Cineman

Second Unit
Joined
May 30, 2011
Messages
389
Real Name
David B.
And at long last we have the truth, for all those who were going on about the Legion of Decency, etc. The uncut Psycho WAS the theatrical release in 1960 with those few extra seconds - we all remembered correctly. The re-release and home video versions were ALL edited. So, I'm glad that those of us who have been remembering this correctly all these years have finally been vindicated. No more arguing about it, and thanks to Universal for so clearly stating it. I'll get this right away even though I have the German Blu-ray.
I'll be interested to see if there is any addendum or clarification in the included "Making of PSYCHO" documentary where it is strongly implied via an incorrect film clip that the portion of the peephole scene where we see Marion shrug off her bra was cut out of the film by Hitchcock before the original theatrical release in 1960 when it is right there, back where it belongs and where it indeed was during most of the 1960s, in this version that is now clearly touted as the "uncut theatrical version as seen in 1960" and as it was "intended to be seen by Alfred Hitchcock."

If there is no addendum or clarification in that documentary then I am afraid it will look for all time as though Peggy Robertson, Hitchcock's personal assistant during the filming of PSYCHO, had misremembered and misstated what actually happened, what was cut by Hitchcock before the theatrical release and why. Which would be a shame since I don't see any reason to suggest her memory and commentary for what actually happened and why was anything but steel trap accurate.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: haineshisway

TravisR

Studio Mogul
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
35,235
Location
The basement of the FBI building
I'll be interested to see if there is any addendum or clarification in the included "Making of PSYCHO" documentary where it is strongly implied via an incorrect film clip that the portion of the peephole scene where we see Marion shrug off her bra was cut out of the film by Hitchcock before the original theatrical release in 1960 when it is right there, back where it belongs and where it indeed was during most of the 1960s, in this version that is now clearly touted as the "uncut theatrical version as seen in 1960" and as it was "intended to be seen by Alfred Hitchcock."

If there is no addendum or clarification in that documentary then I am afraid it will look for all time as though Peggy Robertson, Hitchcock's personal assistant during the filming of PSYCHO, had misremembered and misstated what actually happened, what was cut by Hitchcock before the theatrical release and why. Which would be a shame since I don't see any reason to suggest her memory and commentary for what actually happened and why was anything but steel trap accurate.
Never say never but I think you can bet the farm that the documentary will be exactly the same as it was. They're just going to port over the material from the previous release with zero thought about its content.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ahollis

AlexNH

Second Unit
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
314
Real Name
Alex Koutroubas

See the 117 minute mark. They call one of the "cuts" a "censored shot."
 

haineshisway

Cinematographer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
4,680
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Bruce

See the 117 minute mark. They call one of the "cuts" a "censored shot."
I guess you don't like to read the posts here. Because right on this very page Cineman explains that what she's talking about is the OPENING SCENE with Janet Leigh in her slip - she clearly states "in the beginning" i.e. the beginning of the film. Whoever edited THIS thing used the bathroom shot, which has nothing to do with what she's saying.

If you read the back of the box you will read the truth - it's been stated over and over in this and other threads. The version seen in 1960 had ALL the shots were were then deleted in the later 1960s for the TV showings. From that point on, the edited version was the ONLY one used for home video releases, etc. There is no more conjecture about this, and those of us who saw and had this film seared into our memories back in 1960 know exactly what we saw, which was the unedited movie you will now all get to own.
 

Cineman

Second Unit
Joined
May 30, 2011
Messages
389
Real Name
David B.
Universal needs to explain the issue.
I will agree with you that Universal or the included "Making of PSYCHO" documentary filmmakers need to now explain that the clip in the documentary implying incorrectly that Peggy Robertson was talking about Hitchcock editing out the bra removal footage in the peephole scene prior to its theatrical release instead of footage from the scene of Janet Leigh in her "slip" at the "beginning of the movie" was a mistake. Until they do, Peggy Robertson is the one who winds up with egg on her face about getting it wrong on the possible assumption by the viewers that she told the documentary filmmakers to insert that incorrect clip of Leigh removing her bra in order to underscore which scene they thought she was talking about. Which I must assume she did not do.

After all, the whole selling point of this new release is to celebrate and enjoy the very footage in question that Hitchcock did not edit out before its theatrical release, that he fully intended for us to see and which we did indeed see in the 1960s. Yet, here you have in that included "Making of..." documentary his personal assistant at the time, Peggy Robertson, apparently "telling" us he DID edit out that footage before the theatrical release and did NOT intend for us to see it that way. Only because the documentary filmmakers inserted the wrong clip during her commentary and nothing to do with Peggy Robertson's memory of it.

Maybe that rather glaring contradiction in the bonus material to the whole selling point Universal clearly has made an effort to tout and explain for this release (as haineshisway cites on the back of the box) has been fixed or explained somewhere in the content of the bonus material itself. We can hope anyway.
 
Last edited:

haineshisway

Cinematographer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
4,680
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Bruce
The thing of it is, Ms. Robertson clearly states "the slip in the beginning" - while Janet Leigh may be in a slip in the scene they inserted, the POINT of that scene is the BRA not the slip. It's so clear what she's talking about, but whoever made the featurette is the guilty party and I'm pretty sure I could name that name.
 

EricSchulz

Producer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2004
Messages
5,132
It APPEARS that some of the edits came in 1966. CBS was scheduled to show Psycho on its Friday Night Movie show on Sept. 23, 1966. A murder in suburban Chicago (still unsolved) a very short time before the airing date caused CBS to shelve the showing out of sensitivity to the family.

This is from the AFI website (the entire article is in the link below):

On 19 Feb 1960, the PCA viewed the completed film, which it refused to approve. According to an internal memo, the film was rejected because of the beginning scene between Sam and Marion, which was “entirely too passionate”; a sexually suggestive line uttered by “Tom Cassidy”; and the shower murder sequence. The memo stated that the sequence had “a number of shots, some impressionistic, some completely realistic, of the girl’s nude body. All of these shots are in violation of the Code, which prohibits nudity ‘in fact or in silhouette.’” It was further declared that Norman watching Marion undress was too sexually suggestive and had to be cut so that he would only see her in her bra and slip rather than explicitly taking off her bra. On 3 Mar 1960, the office issued Paramount a seal of approval “based upon the revised scenes as reviewed in our projection room” the previous day, so presumably the cuts demanded by the PCA were made.
The Hitchcock papers reveal that the National Catholic Legion of Decency demanded three cuts before giving the picture a “B,” or “morally objectionable in part for all” rating. The Legion required that scenes of Marion removing her bra be deleted, that the shots showing Norman washing his hands of blood be shortened and that the number of times Arbogast is stabbed be reduced from four to two. Psycho was eventually issued the “B” rating by the Legion, which announced: “The sensational use of sex and the excessive violence, which partially mar the development of the story, are considered to be entirely lacking in dramatic justification and to be highly objectionable.”
Information in the Hitchcock Collection suggests that there was a “foreign version” of the picture, in which the opening sequence between Sam and Marion contained footage excised from the American release. A 21 Jun 1960 entry in HR 's "Rambling Reporter" column asserted that the European version would contain more nudity in the shower sequence. A Feb 1961 NYT story about Geoffrey I. Shurlock, the head of the PCA, reported that although Shurlock had been criticized for allowing the frank sequence, “it is known that this scene was much more torrid as filmed originally; Shurlock forced Hitchcock to reshoot the entire sequence to make it less sexy.” Modern sources allege, however, that Hitchcock offered to redo the sequence, but only if someone from the PCA office was present at the time to approve it, and when no PCA officials attended the scheduled reshoot, the matter was not pursued.

Entire article: https://catalog.afi.com/Catalog/moviedetails/53260
 

AlexNH

Second Unit
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
314
Real Name
Alex Koutroubas
I guess you don't like to read the posts here. Because right on this very page Cineman explains that what she's talking about is the OPENING SCENE with Janet Leigh in her slip - she clearly states "in the beginning" i.e. the beginning of the film. Whoever edited THIS thing used the bathroom shot, which has nothing to do with what she's saying.

If you read the back of the box you will read the truth - it's been stated over and over in this and other threads. The version seen in 1960 had ALL the shots were were then deleted in the later 1960s for the TV showings. From that point on, the edited version was the ONLY one used for home video releases, etc. There is no more conjecture about this, and those of us who saw and had this film seared into our memories back in 1960 know exactly what we saw, which was the unedited movie you will now all get to own.
I like to read all the posts, thanks though.
 

AlexNH

Second Unit
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
314
Real Name
Alex Koutroubas
Movies are and used to be edited for television all the time. Isn't it unusual for the TV version to suddenly become the only version available and shown? Seems very strange. Again, an explanation would be helpful.
 

Cineman

Second Unit
Joined
May 30, 2011
Messages
389
Real Name
David B.
Movies are and used to be edited for television all the time. Isn't it unusual for the TV version to suddenly become the only version available and shown? Seems very strange. Again, an explanation would be helpful.
Only speculating for the fun of it here. By the early 1970s the very family-friendly Universal Studios Tour theme park had become a big income source in its own right, served well to cross promote their movies and vice versa. The PSYCHO Bates house set was being highlighted as a must-see attraction and I would say about as iconic an image for the entire experience and point of a family visit to the park as any other.

Hitchcock, a major Universal stock holder at the time, even did commercials for the park in those days, shown riding a tour tram wearing a derby and addressing the viewer in his usual amusingly droll manner, as I recall.

Universal already had a seemingly perfectly acceptable, less lurid and sordid, let's say more family-friendly edited version of the movie on hand that the vast majority of its then audience either did not remember totally intact or wasn't all that passionate about noticing was not really the exact same version we'd seen in theaters a decade earlier.

The shower scene had not been tampered with in the go-to version at the time and most people would probably assume if that most famous violence and "nudity" sequence had not been cut since 1960, why would anything else in the movie be cut. Kind of a perfect storm to cause some of us to misremember those two other moments. Or to not consider there would be anything else that needed to be cut, I suppose.

Therefore...who in the vast and comfortably lucrative Universal conglomerate was going to step forward and insist that the kiddies in those trams should not be denied the full bra removal footage, the more lingering shots of bloody hands and those 2 additional stabs with a butcher knife into a dying body the next time the family gathers around the living room to revisit the movie on home video whose iconic set they had just toured past?

I think it was just a matter of leaving well enough alone and not stirring up any unnecessary controversy regarding that family-friendly theme park's attraction.

I think something similar has been the reason Disney has not rereleased SONG OF THE SOUTH all these years, despite a song from it playing in the background in so many Disney-related entertainments since its initial release and the movie being the basis for an entire section of their very family-friendly theme park. Soon to be changed or so I understand. In that case, the corporate decision to leave well enough alone and not stir up any unnecessary controversy has kept the entire movie out of circulation, not just a few seconds of footage.
 
Last edited:

AlanP

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 13, 2003
Messages
879
Real Name
BAP
On that note cut or uncut, when I saw "Vertigo" the first time as a kid on television around 1965, I distinctly, remember a scene of Scottie following Madeline in his car on Lombard Street. I have never seen that scene since in the film ? I remember all the flowers as the street winds down the hill. For some strange reason that scene always stuck in my head from "Vertigo" more than any other scene ? Anyone else remember that scene it may have been a minute or two at the most.
 

KMR

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
230
Real Name
Kevin
Alan, I don't recall ever hearing about this scene or seeing it on screen. Your memory has likely taken a snippet from another film and filed it in with Vertigo. The mind can do strange things like that.
 

Cranston37

Effects Supervisor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
2,757
Location
Minnesota
Real Name
Patrick
On that note cut or uncut, when I saw "Vertigo" the first time as a kid on television around 1965, I distinctly, remember a scene of Scottie following Madeline in his car on Lombard Street. I have never seen that scene since in the film ? I remember all the flowers as the street winds down the hill. For some strange reason that scene always stuck in my head from "Vertigo" more than any other scene ? Anyone else remember that scene it may have been a minute or two at the most.
As Vertigo is my favorite movie (this week, next week it will switch back to Rear Window) I thought I'd see if I can figure this out...

First of all we do see him trailing her on Lombard St, as that's the street his house is on (the scene where she drops the letter off at his door).

If it's the famous twisty part of it you're referring to, that is about a block from his house, but they wouldn't have driven down it, because as you'll see from the below screenshot, her car turns right going away from that twisty section (it's what is on the left of the frame)

C4E8D074-4C38-4A82-9D58-5AA2AE2A2FF9.jpeg

(You do technically see a brief glimpse of it in his rear window after he makes the turn, but he couldn't have gone down it)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Osato and AlanP

AlanP

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 13, 2003
Messages
879
Real Name
BAP
Thank you, I guess you solved the mystery, possibly could it have been when he was following her from his apartment ?
I don't know as I was a kid when I saw it on NBC Saturday Night Movies. I really remember that scene, maybe it's in "What's Up Doc" as that was also filmed in SFO.
I was like ten years old and the film really made an impression on me. It is my favorite Hitch film and I remember that scene for some strange reason.
 

Cranston37

Effects Supervisor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
2,757
Location
Minnesota
Real Name
Patrick
Thank you, I guess you solved the mystery, possibly could it have been when he was following her from his apartment ?
That was the only time he followed her near his apartment. The other scenes of him following her happened elsewhere, starting from Gavin Elster's apartment...
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanP

Cineman

Second Unit
Joined
May 30, 2011
Messages
389
Real Name
David B.
Thank you, I guess you solved the mystery, possibly could it have been when he was following her from his apartment ?
I don't know as I was a kid when I saw it on NBC Saturday Night Movies. I really remember that scene, maybe it's in "What's Up Doc" as that was also filmed in SFO.
I was like ten years old and the film really made an impression on me. It is my favorite Hitch film and I remember that scene for some strange reason.
The thing is, he does follow her in a twisty pattern in that sequence leading right up to the moment he realizes she is driving around looking for his apartment, which, as was stated, is at the calmer end of Lombard Street. He even repeatedly registers frustration and exasperation trying to figure out why the heck she is driving this way and that way so aimlessly. Therefore, you might have had that image in your mind and memory after your first viewing as a kid since it does somewhat resemble a ride down the twisty part of Lombard Street. But not nearly as tightly twisty, of course.

When they finally meet up at his apartment, she says it was Coit Tower, which we see in the background, that eventually led her right to him.

Then he says, "That's the first time I have been grateful for Coit Tower."

Now, that is a comment I have never really understood. I mean, I understand he is grateful that landmark helped her find his apartment. I just never understood why he seems to be making a disparaging joke about Coit Tower, as though it otherwise is an eyesore or something he'd like to forget is right there and that it finally came through as something of value. Is there some historical San Francisco lore about Coit Tower that would prompt him to say it quite that way that I am not aware of?
 
Last edited:

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
344,432
Messages
4,710,011
Members
141,269
Latest member
ekelks