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

[Peter McM]

The Digital Bits' Rumor Mill reports that MGM is mulling the release of the uncensored Eyes Wide Shut in the coming year.

I'm looking forward to this, but I have to wonder: Think Stanley would have given his blessing?

 

[ChrisBEA]

Good news indeed. I would have to think that Mr. Kubrick would have given his blessing. I look forward to seeing it the way it was intended (I know I could buy another region, I just haven't).

 

[Patrick McCart]

Warner, not MGM.

 

[Matt Stone]

Took the words out of my mouth. Good news, I'm glad I've held off buying the edited version.

 

[Carlo_M]

Well since he shot and edited it that way, I would have to say yes. From all I've read, it was the studio that asked him to edit the parts, not necessarily his own desire to do so.

 

[Steve Y]

I love this film, and would gladly buy it in the uncensored format (I currently own a used copy without a case). In fact - I'm so happy about this R1 potentiality that I will not complain about how long it's taken for this to happen, or about the puritanical... wait, better stop now - I don't want to come down with a bad case of gift horse syndrome.

Here's hoping...

~s

p.s. before this turns into another "censorship" debate:

Mr. Kubrick did sign off on the changes. He did not disapprove of the (very distracting) digital sillouettes in the censored sequence. But this should not be taken to mean that before his death he changed his mind about the nudity. From a Q&A session with one of his collegues, I seem to remember it was confirmed that he went back and forth on the issue, which hinged entirely around breadth of distribution and questions like: "will an audience be turned off by this?" Kubrick played the U.S. ratings game so that people could actually see his film, which would have been pushed out of the market with an NC-17 rating.

The sequence is not a mere seconds of changed footage (in other words, we're not quabbling over split seconds of full frontal). I have seen both versions of the sequence, which is fairly long, and the change in mood is substantial, in my humble opinion.

 

[Michael Elliott]

This is great news but I don't think there's a major difference between the two. In fact, had Warner kept their mouths shut about the alternate version, I wonder if anyone would have noticed? I mean, they could have released the US version everywhere and said it was what Kubrick cut. I personally love this film and it would be nice to see some deleted scenes with Keitel if they are available. Of course, the alternate ending to THE SHINING would be even better.

 

[george kaplan]

I might actually be able to finally see this film, since I refuse to watch it in it's censored version.

 

[Peter McM]

:b

 

[Paul Linfesty]

But will this new "uncensored" release include the original "chants" soundtrack that appeared in the U.S. "R" version but was changed for the DVD?

 

[Adam_ME]

Figures. I import the not exactly inexpensive Region 3 uncensored DVD and now this. Oh well, WB supporting unrated films is a good sign. Now if we can only get them to change their minds regarding DTS.

 

[CraigL]

YES!!!!

I was JUST going to order this in the next few weeks! How crazy is that? I usually order it and the next thing is that the new version comes out.

 

[MatS]

$hould have been i$$ued that way from the out$et

thi$ i$ nothing more than more of the con$tant barage of $tudio re-i$$ues to try and make another quick buck off of tho$e who have already made a $imilar purcha$e

no thank$

 

[Haggai]

I guess I'll be interested in seeing this at some point, and Steve Y is at least one voice chiming in here as someone who's seen it and says that it does make a difference. I'll keep an open mind about it, but my guess is that it won't make a huge difference for me. We're talking about one sequence in a movie that isn't really about sex anyway, contrary to the bizarre pre-release buzz that made it out to be some sort of non-stop 2 1/2 hour-long orgy. Being as familiar with Kubrick's movies as I already was back then, in '99, I never really believed any of that stuff, and indeed I ended up being right (I like the movie very much, by the way). Someone else I saw it with on its release date was going on and on about the digital re-touching right afterwards, but I couldn't resist pointing out that her months-long obsession with that specific issue (reading every magazine article, repeating every rumor as fact) might have colored her perceptions just a little bit.

 

[Walter Kittel]

Having seen the U.S. release theatrically and on DVD and having seen the R3 version the differences are insignificant, IMHO. The unedited version probably tends to emphasize the mechanical, non-emotional nature of the anonymous sex during that portion of the film moreso than the edited version; but since that message is already pretty clear I don't consider the alteration that problematic in terms of the films overall (ahem) thrust. As a matter of principle I can see the objection to the alteration, but in practical terms both film versions work exceedingly well.

- Walter.

 

[Mark_TS]

ah yes, how they insisted that they could release EWS no other way-who knows? maybe we will see anamorphic versions of SKs films as WB slowly "change their mind$"

 

[GerardoHP]

I figured this would happen the moment the Kubrick people started saying a few years ago that the existing DVD versions of his movies were the definitive versions and that the uncensored version of EWS would not be released in the U.S. That kind of statement is always suspicious to me.

And, not to start the widescreen debate again but, it was at around that time that his people also indicated that, even after HDTV took on, his titles would always be shown at 4:3 because that's how he wanted it. Why, wouldn't you know that a bunch of Kubrick titles recently (as far as I know) started showing up in widescreen on the HD movie channels!

I wonder how long before they show up at your local Costco's DVD isle...

:rolleyes

 

[Will*B]

Extras = sale.

Otherwise, no thanks.

 

[Ike]

The change is significant not because of how important the sequence is, but because of how distracting the digital figures are.

I too hope we are given the option of anamorphic, since HBO HD (and currently Showtime HD) has been showing it 1.78:1, and it looks perfectly fine to me composed this way.

 

[george kaplan]

That might very well be true, but for me, it's besides the point. It's the principle of the thing. I want to see the film, unedited, and uncensored. You could take Citizen Kane, and fuzz out the name of the nightclub where Susan works and argue that it's an insignificant change to the film, and you'd be right, but I'd still be opposed to it.