Has Potential for giving NC-17 movies. Kubrick (Eyes Wide Shut 'full version') , William Friddkin (Killer Joe) , Ang Lee (Lust , Caution) etc. In large scales arts MPAA must choose his decisions more precisely. We talked about ONE of GREATEST LIVE DIRECTORs OF OUR TIME. Maybe i doesn't see this picture and stay for Bluray Director Cut version (if temptation of seeing lets me) I don't want say maturity is in Hardcore movies but i think we cant show blind ourselves. Scorsese Always Have Worthy Words and his Language is Pictures and nothing more then understand it.
Ehsan Davodi on Nov 30, 2013
For me that relegates it to a Blu-Ray rental / sale purchase, got to show my distaste somehow. So they lost a cinema ticket sale to a movie that, at three hours long, could probably do with all it can get.
El_MUERkO on Nov 30, 2013
Nope. I wish things were different.
DAVIDPD on Dec 1, 2013
New comments are no longer allowed on this post.