Mulholland Drive edited? (1 Viewer)

[Sean Moon]

Ok...I think this discussion is getting way out of hand. First, here is the link to the screen caps
http://www.deceptions.net/captures/md_nude.html
Now I for one remember the scene on the DVD not being dark at all. Dimly lit, but not as dark as these screencaps suggest.
As for the digital blurring...It is hardly even noticable unless you go frame by frame(even then it is barely noticeable) the frames being edited are not even a second. Maybe 1.5.
I can agree that if this were some major edit or digital alteration we should make a fuss, but getting our panties in a bunch because we cannot make out the individual hairs on Laura Herring's pubic region is absurd.
Dont we have anything more constructive to talk about regarding this film?

 

[Doug Schiller]

Well, I finally watched Mullholland Drive and I'll throw in my two cents (still changed my must buy to rent).

Terrific film, can't believe Ron Howard won Best Director over Lynch.

Also. some of the best audio I have heard on DVD for a long time.

Now, onto the scene in question. It was hilarious!

I haven't seen digital editing this bad since they ran that scene in the Shining with the women coming out of the bathtub on broadcast television (the famous fog shot).

It just blows my mind that Lynch would graphically blotch his film that way. I thought I was just kidding with my "fig leaf" comment but I was right on.

She looked ridiculous, like some robot. If anyone claims they wouldn't notice it must have their brightness cranked way down. The scene didn't look dark to me at all.

So, except that horrible smudging, the DVD was excellent.

For shame David Lynch... if Dennis Hopper calls you up and asks you to remove all his F-words from Blue Velvet because he doesn't want his grandkids to hear him talk dirty, please hang up the phone!

Doug

 

[Mark-W]

A few comments, since this thread is waaay too short!
First of all, I find this the height of irony, since Lynch
has commented that he does not like all the digital
modifications being made to films like Star Wars. (He mentioned this in relation to why we will never
see a director's cut of Dune.)
The blurring is distracting and pulls me out of the film.
I am a gay man...100% gay man, and when watching this scene,
I was taken aback, because, not knowing of this thread,
I thought,"What the hell?" Herring went from being nude
to being naked. Do I care about seeing pubes? Not on
women! But, it is very badly done. They could've
easily done it in a way that is doesn't look like there
is a smuge on my television screen.
It is distracting...it pulled me out of the film.
Still, great film, as as for the nudity being germaine
to the scene
if I was a lesbian dreaming of my ex-lover, her
pubes would not be blurry to me.
I can understand Herring's concerns, and we can talk about
context...it is one thing to be nude in a excellent film,
it is another to pull that out of context for purient
intestests. Same thing happened to Natassja Kinski.
Glad I bought it, but is it disappointing, and distracting.
If you're going to modify your work, do so before it hits
the theaters or leave it the fuck alone.
Mark
a big homo upset about Herring's blurred privates.

 

[Richard Kim]

I just saw MD on DVD, and I really didn't notice the alterations, as the scene was too dark.
If it will make anyone feel better, you can make out Laura Harring's pubes when she's in the shower.

 

[RobertR]

you can make out Laura Harring's pubes when she's in the shower

That would make the alteration rather silly and pointless.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Which demonstrates that I DID limit my statement to the films I mentioned.

i'm sorry for being unable to discern your intentions. i still find statements like "The released product reflects what the director thought at the time he finished it" to be complete generalizations. it would've been much easier to communicate if you had referred to specific directors working on specific films. when i read statements about "the director," it fails to conjure up strictly E.T. and Star Wars for me, especially in a thread that has, in part, been about general principles of artistic intent and integrity and i made no statements concerning those films.
btw, i'm enjoying the multiple ways in which Laura Harring's name is getting spelled throughout the thread.
DJ

 

[Thomas T]

Much ado about nothing!

The 2 seconds of digital blurring doesn't interfere with the story Lynch is trying to tell. As has been mentioned before, there is a difference between an audience watching the film in the theatre and the scene passing quickly and hitting the pause button on your DVD for gratuitous pleasure.

Lynch gets points from me for respecting an actor's wishes. I can't stand not having chapter selections on DVDs but if thats how Lynch wants it, so be it. It's his film ..... not ours.

 

[Walter Kittel]

My one and only comment about this film and thread ( after having viewed Mulholland Drive for the first time this evening ) is - If you are fan of David Lynch and you elect to boycott this film because of this alteration it is your loss. The film has an incredible mood and tone ( with standout contributions from Angelo Badalamenti's score and Deming's cinematography ). Boycott the DVD if you must, but you'll be robbing yourself of a wonderful cinematic experience.
And with that I leave the thread.
- Walter.

 

[Jacob_St]

It is going to be interesting to see if this starts a trend. I think that it should be an all or nothing deal. No nudity on the DVD then no nudity in the film to begin with. My guess is the nudity was completely unecessary and shouldn't have been filmed if Lynch had no problem removing it for the DVD. This really does start a dangerous move as to what can and can't be altered in a movie when it arrives on video. If the actress had requested her breasts be blurred out as well would that be ok? There are plenty of great films out there with nudity in them. Is it ok for directors to remove it from DVD's if the actors request them to? Even though this doesn't ruin the film for me it is indeed a significant alteration. I can understand why some posters here view it as controversial.

 

[Jay W]

You wouldn't remember the blurring from the theater because it was blurred for the DVD.

Mark I was actually referring to the 'crotch shot' itself, not the blurring of it .

 

[Justin B]

I saw MD in the theater last night (1st viewing), and as it was presented I didn't notice anything that would require the scene to be altered. The only thing visible to me was shadow, any detail would have been my imagination.
The DVD isn't out in R4 yet so I can't comment on the change, but I personally don't have a problem with it aslong as it isn't totally obvious to make it distracting.
...Brilliant movie, btw

 

[L. Anton Dencklau]

I'm not sure if this argument can be resolved (I'm not taking a position, considering my dislike of the film), but I would like to reference one of my favorite essays available online Link Removed which may provide some perspective about the reasons behind why we are having this discussion.
edit> that link may be flaky, it works and it doesn't.:frowning:
You can find the essay titled "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" in the book called "Illuminations" by Walter Benjamin. (Its still in print AFAIK)

 

[Richard Kim]

------------------------------------------------------------

you can make out Laura Harring's pubes when she's in the shower

------------------------------------------------------------

That would make the alteration rather silly and pointless.

Robert:

The comment about the shower scene was made in jest. Sorry if I didn't makethat clear.

Harring's body is obscured by the glass door, and there is a black blob that could be her pubes, or it could be a shadow.

 

[Joe Schwartz]

I'm glad I had a chance to watch the DVD before seeing this thread. I can honestly say that I didn't notice the blurring at all.
Today, after reading this thread, I went back and rewatched that scene on my direct-view TV (using the 1:39:00 time code to jump to it), and I also did my own screen captures from my DVD-ROM drive. In both cases, I had to boost the brightness way up to see the blurring. My TV is properly calibrated, as I assume are most of yours, so I'm surprised that some people find the blurring so visible as to be distracting.
In any case, now that I know about the blurring, I don't think it detracts from the film at all.

 

[Doug Schiller]

If you are fan of David Lynch and you elect to boycott this film because of this alteration it is your loss.

I disagree. You can still enjoy the movie, just don't buy it. I have no problem with people buying it and I would never start a stupid "petition" but it isn't a loss to boycott the film. If you say this type of edit is ok, you are opening the door on future tampering. I can see it now, DVD/Video specs in each actresses contracts.

I was a little shocked how tame the scene was when I first saw it. I expected a shot of her sitting indian style with a full shot of the genitalia, not some long shot of pubic hair. I just don't understand why Lynch made it an issue which ruins the scene. If anything, the other actress does more shocking scenes with less nudity. I wouldn't blame her for complaining to Lynch.

Back to the technical side of the film...

Did anyone else notice the lens flares in this movie. I'm not used to seeing them in a 1.85:1 film. I wonder if he shot it in scope and matted it down to 1.85:1.

Doug

 

[Richard Kim]

Did anyone else notice the lens flares in this movie. I'm not used to seeing them in a 1.85:1 film. I wonder if he shot it in scope and matted it down to 1.85:1.

I highly doubt it, considering much of the footage is from a TV pilot and most likely originally composed for 4:3.

 

[Joe Schwartz]

I didn't notice the lens flares, but you can usually tell by their shape whether or not the film was shot in scope. In most cases, if the lens flare is round, the film was shot flat (non-anamorphic lens). If the lens flare is oval, the film was shot in scope (anamorphic lens).

 

[Patrick Larkin]

OK, I finished watching MD last night. On my set, the scene was very dark . I tried very hard to see the blurring but by the time I thought I could see something, then scene was over. As I've said all along, I don't think the alteration takes away from the film at all.

I think the previous post by Jacob_st hits the nail on the head as far as my concern. Where will this go from here? Is this a precedent? David Lynch is the last person you would think that would do this. Laura Harring agreed to do the scene and then in hindsight decided to ask the scenes to be ammended. Will other actresses now expect their scenes to be "fixed" because they don't want naked pics of themselves on the web? Give me a break, please!

Laura Harring probably would have done anything for that role. Now that she did and has some measure of success, the rules have changed.

Personally, I'd be more concerned with the lesbian writhings on the web than the FFN.

And finally, I loved MD. But I have to agree with a poster way back who said Lost Highway was better. It is. And I'm sure the much more talented Patricia Arquette has no problem with her nudity in hindsight.

 

[Malcolm R]

Will other actresses now expect their scenes to be "fixed" because they don't want naked pics of themselves on the web?

Now that Halle Berry's won an Oscar, maybe she'll ask for a "digital bikini" in future copies of "Swordfish."

 

[Sean Moon]

Ok...Where is the link to the REAL quote by Lynch about the edit. Personally I think this could possibly be a rehash of the Hannibal fiasco, you know, the did he cut the brain or not before grilling it fiasco.

Some people say they distinctly saw in the theaters the brain being cut or whatever, and then it was missing on the DVD. It was our minds playing tricks on us.

This MIGHT(I am not saying it is) be a similar situation...we think we saw the pubes when we really didnt.