Mulholland Drive edited? (1 Viewer)

[Prentice Cotham]

I saw this on DVDtalk and I wondered if anyone who has a copy could verify this.
http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=198543
Apparently Mr. Lynch decided to blur some private parts.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Just received my copy yesterday. Didn't see the film in the commercial cinema, but I'm eagerly awaiting screening the DVD.

Can somebody here elaborate on this?

 

[Dwayne]

Haven't watched it yet, but what I read from that link doesn't sound good. What's even worse is that it appears that Lynch himself was responsible. I will be very disappointed if that's the case.
On another note:
Look at the back of the insert. It includes a list of clues from Lynch on unlocking Mulholland Drive although I'm not sure if I want to.

 

[Samuel Des]

.

 

[Dwayne]

It looks like this is true as the following quote is appearing on other sites:

DAVIDLYNCH [5:30 PM PST]: WE DID THAT BLURRING FOR THE DVD ON PURPOSE AS WE KNEW THAT PICTURES OF LAURA WOULD BE EVERYWHERE IF WE DIDN'T

It's from a chat w/Lynch on his site.
More on dugpa's site:
www.dugpa.com
Doesn't seem like he really cares.
I for one do. Regardless, I'll be watching it later tonight.
I wonder if this is why screeners weren't sent out to anyone.

 

[Matt Pelham]

Yes it's true. I watched the movie last week for the first time and noticed this right away.

It's at the part where the Dark haried girl get's undressed and climbs into bed with Betty for the first time. Her pubic region is a smooth skin-colored blur. The scene is sort of dark to begin with, but it's very noticeable.

 

[Jay E]

I wonder if the studio talked to him about doing this or in any way tried to pressure him as I find it very surprising that he went ahead with this change. It's one of the few times a recent theaterical release had something softened for it's DVD release. Usually we get the tamer stuff in the theaters first and the harder stuff later on the DVD.

 

[Brajesh Upadhyay]

Very disappointing! I hate filmmakers/studios parenting us & I can't believe this is coming from Lynch of all people!

 

[Dwayne]

I also find it odd that someone like Lynch would insist on this change himself. Maybe Laura felt uncomfortable about it. But then why did she do it in the first place? It's also possible that she agreed for it be shown only theatrically. Who knows?

Lynch is taking the responsibility for it so he'll take the heat.

In the wake of all these changes that films have been going through lately, I wonder if I should care about these things if the directors themselves don't.

 

[Rich Malloy]

First, it's Marty Scorsese's John the Baptist, and now it's David Lynch's Rita! Did I wake up in Japan this morning?

 

[Malcolm R]

Lynch said he did it at the request of the actress. She didn't want it posted in screenshots all over the Internet.

 

[Dwayne]

You know, more attention will be drawn to the scene in question because of this.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Rich is thinking the way I am (or, rather, I am thinking the way he is): This sort of censorship is common in Japan. That Lynch himself authorized this is reprehensible.

So, is that scene the one occurrence? And it's blurrier than what was seen on the commercial prints?

Who wants to be the first to post about this in "Studio Feedback"? Gentlemen, start your engines.

 

[Patrick Sun]

But really, how important is this to the story?

 

[RobertR]

The absurd reasoning irks me. The actress has no problem taking her clothes off for the camera, and therefore has no problem with millions of people seeing her naked (in fact, she would have been happy to see many millions MORE see her in the film than actually did), yet now she doesn't want her nudity to be seen in lower resolution in other public venues, ie DVD and the Internet? What hypocrisy.

 

[Eujin]

What about releases in other regions/countries? Will it be similarly edited or will be see an UNBLURRED EDITION coming out somewhere?

 

[Joseph Young]

Patrick,

The brief shot in question is not a plot device in itself; it's also shot in very low light. For me, however, this is not so much a question of the shot's importance to the film as it is an issue of my not being given an opportunity to see the version of Mulholland Drive that I saw twice in theaters.

While I respect LH's request and Lynch's attempt to honor that request, one wonders why she agreed to do the full frontal shot at all. I would have settled for a 'tamer' shot in the theatrical version had I known they intended to censor the video version.

Joseph

 

[RobertR]

Will it be similarly edited or will be see an UNBLURRED EDITION coming out somewhere?

If that happens, it will be another example of a director lying about his reason for changing the original. Lynch is quoted as saying the reason is to prevent nude pictures of her from showing up on the Net. If it comes out unedited elsewhere, those pictures would show up.

 

[Sebastian_A]

I'll buy the celluloid and scan it!!!

Come on, everyone saw it in cinemas, what's up with Laura? She should make up her mind BEFORE filming, not after, and especially not after the theatrical release. I seriously will get the FILM itself! Does anyone know how much a gag like this would cost?

Sebastian.

PS: Does anyone have access to Lynch's website? Someone should tell him that this is a bunch of garbage!

 

[soop.spoon]

It's Mr. Lynch's movie... he can do whatever the hell he wants to it.