>You said you were "familiar" with my re-cut, not that you had ever watched it.<

Of for goodness sake, Clark! What's the point of the semantics? (And I believe you are factually mistaken; we've discussed this many many many times, and I'll bet I said I'd "seen" or "watched" it, at some point.)

>And my point remains, nothing in Gary's book, other than the minor Mina mixup, undercuts the possibility that an early cut of the film followed the shooting script continuity. Nothing.<

And the point also remains, that there is no hard proof for that theory. None.

In fact, the complex series of writes, rewrites, shoots, reshoots, previews, and cutting tweaks (fairly standard, for the time) that Rhodes documents, stands against the simplistic concept of CUT ONE: BROWNING'S, LETTER-FAITHFUL TO THE SCRIPT and CUT TWO: LAEMMLE"S BASTARDIZATION OF CUT ONE.

-Craig

Monsterkid since the Kennedy Era