Yuku free message boards

My Recent Posts · (08/12/08

Tags : None

http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/topic/17841?page=42

That said, I find it funny that this thread is still alive and kicking yet the recently shown uncut version of PSYCHO is getting little to no press.

anyone have more information on this - I found these links and would like to know if
this was the above quote referred to - they are not "recent" posts from two years ago

http://www.hitchcockwiki.com/hitchcock/forums/viewtopic.php?p=4168&sid=f79c311066e054024bf300f7e666cf2e

The following url announces a new Psycho-box-set which includes the first (?) uncut version of Psycho on DVD for the 18.05.2006 from Universal:

http://www.ofdb.de/view.php?page=fassung_vorab&fid=2251&vid=2836

the correct url of the uncut scenes is here:

http://www.schnittberichte.com/schnittbericht.php?ID=1921

This is more recent posts on uncut Pyscho

http://wordpress.com/tag/alfred-hitchcock/

My Recent Posts · (08/12/08

I'm astonished that some people on forums are AGAINST the longer version being released.

My Recent Posts · (08/12/08

I see no point in it. Hitchcock's preferred cut was the version released theatrically.

My Recent Posts · (08/12/08

I don't see the harm in releasing a longer, possibly uncensored version. Strangers on a train had two versions on the dvd.

My Recent Posts · (08/12/08

But Hitchcock wanted the public to see only one of those STRANGERS; I'm sure the same is true for PSYCHO. I don't think "censorship" was involved, certainly not in the case of STRANGERS.

My Recent Posts · (08/12/08

I gotta say, if I wrote something (for a book or article or whatever) and then re-read it and either didn't like it or realized it was incorrect, or whatEVER, and cut it out ... *I* sure wouldn't want anybody putting it back in, down the line.

My Recent Posts · (08/12/08

Just for what it's worth, Alfred Hitchcock's Pyscho DVD "Collector's Edition" does show part of a
scene of Janet Leigh undressing at the Bates Motel that was not in the released version of the film ; in a special
section of the DVD.

My Recent Posts · (08/12/08

Unless Hitchcock was like Stanley Kubrick, who definitely did NOT want audiences (or "history" or "posterity") to see what he cut from his films, I see nothing wrong with including outtakes--AS outtakes, not reinserted into the film.

I don't know how to classify things like the recent Blu-Ray of THE SAND PEBBLES. It includes the cut of the movie as it played in most theaters--but there's also a collection of additional scenes that were included in the road show edition of the movie. Since the print on the disc is presented with an overture and an intermission, I wonder why they didn't simply feature the road show version itself?

My Recent Posts · (08/12/08

Bill, to add to what you posted, when the Wizard of Oz was re-released into the movie theatres
in the late 1990's, the extended Scarecrow dance footage that was edited out that was
found was not reinserted into the film. It has appeared in Specials on the movie, though.

My Recent Posts · (08/12/08

I have a double disc edition of THE SAND PEBBLES that has both versions on it. For some reason, as with the double disc OKLAHOMA! that contains both CinemaScope and TODD A-0 versions, the roadshow print is of inferior quality.

My Recent Posts · (08/12/08

Add the cut scenes as 'extras' and that'll do just fine. PSYCHO, as we know it, is what the great director wanted us to see. Adding footage back is not giving us Hitchcock's PSYCHO, it's damaging it. Hitchcock's version is a well-nigh perfect film, 'improvements' are not required.

My Recent Posts · (08/12/08

Agreed, material of inherent interest should be kept separate.

I'd like to see a supplement with things like the trailer, the contemporaneous Alfred Hitchcock Presents episodes that feature the Bates house and/or sets, some Saul Bass storyboards and yes, outtake snippets as well.

My Recent Posts · (08/13/08

Hitchcock was always trying to push the limits so why is everyone so sure that he didn't want this "longer" cut seen since it was the version to play everywhere except for America?

My Recent Posts · (08/13/08

That's what I think. Why are we so sure that Hitch wouldn't have wanted some more of Janet Leigh's body, and more blood. This is Psycho, not Bambi. We're well aware of censors causing problems for filmmakers, would even Hitch have the clout to go against them?

I'd argue for its inclusion in the film proper on the new DVD, as an alternative (ala Strangers on a train) or as the main feature. It's not like the current US cut isn't avaliable.

And why should the US version be considered the definitive cut, when for all we know, the Euro version could have been Hitch's preferred version? Should the British cuts of Curse of Frankenstein (missing eyeball shot) and Horror of Dracula (missing a staking closeup) take precedence over the longer US cuts?

My Recent Posts · (08/13/08

Perhaps I just read the wrong "source" but I've always heard that Hitchcock had a problem with the American censors on PSYCHO, which resulted in several shots being shortened. We all know the debate about "the nudity" in the shower scene and I thought I had heard that they had trouble keeping everything here in the film because the rating folks kept thinking they saw nudity.

If these scenes were cut by the U.S. censors then I don't see what the problem is with adding them back. It's not going to make the film any better but it's not going to make it worse either. I doubt the majority of people who don't know every scene in the film would even notice 18 seconds.

My Recent Posts · (08/13/08

Hal, the Psycho DVD the Special Edition, has everything you could want on the movie and
then some!!

It has a great documentary on the Making of Psycho, with Janet Leigh, Joseph Stefano.
It has trailers, and tons of bonus materials.

A real treasure to look at .

My understanding is that Hitchcock wanted the Janet Leigh undressing scene at the Motel
included in the film, that's why it was filmed, but it was allowed to be showed in the
theatres due to censorship. If he wanted to have it included, then I would think it would
be OK to reinstate it.

My Recent Posts · (08/13/08

Yeah, he's on record in his Truffaut interviews as having wanted to go further in exploring nudity:

"In truth, Janet Leigh should not have been wearing a brassiere. I can see nothing immoral about that scene and I get no special kick out of it. But the scene would have been more interesting if the girl's bare breasts had been rubbing against the man's chest..."

My Recent Posts · (08/13/08

To muddy the waters even more (one of my specialties), I'd swear I once read somewhere that Hitchcock made the gruesome scenes in PSYCHO more gruesome than he wanted them to be; so that when the censors told him to pare 'em down, he'd "grudgingly" cut a little in order to end up with what he actually originally wanted.

Just watched a 1960 episode of JOHNNY STACCATO where a nice, clean-cut young fellow, a ventriloquist, is actually a knife killer and doesn't know it, and is always being talked-to (in a woman's voice) by his dummy (he's doing the talking for both, of course). Made me think of PSYCHO -- maybe it was meant to. Also made at Universal, probably by some of the same behind-the-scenes people.

My Recent Posts · (08/13/08

Michael Elliott wrote:
Hitchcock was always trying to push the limits so why is everyone so sure that he didn't want this "longer" cut seen since it was the version to play everywhere except for America?

Damn Michael!
Another fine post.
How do we know that Hitchcock was not talked into cutting these scenes out for a more prudish audience?
The scenes strike me as censorship...in other words I think they add to the film.

My Recent Posts · (08/13/08

Michael Elliott wrote:
Hitchcock was always trying to push the limits so why is everyone so sure that he didn't want this "longer" cut seen since it was the version to play everywhere except for America?

Because in all that I've read about PSYCHO, which is a lot (but not all that has been written on the film), I have never, not once, encountered even a suggestion that Hitchcock wanted PSYCHO to be any longer, or any different, overseas than here. There was not, and has never been, an "American" board of censors. There were guidelines by the MPAA, and for years there were >regional< censorship boards, but for movies, there was never a board of censors for the countery overall.

If someone can turn up an authentic quote from Hitchcock or any Hitchcock historian that there was a final, locked-in print of PSYCHO that was >then< cut by the demands of Paramount or another organization that could exert control over filmmakers, then I'd be interested in seeing THAT version of PSYCHO. But there's no evidence that such a print ever existed. Sure, there were earlier cuts which had more stuff in them--that's almost always true for movies. But for Hitchcock, it was LESS true than for most filmmakers; he usually didn't shoot material that didn't end up in the movie, because he was usually so very careful in structuring the screenplay in the first place.

How do we know that Hitchcock was not talked into cutting these scenes out for a more prudish audience?

That's a peculiar question. Of course you cannot prove a negative--the proof has to come from the other side. Let's see some evidence that Hitchcock WAS talked into cutting this stuff for any other reasons than his own.

My Recent Posts · (08/13/08

A link for information on the censored scene, including photographs of it

http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s51psycho.html

Author	Comment
Bobtheman	Uncut Psycho Shown Recently	Lead	[-]
(08/12/08 8:13 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Tags : None http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/topic/17841?page=42 That said, I find it funny that this thread is still alive and kicking yet the recently shown uncut version of PSYCHO is getting little to no press. anyone have more information on this - I found these links and would like to know if this was the above quote referred to - they are not "recent" posts from two years ago http://www.hitchcockwiki.com/hitchcock/forums/viewtopic.php?p=4168&sid=f79c311066e054024bf300f7e666cf2e The following url announces a new Psycho-box-set which includes the first (?) uncut version of Psycho on DVD for the 18.05.2006 from Universal: http://www.ofdb.de/view.php?page=fassung_vorab&fid=2251&vid=2836 the correct url of the uncut scenes is here: http://www.schnittberichte.com/schnittbericht.php?ID=1921 This is more recent posts on uncut Pyscho http://wordpress.com/tag/alfred-hitchcock/
killer meteor		#1	[-]
(08/12/08 10:08 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	I'm astonished that some people on forums are AGAINST the longer version being released.
Bill Warren		#2	[-]
(08/12/08 3:12 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	I see no point in it. Hitchcock's preferred cut was the version released theatrically.
killer meteor		#3	[-]
(08/12/08 4:07 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	I don't see the harm in releasing a longer, possibly uncensored version. Strangers on a train had two versions on the dvd.
Bill Warren		#4	[-]
(08/12/08 4:36 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	But Hitchcock wanted the public to see only one of those STRANGERS; I'm sure the same is true for PSYCHO. I don't think "censorship" was involved, certainly not in the case of STRANGERS.
TomWeaver999		#5	[-]
(08/12/08 5:24 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	I gotta say, if I wrote something (for a book or article or whatever) and then re-read it and either didn't like it or realized it was incorrect, or whatEVER, and cut it out ... I sure wouldn't want anybody putting it back in, down the line.
Bobtheman	Psycho Uncut	#6	[-]
(08/12/08 6:26 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Just for what it's worth, Alfred Hitchcock's Pyscho DVD "Collector's Edition" does show part of a scene of Janet Leigh undressing at the Bates Motel that was not in the released version of the film ; in a special section of the DVD.
Bill Warren		#7	[-]
(08/12/08 8:16 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Unless Hitchcock was like Stanley Kubrick, who definitely did NOT want audiences (or "history" or "posterity") to see what he cut from his films, I see nothing wrong with including outtakes--AS outtakes, not reinserted into the film. I don't know how to classify things like the recent Blu-Ray of THE SAND PEBBLES. It includes the cut of the movie as it played in most theaters--but there's also a collection of additional scenes that were included in the road show edition of the movie. Since the print on the disc is presented with an overture and an intermission, I wonder why they didn't simply feature the road show version itself?
Bobtheman		#8	[-]
(08/12/08 8:23 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Bill, to add to what you posted, when the Wizard of Oz was re-released into the movie theatres in the late 1990's, the extended Scarecrow dance footage that was edited out that was found was not reinserted into the film. It has appeared in Specials on the movie, though.
ryanbrennan		#9	[-]
(08/12/08 10:24 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	I have a double disc edition of THE SAND PEBBLES that has both versions on it. For some reason, as with the double disc OKLAHOMA! that contains both CinemaScope and TODD A-0 versions, the roadshow print is of inferior quality.
Rick		#10	[-]
(08/12/08 11:00 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Add the cut scenes as 'extras' and that'll do just fine. PSYCHO, as we know it, is what the great director wanted us to see. Adding footage back is not giving us Hitchcock's PSYCHO, it's damaging it. Hitchcock's version is a well-nigh perfect film, 'improvements' are not required.
HalLane		#11	[-]
(08/12/08 11:36 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Agreed, material of inherent interest should be kept separate. I'd like to see a supplement with things like the trailer, the contemporaneous Alfred Hitchcock Presents episodes that feature the Bates house and/or sets, some Saul Bass storyboards and yes, outtake snippets as well.
Michael Elliott		#12	[-]
(08/13/08 12:01 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Hitchcock was always trying to push the limits so why is everyone so sure that he didn't want this "longer" cut seen since it was the version to play everywhere except for America?
killer meteor		#13	[-]
(08/13/08 3:19 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	That's what I think. Why are we so sure that Hitch wouldn't have wanted some more of Janet Leigh's body, and more blood. This is Psycho, not Bambi. We're well aware of censors causing problems for filmmakers, would even Hitch have the clout to go against them? I'd argue for its inclusion in the film proper on the new DVD, as an alternative (ala Strangers on a train) or as the main feature. It's not like the current US cut isn't avaliable. And why should the US version be considered the definitive cut, when for all we know, the Euro version could have been Hitch's preferred version? Should the British cuts of Curse of Frankenstein (missing eyeball shot) and Horror of Dracula (missing a staking closeup) take precedence over the longer US cuts?
Michael Elliott		#14	[-]
(08/13/08 3:48 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Perhaps I just read the wrong "source" but I've always heard that Hitchcock had a problem with the American censors on PSYCHO, which resulted in several shots being shortened. We all know the debate about "the nudity" in the shower scene and I thought I had heard that they had trouble keeping everything here in the film because the rating folks kept thinking they saw nudity. If these scenes were cut by the U.S. censors then I don't see what the problem is with adding them back. It's not going to make the film any better but it's not going to make it worse either. I doubt the majority of people who don't know every scene in the film would even notice 18 seconds.
Bobtheman		#15	[-]
(08/13/08 11:16 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Hal, the Psycho DVD the Special Edition, has everything you could want on the movie and then some!! It has a great documentary on the Making of Psycho, with Janet Leigh, Joseph Stefano. It has trailers, and tons of bonus materials. A real treasure to look at . My understanding is that Hitchcock wanted the Janet Leigh undressing scene at the Motel included in the film, that's why it was filmed, but it was allowed to be showed in the theatres due to censorship. If he wanted to have it included, then I would think it would be OK to reinstate it.
Jeffrey Allen Rydell		#16	[-]
(08/13/08 11:20 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Yeah, he's on record in his Truffaut interviews as having wanted to go further in exploring nudity: "In truth, Janet Leigh should not have been wearing a brassiere. I can see nothing immoral about that scene and I get no special kick out of it. But the scene would have been more interesting if the girl's bare breasts had been rubbing against the man's chest..." - Jeff
TomWeaver999		#17	[-]
(08/13/08 11:38 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	To muddy the waters even more (one of my specialties), I'd swear I once read somewhere that Hitchcock made the gruesome scenes in PSYCHO more gruesome than he wanted them to be; so that when the censors told him to pare 'em down, he'd "grudgingly" cut a little in order to end up with what he actually originally wanted. Just watched a 1960 episode of JOHNNY STACCATO where a nice, clean-cut young fellow, a ventriloquist, is actually a knife killer and doesn't know it, and is always being talked-to (in a woman's voice) by his dummy (he's doing the talking for both, of course). Made me think of PSYCHO -- maybe it was meant to. Also made at Universal, probably by some of the same behind-the-scenes people.
Koukol 5		#18	[-]
(08/13/08 4:49 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Michael Elliott wrote: Hitchcock was always trying to push the limits so why is everyone so sure that he didn't want this "longer" cut seen since it was the version to play everywhere except for America? Damn Michael! Another fine post. How do we know that Hitchcock was not talked into cutting these scenes out for a more prudish audience? The scenes strike me as censorship...in other words I think they add to the film.
Bill Warren		#19	[-]
(08/13/08 5:00 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Michael Elliott wrote: Hitchcock was always trying to push the limits so why is everyone so sure that he didn't want this "longer" cut seen since it was the version to play everywhere except for America? Because in all that I've read about PSYCHO, which is a lot (but not all that has been written on the film), I have never, not once, encountered even a suggestion that Hitchcock wanted PSYCHO to be any longer, or any different, overseas than here. There was not, and has never been, an "American" board of censors. There were guidelines by the MPAA, and for years there were >regional< censorship boards, but for movies, there was never a board of censors for the countery overall. If someone can turn up an authentic quote from Hitchcock or any Hitchcock historian that there was a final, locked-in print of PSYCHO that was >then< cut by the demands of Paramount or another organization that could exert control over filmmakers, then I'd be interested in seeing THAT version of PSYCHO. But there's no evidence that such a print ever existed. Sure, there were earlier cuts which had more stuff in them--that's almost always true for movies. But for Hitchcock, it was LESS true than for most filmmakers; he usually didn't shoot material that didn't end up in the movie, because he was usually so very careful in structuring the screenplay in the first place. How do we know that Hitchcock was not talked into cutting these scenes out for a more prudish audience? That's a peculiar question. Of course you cannot prove a negative--the proof has to come from the other side. Let's see some evidence that Hitchcock WAS talked into cutting this stuff for any other reasons than his own. Last Edited By: Bill Warren 08/13/08 5:07 PM. Edited 2 times.
Bobtheman		#20	[-]
(08/13/08 5:48 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	A link for information on the censored scene, including photographs of it http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s51psycho.html

Yuku free message boards

Uncut Psycho Shown Recently

Uncut Psycho Shown Recently

Quick Reply