Mulholland Drive edited? (1 Viewer)

[Mark McLeod]

Bravo Mark Bendiksen.. Bravo.. Well said.

 

[Doug Schiller]

Mark said...

4) This is not like Eyes Wide Shut. There are no CGI-created people standing between Harring and the camera. It's a soft blur in an already dark shot. If you have your contrast and brightness set to proper levels it's barely noticeable, and it's only noticeable if you're really looking for it

Sadly, this is one of the biggest problems I have with it. Lynch has made it an issue and I will notice it every single time I watch the scene. To me it is the exact same thing as EWS. I can't watch that scene without thinking of the horrible censorship that is occuring.

I'd almost rather have him cut frames out than put huge digital hands over my eyes and say "naughty naughty, don't look".

I'm with the other poster, I'll buy it used until the real version comes out.

Doug

 

[Patrick Larkin]

Lynch did this himself out of respect for his actress.

all over the net? What then? Lynch has to blur those scenses? Please.
I blame Harring more than anyone. Maybe she thinks she's going to be a big star and can call the shots. Well, Laura, NAOMI is going to be the star and she didn't gripe.
Regardless, I'm halfway through at 1:22. (Wrote it down in case I need to remove the disc. )

 

[Joseph Young]

Mark Bendiksen: I agree with where you're coming from. I can live with the edit in question, it just came out from left field and was an unexpected move. I was disappointed more on principal than anything else. Do I actually, literally care whether the shot is blurred or not? No. It doesn't change my love for the movie.

Think about all the potential edits that could have been made in some bizarro universe:

What if

probably shouldn't have filmed the scene that way to begin with if he intended on editing it later.

I'll be picking this up regardless.

Joseph

 

[chris c]

Yes, I believe she was wearing a...how do you say...merken?

 

[Jon Robertson]

As for all this talk of censorship, you must remember one thing. This is not studio politics, this is the director not offending/upsetting an actress by releasing her full-frontal shot as it was filmed.

Now that might sound absurd, but consider this: if Laura Elena Harring had no problems doing the nude shot as it would presented as a fleeting glimpse in the context of the scene, then so be it.

It is one thing to view the incredibly short, barely visible shot in the context of the film at the cinema, but as a screengrab with brightness and contrast levels altered making things much more visible, she might well not want to be looked at in that way, which is fair enough.

This disc is director-approved, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say you won't be seeing the unblurred version on a home release for many, many, many years.

It's a marvellous film, and I truly pity those of you who are refusing to buy it on blanket principal.

 

[Brook K]

Yes,I seem to remember pubic hair but not the Fertile Crescent.

Count me in the disappointed, but will still buy and enjoy the DVD group.

 

[Patrick Larkin]

It's a marvellous film, and I truly pity those of you who are refusing to buy it on blanket principal.

Thats why I'll be boycotting Laura Harring, not David Lynch.

 

[Damin J Toell]

in all of the fetishisitic obsession so many people have over presenting a film's original version, the underlying reason for keeping a film's integrity is forgotten: to allow for viewing of the film the way the creator wants it to be seen. here, we have Lynch having control over his own film. we should be thankful that he has the ability to control his film, not complaining that we're somehow being ripped off because a filmmaker is doing his job in excercising control of his own work.

DJ

 

[JonZ]

The DVD is in my car, I havent seen it yet. But I did see MD in the theaters twice and remember it being SO DARK I couldnt see anything except a silhoute anyway.

I read a interview with Harring and she said Lynch showed her what he'd be filming, she saw how dark it would be and she said it made her feel much more felt comfortable doing it. However Harring stood there fully nude while Lynch filmed her-she should have insisted on being shot from the waist up then,if she was so against a full frontal scene dont u think.

Maybe becuase of the resolution involved with DVD, you could see more than you were able to in the theater thus the blur(which I admit is a disappointment especially becuase its coming from Lynch)

(BTW, I did see screen shots of Harring and Watts from MD before it became available on home video so theres always somone out there who finds a way to get this stuff on the net regardless)

 

[Jack Briggs]

Ahh, but he exercises this sort of "control" over the film after audiences have seen it in its original form in the commercial theaters. The box has been opened, so to speak. If the actress had had any concerns about her image showing up on the Internet, she should have considered this at the time of the shoot. Once you're a public figure, you have to take all the hassles that go along with it.

"I personally can't see why it's a huge deal. It's not going to ruin your enjoyment of the film. It's hardly worth mentioning."

It's worth mentioning because it's a matter of principle.

 

[dpippel]

I believe Laura requested that there not be any full frontal nudity. From what I've learned she wore a crotch patch.

If this is indeed the case THEN THERE IS NO FULL-FRONTAL NUDITY. So what's the big deal? Is she worried that people will be zooming in on her crotch patch? Just thinking out loud...

 

[Patrick Sun]

Where's the roll eyes smiley when I need it?

I truly think we need to re-assess our priorities here when it comes to bandying the "censorship" word or the "disgust" in a director honoring to the privacy requests of an actress.

For all we know, the "slip" of the LEH's genitalia was inadvertent, and it wasn't until now that Lynch was able to correct for the slip. Obviously she's comfortable with her bare breasts on the big screen, but most actresses are quite skittish about the baring their nether regions below the waist, well, that is, unless you're Sharon Stone.

Get over it. If you are going to punish anyone by only renting this DVD and not buying it, you're only going to punish yourself.

 

[RobertR]

It's worth mentioning because it's a matter of principle.

Agreed, Jack. If the argument is "minor changes are ok but not major ones", I'd like the person making such an argument to give me an objective definition of when "minor" becomes "major".

If the argument is "the director can do what he wants", then I assume such as person doesn't object to ANY change, including colorizing a B&W film or deleting an entire storyline.

 

[Russ Lucas]

I put this change in the same league as the dialogue redubbing done for the home video release of Wonder Boys. Here's the precedent I draw from that one: A person says that they are bothered by the way that a film has referenced them in a personal and intrusive (and innocently-intended) way. The director can prevent the person from feeling needless distress and discomfort through a technical hiccough that doesn't change the substantive (or formative) qualities of the film from the Director's own point of view. If he or she chooses to do so, it's fine with me.
As an aside, I think it's a nice rebuttal to the silly criticisms heard from some quarters that Lynch is exploitative of actresses (even in the act of commenting on their exploitation).
As another, perhaps ill-advised aside, I can't help but wonder if some of the high-minded objections to Lynch's re-edit aren't instead inspired by disappointment at the loss of some exposed flesh for its own sake.
"I read it for the articles."

 

[Richard Kim]

As another, perhaps ill-advised aside, I can't help but wonder if some of the high-minded objections to Lynch's re-edit aren't instead inspired by disappointment at the loss of some exposed flesh for its own sake.

Yeah, if the same digital fudging was happening to a nude male actor, I wonder if there would be a similar outcry?

 

[StephenC]

Why couldn't they do this to Kevin Bacon in Wild Things?

 

[RobertR]

Yeah, if the same digital fudging was happening to a nude male actor, I wonder if there would be a similar outcry?

The outcry wasn't the same magnitude because of the smaller market size, but YES, the SAME principled objection (and some of the same "it's only minor" responses) was raised to the digital censoring of male genitalia in the Japanese laserdisc of Fight Club.

 

[Russ Lucas]

Why couldn't they do this to Kevin Bacon in Wild Things?

No kidding. Taking it to the hardware level, some manufacturer could develop a "Keitel Device" to help Harvey keep it in his pants.

 

[Paul_D]

some manufacturer could develop a "Keitel Device" to help Harvey keep it in his pants.

I'd buy that for a dollar.