Mulholland Drive edited? (1 Viewer)

[RobertR]

I'll buy the celluloid and scan it

If someone does do that, I won't feel sorry for her or Lynch.

 

[John Sullmeyer]

I want to know the answer to the question they posed at dugpa.com... Will the Canadian, or any of the imports be sporting the blurr ?

I mean, if they did that, then the US version would be forever known as the censored version.

Guess we have to wait and see....

 

[Paul_D]

I really don't think this is a big deal at all.

 

[Richard Kim]

This sort of censorship is common in Japan. That Lynch himself authorized this is reprehensible.

 

[Jason Whyte]

I think Mark told me that the TVA Canadian release is identical to the US transfer (but only with the added french soundtrack). I'm borrowing his review copy today and will certainly check it out tonight.
Still, I'm with Paul, it is not THAT big of a deal. It's not going to be a'la Eyes Wide Shut where we have naked women standing infront of her. Just watch this friggin' brilliant, amazing, crazy, sexy, outstanding masterpiece from Lynch and just forget about the minor blur.
Jason

 

[Rich Malloy]

FWIW, it doesn't bother me that this was obscured, but that it was apparently done very sloppily such that one can't help but notice it. The shot isn't necessary for the film in anyway (and I certainly understand the position of the actress), but it seems that this could've been obscured in a less noticeable manner.

When I saw it in the theaters, believe you me my eyes were wide open. I studied closely and with clinical precision the laudable physiques of both actresses, revelling in their fleshy exuberance... and yet I didn't notice any nanahoohee in the scene in question. Damn it all, musta missed it. I wonder whether I'm alone - do you folk remember seeing any flalalala as Rita slides into the sack with Betty?

So my beef, to the extent I have one, is with what I presume is a sloppy, smeary blur-job. I won't miss what I missed before, but I don't want the fuzzy equivalent of an all-too-obvious digital figleaf drawing me out of the film.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Over in the Mobius Home Video Forum, there was discussion from folks deeply into all things Lynchian who said that she was wearing a crotch patch anyway, so there wasn't actually anything to see. Don't know if that's true or not, but there it is.

 

[RobertR]

Well, according to a poster at AVScience, there's more to the alteration of the scene than digital blurring of the "shy" actress' pubic area. According to him, the scene has been made much darker than it appeared in the theater, in an attempt to hide the digital tampering. As a result, the mood of the scene is altered. Here's the thread:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...hreadid=130873

 

[Chuck Esola]

I don't think this is a big deal either. No one is a bigger fan of this film than I am, but honestly, the digitizing of part of one shot isn't going to make me like the film any less. The fact is, Harring is right about screen grabs turning up all over the net. Nudity on a theater screen being viewed by a passive audience is not the same as nudity on a DVD where people have the ability to create screen captures for their own amusement and possible profit. Hats off to Lynch for being sensitive enough to her concerns to make this small alteration to his film, especially considering how controlling he tends to be in all other aspects of the presentation of his films.

 

[Mark McLeod]

First off. I've been following this issue since it broke over the weekend on a number of David Lynch websites. I received confirmation that it was indeed edited sometime yesterday.

Now how do i feel about it being edited. I'm usually livid when something is edited from it's theatrical form however in this case. It's not a huge deal for the following reasons.

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

So Lynch decided to blur the shot on the DVD. Regardless of why he chose to do it it's not a big deal to me. The scene is very very dark and only like a fraction of a second in duration.

It's certaintly no reason not to buy the otherwise stellar DVD.

As for those of you wondering if the Canadian DVD will have this unedited. Jason is correct. The Canadian DVD uses the US transfer and is identical in everyway other then the insert card is slightly different and there's a TVA logo at the head of the film before the Universal logo.

I checked the scene in question before sending off my review copy to Jason and it's the same.

Regarding pictures. I have a collage of pictures from the film made by a well known capper friend where he has taken the shot in question and lightened it up quite a bit. I just might place a link to it on my website because it's obviously adult material that can't be posted here.

Still. It's not a big deal and none of you should be screaming censorship. This hasn't been censored. Lynch did this himself out of respect for his actress. If Universal had done this on their own then I'd have a problem with it. But Lynch oversaw all aspects of the DVD and this is what he wanted you to see. End of issue really. What's done is done and the movie still demands seeing and if your the kind of person who will skip watching or purchasing a title based on what is really less then one second then I'm afraid I can't help you.

Go rent/buy Mulholland Drive and forget that the blur is there. Because if your not looking for it, you won't see it.

Mark

 

[Jay W]

Well I cannot say I recall this from my screening at the theater, but at the same time I am a little dissapointed especially coming from Lynch - however unstandable given the wishes of the actor. I'll still pick this one up.

 

[Patrick Sun]

If anyone cares, I saw MD in the theaters twice, and whether LEH flashes her pubic area or not, it's simply not germane to the scene because it's obvious that she is fully nude and climbing into bed with Betty. I got all of the "information" I needed for that scene. Plus, depending on the projection, some may have seen a more brightly light shot of LEH's goodies, while others (I guess, like me) who had a dark projection which did not call attention to flagrant flashing of LEH's goodies.

And you know what, that Lynch was respectful of LEH's wishes means he'll get even better performances out of his actors in future films because the actors will know that Lynch won't leave their pubic parts hanging out in the wind inadvertently. It does come down to a matter of trust/respect between the director and actor. I think Lynch did the right thing.

 

[Mark McLeod]

I talked with Lynch last night and the deal is that there was an edit for the DVD release. It was a personal deal between David and Laura Harring. He told me that they blurred out a shot because it was "full body, if you know what I mean." He also said that it was only "one portion of one shot." Laura felt that if they were to keep the shot in that the screen capture would be all over the net.

"One portion of one shot". Describes it perfectly.

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.

Perhaps instead of talking about this slight edit on a message board you could go buy the DVD, pop it in and watch one of the best films of 2001.

 

[Jon Robertson]

All this fuss over a few dark wisps! :b
IMO, it does nothing to change the movie in the slightest. It's a very dimly lit scene in any case, and it's 2 or 3 seconds at the most.
If they had added CGI underwear, then you might have a cause to complain !

 

[Antonio Silva]

I sure remember that shot at the cinema. It was there alright.

At first i was a bit concerned because i thought they were bluring every bit of nakedness on that scene. But since it's only "that" bit and for a split second, i can live with it.

Bring on the DVD.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

If you buy this title your supporting censorship!

 

[Doug Schiller]

I am amazed at people who cry foul at OAR offenses accepting censorship and anyone who criticizes Lynch is some sort of pervert.

I can't remember the last time a R rated film was altered for its video release. I want to see the film as it was shown in the theater.

If Mr. Lynch and this actress don't like adult themed movies, make your film PG. (ha ha)

This one is now a renter. I won't show my support for any type of censorship by purchasing it (Sadly, I did buy Eyes Wide Shut but it was the same film I saw in the theaters at least).

Those that don't mind the censorship, would it bother you if a huge Monty Python-like fig leaf covered the area? Because this obvious "smudge" is the same thing in my eyes.

Doug

 

[Samuel Des]

Agree. There is nothing wrong with asking for the version one saw in the cinema.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

My 'trick' for getting around supporting media I wish to withhold my cash from is 'buy' used.

I know a lot of you want this title like now. But there will be used copies, mint, by this weekend. From all the people who will get 'headache' from this. That way, 'Free Lunch', does not get your money or support.

Peace out.

 

[Mark Bendiksen]

Put me in the "no big deal" camp on this one.
1) It's Lynch's film. I'm willing to give me a LITTLE bit of lattitude in what to do with it.
2) If he had a verbal contract, so to speak, with Harring, then I respect him for honoring it. (Although he probably shouldn't have filmed the scene that way to begin with if he intended on editing it later.)
3) I just watched the scene. We're talking about less than two seconds of a movie that's nearly 2.5 hours long. Besides, there's still plenty of nudity in the scene in question (if that's what you're looking for).
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.
Just my $.02
Link Removed