Alfred Hitchcock Premiere Collection - Oct 14, 2008 - Page 5

Simon Caleb · 08-11-2008, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russell G

this reminds me a lot like what happened with "EYES WIDE SHUT", where Kubrick had an American cut, and a world cut. No one had problems when EYES got a proper release in the region 1, not too sure why it's such a bugaboo with Psycho.

The way I approach this surprisingly negative reaction to such a revelation is, those concerned either don´t accept the footage highlighted on the German site, are truly US censor cuts. Or they´re merely unhappy ´a version´ that´s much admired or loved will change, perhaps in their minds for the worse. However that argument tends to fall flat when said found footage is described as irrelevent.
As I already explained, such irrelevent additions wouldn´t make a difference, would they?

Mark Zimmer · 08-11-2008, 10:18 AM

I wonder what MGM/Fox is using for elements on THE LODGER? I know BFI has a gorgeous restored print that aired once on AMC before that channel became unwatchable. I've seen so many miserable prints of it that I'm a little nervous but hope they'll do right by this early classic.

BillyFeldman · 08-11-2008, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Caleb

The way I approach this surprisingly negative reaction to such a revelation is, those concerned either don´t accept the footage highlighted on the German site, are truly US censor cuts. Or they´re merely unhappy ´a version´ that´s much admired or loved will change, perhaps in their minds for the worse. However that argument tends to fall flat when said found footage is described as irrelevent.
As I already explained, such irrelevent additions wouldn´t make a difference, would they?

Sorry, you're talking about approximately twenty seconds of footage - they are completely irrelevant - as I've said, Hitchcock wielded a lot of power and he could have put them back in and had the film rated when the ratings system came in. He didn't. The twenty seconds surely don't make the film any more of a masterpiece - and since the film had its biggest success in the US, minimally that version should always be included. I do not like the new Touch Of Evil cut. I'm of the opinion that Duel is a lesser film with the inclusion of the scene that was in the European theatrical version, and some of us want the Psycho that we've known and loved since 1960.

I don't think of this as a "discovery" I think of it as a curio - put the extra seconds in the extras or, like Warners did with Strangers On A Train, but both cuts on the DVD, although it really does seem rather silly to me.

TravisR · 08-11-2008, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyFeldman

Sorry, you're talking about approximately twenty seconds of footage - they are completely irrelevant - as I've said, Hitchcock wielded a lot of power and he could have put them back in and had the film rated when the ratings system came in. He didn't.

I agree that it has little impact on the movie but Hitchcock obviously wanted that footage in the movie or it wouldn't have been something that he was forced to remove.

John Hodson · 08-11-2008, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Zimmer

I wonder what MGM/Fox is using for elements on THE LODGER? I know BFI has a gorgeous restored print that aired once on AMC before that channel became unwatchable. I've seen so many miserable prints of it that I'm a little nervous but hope they'll do right by this early classic.

The condition of 'The Lodger' will ultimately decide whether I go for this set or not; here's hoping.

Michael Elliott · 08-11-2008, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyFeldman

Sorry, you're talking about approximately twenty seconds of footage - they are completely irrelevant - as I've said, Hitchcock wielded a lot of power and he could have put them back in and had the film rated when the ratings system came in. He didn't. The twenty seconds surely don't make the film any more of a masterpiece - and since the film had its biggest success in the US, minimally that version should always be included. I do not like the new Touch Of Evil cut. I'm of the opinion that Duel is a lesser film with the inclusion of the scene that was in the European theatrical version, and some of us want the Psycho that we've known and loved since 1960.

I don't think of this as a "discovery" I think of it as a curio - put the extra seconds in the extras or, like Warners did with Strangers On A Train, but both cuts on the DVD, although it really does seem rather silly to me.

Most MPAA edits are just a few seconds worth of footage. There aren't too many examples where minutes worth of footage are cut. You're right that 18 seconds isn't going to make it any more of a masterpiece but 18 seconds aren't going to kill it either. In fact, if someone wasn't really familiar with the film then I doubt they'd spot these new seconds.

Simon Caleb · 08-11-2008, 04:16 PM

Well those few extra seconds restored to james Whale´s Frankentein, made a hell of a difference to me. As would any restoration of the 18 or seconds censored from Psycho. So we´ll have to agree to disagree.

I´m very surprised people are happy to accept censored films in this day and age. I say, get this restored before the footage rots away in some vault.

Patrick McCart · 08-11-2008, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Caleb

Well those few extra seconds restored to james Whale´s Frankentein, made a hell of a difference to me. As would any restoration of the 18 or seconds censored from Psycho. So we´ll have to agree to disagree.

I´m very surprised people are happy to accept censored films in this day and age. I say, get this restored before the footage rots away in some vault.

I've read over the thread several times and I can't find any real evidence that the extra footage is in Hitchcock's final cut instead of just something left in the export version. Everythink seems to be "it exists, so it must go back in".

I'm not arguing about whether or not it's vital, it's just important to know if it's supposed to be in the film for certain. Just because it exists in one cut or exists at all doesn't mean it belongs in what Hitchcock signed off on.

It's not like Frankenstein, which was released in 1931 with that footage intact. It was removed for re-releases. It's just as irrelevant of a comparison as claiming it's like The Magnificent Ambersons.

If Hitchcock's preferred cut included the extra shots, they need to be added back in by Universal. Otherwise, keep it as supplemental material. Adding footage not intended by a director is just as bad as taking it out for the same reasons.

BradleyS · 08-11-2008, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick McCart

I've read over the thread several times and I can't find any real evidence that the extra footage is in Hitchcock's final cut instead of just something left in the export version. Everythink seems to be "it exists, so it must go back in".

You're talking like it's just some incidental footage that was "left in the export version" out of carelessness or indifference, like extra footage of Norman walking from the house to the motel. This is footage that was obviously removed for censorship reasons. The fact that the Europe got a version with a few extra shots of (relatively) explicit sex and violence strongly suggests that the American cut is compromised.