Mulholland Drive edited? (1 Viewer)

[Damin J Toell]

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

and what principle is that, exactly? that filmmakers shouldn't have control over their own work?

DJ

 

[RobertR]

i may not like the changes made

It seems to bother you a lot that people are choosing to strongly express their dislike.

 

[Rich Malloy]

As far as the male actor thing, I mentioned Marty Scorsese's John the Baptist on the first page of this thread. I don't know whether Andre Gregory was wearing a crotch patch or what, but him gotta fuzzy digital figleaf for the DVD!

 

[Damin J Toell]

Live with what you put out, dammit

i find it interesting that you demand that filmmakers should live with what they believe to be errors in their own films, but don't demand that viewers live with the fact that they aren't the ones in control of films that other people make. at least Lucas & Spielberg are "whining" about their own films. those who whine about Lucas & Spielberg don't have anything approaching that level of vested interest in the films in question.

DJ

 

[Russ Lucas]

{a whine, BTW, many are all too tired of hearing from the likes of Lucas and Spielberg. Live with what you put out, dammit).

Wait a minute. You're not putting this in the same league as Greedo shoots first, are you?

 

[Patrick Larkin]

RobertR - i agree. Once a work is made public, it is the public's as much as the directors. Lynch can do anything the hell he wants to do before it hits the big screen.

 

[RobertR]

you demand that filmmakers should live with what they believe to be errors in their own films

The objective fact is that they did not believe they were "errors" at the time they made them.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Once a work is made public, it is the public's as much as the directors.

i see this sentiment expressed often at HTF, but i'd really love to see it backed up with a justification. why does the public gain an equal interest in the work? why is the artist shut out from controlling his own work simply because he has allowed it to be viewed publically at some point? what interest does the public have in maintaining art in its "original public viewing" state that overrides the artist's interest in, quite simply, being an artist? why should an initial public viewing be the end of the artistic process? why should an artist lose all control of his own work simply because he let others see it?

DJ

 

[Russ Lucas]

Once a work is made public, it is the public's as much as the directors.

And all copyright is flushed away.

 

[Damin J Toell]

They do indeed obviously have a stronger vested interest in the original work of art than the directors mentioned do.

and that interest is what? "i like seeing it"? that is somehow a stronger interest than "i made this film and, in its current state, it does not meet my personal expectations and, further, i wish to make my own work conform to my own desires"?

DJ

 

[Damin J Toell]

The objective fact is that they did not believe they were "errors" at the time they made them.

who is the "they" to which you refer? and where do you get your "objective facts" from? if you refer to Spielberg, he most certainly did regard the original theatrical release of Close Encounters of the Third Kind to be erroneous at the time of release.
DJ

 

[Samuel Des]

is the artist shut out from controlling his own work simply because he has allowed it to be viewed publically at some point?

I don't think people are trying to say that. I think that people are saying that they want what they saw in the cinema. I think that's what they mean by "public ownership." If not, can someone clarify?

 

[Damin J Toell]

I think that people are saying that they want what they saw in the cinema.

that's a nice desire to have, but why should that desire trump the desire of filmmakers to control their own work? why should the theatrical prints control the filmmakers instead of the other way around? what entitlement does any person to have to own a home video copy of someone else's film exactly as they saw it theatrically?

DJ

 

[RobertR]

and that interest is what?

The subjective, eomtional attachment to the original which the director obviously no longer has.

 

[Patrick Larkin]

Damin --

In this case, I don't think the change is that drastic. As I have stated previously, my issue is with Laura Harring.

However, to your point. Do you think it is OK for Paul McCartney to go back and change the lyrics to Blackbird and make an indelible change to the White Album? Do you think it would have been OK if Picasso decided that the blue he used on a painting that has already been publicly displayed was the wrong shade and he changed the original?

Drastic examples, yes. But to the point. Copolla did it with Apocalypse Now but at least he changed the title of the film to Redux. If McCartney decided to change Blackbird and renamed it Blackbird Redux and added it to the White Album, I'd have no problem. But to change a work that the public has already digested isn't good.

 

[Damin J Toell]

I wasn't referring to CE3K. I was referring to ET and Star Wars.

so, therefore, post-theatrical-release modifications are acceptable if the filmmaker had those intentions pre-theatrical-release? if so, it may very well be the case that Lynch is realizing his pre-theatrical-release desire to obscure part of Harring's body, even if the desire was achieved differently on video than it was on film.

as for the viability of differentiating between pre-theatrical-release modifications and post-theatrical-release modifications, i'll simply refer to questions i asked earlier about the justification for artists losing control of their own work merely by virtue of a public viewing.

DJ

 

[Samuel Des]

what entitlement does any person to have to own a home video copy of someone else's film exactly as they saw it theatrically

Well, no entitlement, per se. It's just that some may perceive a change from the original as change for the worse -- however "correct" or "incorrect" that may be. In some cases, this may be true. It's important to note that the cinema version is the "original." "Anti-change" people want that "original."

 

[Doug Schiller]

Russ said...

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.

Thanks for making my "anyone who complains must be a pervert" point wonderfully.

I made my point on the matter, I would just add, and this is important, there has to be, whether you agree with Lynch's tinkering or not, a disclaimer on the DVD that the version has been edited for home video (i.e. Battlefield Earth).

Doug

 

[chris c]

A similar topic arose at the audioasylum's music forum. Here is an article from forums.sonymusic.com:

OZZY OSBOURNE MAKES CHANGES ON CATALOG RE-ISSUES Posted: Apr 3, 2002 4:59 PM

FOR IMMEIDATE RELEASE

APRIL 3, 2002

OZZY OSBOURNE MAKES CHANGES ON CATALOG RE-ISSUES

Epic Records celebrates the career of hard rock icon Ozzy Osbourne with the re-release of four essential catalog albums: BLIZZARD

OF OZZ, DIARY OF A MADMAN, TRIBUTE, and NO MORE TEARS. Originally released between 1981 and 1991, the albums,

have been digitally remastered and feature original artwork, lyrics, vintage photography, and new liner notes.

Both BLIZZARD OF OZZ and DIARY OF A MADMAN were re-recorded with new bass and drum parts performed by Robert

Trujillo (bass) and Mike Bordin (drums). It was Osbourne’s decision to replace original bassist Bob Daisley and drummer Lee

Kerslake on these new releases.

“Bob Daisley and Lee Kerslake have harassed Ozzy and our family for several years,” said manager Sharon Osbourne. “Because of

their abusive and unjust behavior, Ozzy wanted to remove them from these recordings. We turned a negative into a positive by adding a

fresh sound to the original albums. We hope the fans enjoy the new versions as much as we do.”

BLIZZARD OF OZZ, DIARY OF A MADMAN, TRIBUTE, and NO MORE TEARS are in stores now.

Of course, the artists retain the legal and ethical ability to alter their work. This does not, however, mean that I have to like or support it.

 

[Ike]

Well, dammit.

It's doesn't sound like it's that big of a deal, but I'll know it's there, and it'll bother me the whole film. I just wish I hadn't seen this thread!