Topic: Curtain Call

[Antares]

Is this all you do now, Mr Grim Reaper? Not heard from you in a while properly. How's the dodgy computer? Done any reviews lately?

I'm still having problems with it, but I think I might have narrowed it down to a dying video card.

As for reviews, I've pretty much lost interest in writing them. I have close to a dozen which I've started, but have no impetus to finish. I think it stems from having spent too much time over at Filmspotters and having been disgusted by the elitism of some of the members in their reviews and responses. I came close to closing my account at one time, but I still pretty much stay there now. A couple of them do tend to piss me off, but the film discussion can be interesting most of the time.

[Najemikon]

Not been there myself for ages, but mainly because I was too busy to post even here.

[Antares]

Pete Rugolo

Barbara Kent, one of the last silent film actors.

[Antares]

Anneka Di Lorenzo

Liviu Ciulei

[Jimmy]

Probably no one else except me know her for anything else than More More More and What's Your Name What's Your Number, but another pioneer in my field of expertise met St. Peter yesterday

Andrea True, 68, dies in Kingston

[dfmorgan]

Ken Russell

[northbloke]

An amazing and visionary film-maker, it's a shame his later work never maintained the heights of his earlier career.
Here's hoping Warner Bros will finally release The Devils to cash in on the free publicity... I mean to sincerely show their respect to a great director.

[Jimmy]

Will never happen...

But I don't understand. You're British and BFI will release it next year, so it will be available. Who give a fuck about MGM and their "think of the children" mentality? It's their loss not mine... anyway they would release it on a MOD DVD-R wich is useless and high road robbery.

[northbloke]

The BFI are only the releasing the X-rated cinema version, Warner Bros have refused to licence them the extra material needed to make it the full director's cut. Which is quite ridiculous as it's been shown on TV over here at least twice. Hopefully his death will mean it will be shown again and I can record it.

[Jimmy]

Maybe but the cinema X cut is the real version of the film, the other cut is just a patchwork and I'm not even sure if this is a real director cut (kind of what they did with Ridley Scott and his so-called director cut of Blade Runner).

[northbloke]

I don't understand. The footage they found in 2004 (I think) was of scenes they were forced to cut from the film before they were allowed to release it (and there are rumours Warner Bros did a bit of their own extra trimming) and thought to be lost.
It wasn't Ken Russell deciding to have another go, like Ridley Scott did, they were simply putting back what was taken out.

[Jimmy]

I don't understand.

Easy
This isn't a director cut as Ken Russell didn't approve it and the only real version of a film is the theatrical version unless the director approve the addition. Without this approval this is only a studio hack job to create the illusion of a new release to bring more cash. I know they haven't released it, but the TV rights give them this cash...

[Najemikon]

I don't understand. The footage they found in 2004 (I think) was of scenes they were forced to cut from the film before they were allowed to release it (and there are rumours Warner Bros did a bit of their own extra trimming) and thought to be lost.
It wasn't Ken Russell deciding to have another go, like Ridley Scott did, they were simply putting back what was taken out.

Blade Runner Director's Cut wasn't Ridley having another go. It was the studio giving him another chance with very limited resources; it was as if they'd finally admitted they'd cocked up the theatrical cut, but still wouldn't invest the time or money in doing properly. Ridley didn't have the opportunity to do it properly until The Final Cut.

[northbloke]

But Ken Russell did more than approve it, he went back into the edit suite and worked on the restoration himself. What they put together was a lot closer (I think there's still stuff missing) to what he wanted to release in 1971 but wasn't allowed to. That makes it the real version for me. I believe the real version of a film is what the film-makers wanted you to see, not what the studios/censors allow you to see. And sometimes there's a big difference between them.

@Jon,
I meant the Final Cut when I said that, sorry I wasn't clear. And I still think the point stands - Ridley Scott used technology to make a film he couldn't have made in 1982 (or whenever it was), so in a sense he "had another go". In the case of The Devils they were only putting back something that had been taken out.

[Jimmy]

I believe the real version of a film is what the film-makers wanted you to see, not what the studios/censors allow you to see.

I agree here no problem on the studio part, but what we remember of a movie is what we have seen and not what we could have been seen (seem I put a lot of verbe there... is it grammatically corect?). Sometimes new cut sound like cash-in ripoff to my ears. Unless the director supervise the work himself (I'm not convince he did in this case) and only if it isn't changing history as Lucas and Spielberg did so many times...

And sometimes there's a big difference between them.

Not necessary true in this case, but more often than not it isn't the case. Just adding one F word and a bare bottom to jack up the rating of a dvd release doesn't make a big difference.