"Eyes Wide Shut" unaltered to come to US (1 Viewer)

[Jarod M]

Unless my memory is failing me, Kubrick never saw the digital alterations. He was already dead. It was in Kubrick's contract with Warner that he had to deliver an R rated cut. That is how they justified the alterations, WITHOUT Kubrick's specific approval. This information came from Jan Harlan, who addressed the issue back in 2001.

Warner is now doing exactly what we knew they would eventually do. I actually expect the Kubrick movies to be released 1.33:1 on HD-DVD, and then about 3 years later to be released in widescreen. Warner will milk the Kubrick films for all that they're worth.

 

[Patrick McCart]

They ought to release both the 1.33:1 and 1.78:1 versions...

One for those who want theatrical matting and to fill their screens, the other to see the whole image as Kubrick wanted on video.

 

[Ike]

I hope the current trend we're seeing in movies (Young Adam, The Lovers, High Tension) to embrace NC-17 continues. There is no reason that the US shouldn't have a working adult rating.

I'm afraid it's just the reaction to the puritanism sweeping across, kind of like overground pornos (Behind the Green Door, Deep Throat, Devil and Ms. Jones) in the 70's and won't last.

 

[Steve Y]

Jarod,

I found a few quotes about the digital masking which may clear things up a bit. Although Kubrick did not make the alterations himself, it is apparent he came up with the idea and was very specific about the specific scenes/shots:

Time:


I am fairly uninterested in conspiracy theories. At this stage I am not even feeling indignant about the double-dip ... there is certainly a battleground for the debacle that is the MPAA but this is not it.

As Ike mentioned above, it is not the "significance" of the unmasked shots that are important - it is the removal of the (for some of us) very distracting digital silhouettes. Others can simply enjoy the alternative (I'm sure some have not even noticed the changes), or as the case may be, opt to not watch the film at all.

Cheers,

s

 

[JonZ]

"Warner is now doing exactly what we knew they would eventually do. I actually expect the Kubrick movies to be released 1.33:1 on HD-DVD, and then about 3 years later to be released in widescreen. Warner will milk the Kubrick films for all that they're worth."

We all know the studios want us to rebuy the same films over and over again.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Who confirmed that the R3 HK version has the chants intact? Everything that I've seen indicates that they're censored in every home video version, and they were only intact theatrically in the US.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

The complete interview can be found here.

Jeff

 

[BrianS]

I just recorded this last night on Cinemax-HD (courtesy of Voom) and was surprised to see that the aspect ratio was 1.78:1 (or 1.85:1). Anyway, it filled my 16X9 screen beautifully and did not appear to be zoomed in as some movies do (ala Scarface on Encore-HD which makes the 2.35:1 film a 16X9 butcher cut).

So what did I see? Was it zoomed in or matted? It looked great whatever it was. Anyone know?

 

[Adam_ME]

I recall watching a few minutes of it on HBO HD a while back and it was definitely matted to 1.78:1. That's how it was shown theatrically as well.

 

[ArthurMy]

Yes, count me in the camp that wants to see these films as they were projected, which was NOT EVER 1:33 or 1:37 or whatever you want to call Academy ratio. Include both, but I don't want to watch these films open matte, they look AWFUL. Eyes Wide Shut was not framed for 1:33 it was framed for the ratio in which it was projected. Same with The Shining (awful in 1:33 with all that silly head room), Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut. I'm sure it looked great when they showed it on TV in its proper ratio because that's how it was shown in theaters.

 

[Hal M]

Okay... My understanding was that Kubrick signed off on the changes being made, but never got to actually see the final changes. Regardless, I have to disagree with anyone who claims the changes are insignificant. We're dealing with a visual medium here. And we're dealing with a story that centers around the notion of the "masks" that people wear, how we deal with sexuality publically and privately, the differences between acts of love and primal carnal desire, etc. One of the main strengths of this sequence is that the sex is out in the open for all to see, but the people are hidden behind masks. The greatest "shame" that can be done in this environment is to reveal one's identity (as happens to the Cruise character). Yes, even with the digital characters and objects in place we get the idea that these people are having sex out in the open while wearing masks, but in a visual medium, it's not just enough to "understand" what's happening, but to experience it. Film is a language and every choice of "phrasing" is important. To "block" the sexual acts in this scene is, in effect, to cover them up, which is the complete opposite of its intention. The idea is that the sex is explicit, there for all to see, while the identity, the individuality, of the people performing the acts are hidden. I've seen both versions and the U.S. version of this scene doesn't make any sense from a visual storytelling standpoint. Mr. Kubrick may have understood the limits of U.S. distribution and agreed to deliver a film with an R rating and not an NC-17, but that doesn't mean it was his preference. To the best of my understanding of Mr. Kubrick, from all I've read and all I've seen, the uncensored version was his version of choice; the version where he was able to cinematically tell his story without concern of distribution conflicts, contract agreements, puritanism, or anything else that might get in the way of a filmmaker being able to say exactly what he wanted to say.

 

[Jack Briggs]

The changes are not insignificant — if anything, due to principle. What we got here in the U.S. is not what this filmmaker would have preferred us to see. For that alone, there's no argument.

There are days, depending on my mood, when this film eclipses Dr. Strangelove as my "second favorite film by Stanley Kubrick." And I've always wondered what my feelings would be had I been able to see the film the director shot as originally intended (and as the rest of the world got to see it).

All this time, I've felt so cheated.

No more.

These are exciting times for fans of this director's work.

 

[Haggai]

Did I miss any news on this? Is there anything more recent than the Rumor Mill entry on the Digital Bits from back in April, which was referred to in the first post of this thread?

 

[Ernest Rister]

I refused to see Eyes Wide Shut until I could see it uncut. I finally saw the deleted sequence, and the alterations are indeed substantial -- the theme of voyeurism haunts the movie and in one particular shot, there is a circle of people seated around a nude couple. One chair is left empty, and through this chair, we can see what is going on.

The implication to me was clear...this is not an empty chair, it is YOUR chair, and you are seated in it, and you, too, are watching. In the US version, a figure is digitally inserted into the chair, blocking your view. It completely alters the purpose - and brilliance - of the shot.

 

[Rosscoe M]

Typical Hollywood ignorant hypocrisy- it's ok to see Rambo run around killing people without any real implications of the violence but any trace of graphic sexuality is "offensive"....

 

[Michael Elliott]

I've seen EYES WIDE SHUT "uncut" and I really don't think it effects the film one way or another. As Jack said, on principle I want it released "uncut" but had Warner never told anyone about the changes, I'm really not sure if we would have ever known.



Jack, I'm going to guess you're a Kubrick nut like me and not just a fan of 2001 or any single movie of the director's. What do you feel about the UK cut of THE SHINING? Wasn't this his preferred cut of the film but it was just never changed in the US? I've got the UK version sitting here but haven't watched it yet. Also, do you think we should see the alternate ending put back into the film on the next DVD? This could certainly be a good selling point and I'm sure every Kubrick fan would want to see it but, if Kubrick didn't like it, on principle should we object?

 

[ArthurMy]

What alternate ending is that? If you're talking about the hospital scene that preceded the final shot of the film, that was the ORIGINAL ending, not an alternate. The "alternate" ending is the way it is now.

 

[Hal M]

Kubrick films are notorious for having different cuts (American vs. European). Even LOLITA, though it was never announced as a selling point, has two different versions. Until the laserdisc release years ago, the British cut of the film hadn't been seen in the U.S. When the laser was released, they made no mention of it. Probably because they had no idea! I sat bolt upright in my seat when I realized the scene in the hotel room between Lolita and Humbert Humbert was extended from the U.S. version and edited differently. The British version was Kubrick's preferred cut. The same with CLOCKWORK ORANGE. Kubrick agreed to the changes, but they didn't reflect his artistic choice. For years before he died, Kubrick toyed with the idea of extending 2001 back to its original pre-release length. He was qouted as liking both versions equally and felt it was more the preference of the viewer to decide which was a better film. But EYES WIDE SHUT, in my opinion, is a slightly different scenario. The film was changed to allow a specific rating. And it is one of the most crucial scenes in the film. Do I still think it's a masterpiece? Yes. Do I think some of the brilliance of the film and that scene in particular is lost in the U.S. cut? Absolutely. As a writer struggles with each and every word he commits to paper, so does a great filmmaker with every frame, every image, he commits to celluloid.

 

[ZackR]

Interesting stuff on Lolita - so is the extended British cut the one that is on the current DVD or is that the American cut? Sorry if this is a dumb question - I am just beginning my Kubrick collection. Saw 2001, Spartacus, Full Metal Jacket and EWS and have been blown away!!!
Thanks so much for any info,
Zack

 

[Sean Patrick]

EYES WIDE SHUT also shows in 1.85:1 on Showtime HD.

i used to like cropping THE SHINING when i would watch it on my old 16:9 tv, but now that i have a projector, the full framed 4:3 version from the original negative is really breathtaking.