I love that movie - one of Vincdent's best!!!!
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
John Peskey |
Witchfinder General |
Lead | |
|
Does anyone know why Witchfinder General is not on DVD - region 1?
I love that movie - one of Vincdent's best!!!! |
|||
Koukol 5 |
Re: Witchfinder General | ||
|
Nope...only region 2 (UK)
|
|||
Athos64 |
Re: Witchfinder General | ||
|
From what I've heard, the main reason for not releasing this stems from problems finding an acceptable transfer. The film was released uncut in America on VHS & laserdisc, but it had a different soundtrack, due to rights issues. The British DVD release has the original score, but they had to use a cut version and re-insert the cut material from a much lower quality source. Then of course, there was the fairly recent Sony buyout of MGM (the copyright holders), which has slowed down the release of a lot of their genre films. (The Midnight Movie line seems to have been abandoned completely!)
|
|||
todmichel |
Re: Witchfinder General | ||
|
The French DVD is in Pal - of course - but has two versions of the movie:
The French-dubbed version, which is missing some minutes. and the complete, totally uncut British version, with removable French subtitles, the original music, etc. This disc is VASTLY superior to the British one, as there is no difference of quality during the entire movie. The image is absolutely perfect from the beginning to the end. You can find this DVD from many websites, just type : "Le grand inquisiteur". It was made by Neo Publishing.
|
|||
Koukol 5 |
Re: Witchfinder General | ||
|
But the UK version WITCHFINDER GENERAL has a lot of cuts compared to the US version THE CONQUEROR WORM.
|
|||
todmichel |
Re: Witchfinder General | ||
|
You are probably speaking of the version originally released in Great-Britain, and I agree that it had a lot of cuts.
But the version released on DVD is complete, as is the version on the French DVD - excepted that the French DVD is much better in quality. You can't take in consideration the "nude" sequences of the US version, as: - the British version has the same sequences, but clothed (as in the French DVD. - these sequences were NOT filmed by Michael Reeves, but by the AIP representative, and are specific to the US version and not parts of the original movie. - idem for the Vincent Price's voice at the beginning and end (reciting the Edgar Allan Poe's poem) which was added by AIP and - in my opinion - totally destroys the original ending, with the endless screams of the heroin. So, the British and French DVD are the only "complete" original version, in the sense of "Gojira" being the only original version of Ishiro Honda's masterpiece - and not "Godzilla, King of the Monsters" !!! |
|||
Melkes |
Re: Witchfinder General | ||
|
Thanks for bringing up this French DVD. I was not aware of it and it appears to be a definitive representation of the movie.
|
|||
Koukol 5 |
Re: Witchfinder General | ||
|
Thanks for the info Tod.
i love the artwork of the French dvd. Quote: That has to be the greatest, most powerful scream on film imo |
|||
HalLane |
Re: Witchfinder General | ||
|
Great info and pic, todmichel.
So what you're saying is: the French presentation is definitive, but you still need the American cut for the nudity and the poem? "Snips and snails and poppydoc tails...." |
|||
todmichel |
Re: Witchfinder General | ||
Quote: Yes - exactly ! Some of us think that the French DVD could have included the poem and the alternate "nude" shots as bonus - but as far as the original movie is concerned the DVD is perfect. This is a page from a French site - you'll find comparizons between the British and French DVDs - so you can judge by yourselves. dorian.gray.free.fr/phpBB...c.php?t=87 |
|||
Eric Huffstutler |
Re: Witchfinder General | ||
|
The French version by the Dorian Gray link you provided looks superior but like others, wished they would have kept the original scenes.
Waiting for Region 1 as well. Thought that MGM had committed themselves to starting the Midnite Movies series back up this year after so much flack from fans of it? Eric |
|||
Jameson281 |
Re: Witchfinder General | ||
|
The only reason it isn't out in R1 is bad luck and bad timing.
It was first put on the DVD schedule several years ago, but dropped because the only transfer available was the old Orion open matte one. It was scheduled again a couple years later on a double feature with CRY OF THE BANSHEE, but MGM's restoration wasn't finished so it was dropped and MURDERS IN THE RUE MORGUE substituted. Finally MGM's restoration was finished and it was put on the schedule for fall of 2005. Then the Sony takeover happened and it was dropped. Sony put it on the fall 2006 schedule, but then MGM switched distribution to Fox and it was dropped again because the companies were too busy with the transition and had to drop many titles from the schedule. |
|||
todmichel |
Re: Witchfinder General | ||
Quote: I don't understand : WHAT "original scenes" ??? All the scenes shot by Michael Reeves are in this DVD. What is not in this DVD are the superfluous "nude" scenes shot by Louis M. Heyward behind the back of Michael Reeves, the artificially added poem recited by Price (which totally destroy the end of the movie), and the replacement music, which is absolutely awful !!! As I said, some can wish to have these scenes as bonus, by curiosity, but they are no more "original" than the added sequences inflicted by Universal to some Hammer movies for television ("The Evil of Frankenstein", "The Phantom of the Opera", "Kiss of Evil", etc.). Or the Raymond Burr sequences in the Americanized "Godzilla"... |
|||
Jameson281 |
Re: Witchfinder General | ||
Quote: I think those scenes were directed by Tony Tenser, not Heyward (although they may have been requested by Heyward). They weren't shot behind Reeves' back; he knew about them, was asked to direct them, and refused. |
|||
Squonkamatic |
Re: Witchfinder General | ||
|
WITCHFINDER GENERAL is a wonderful little conundrum of a movie that raises questions about the morality of the tradeoff between re-arranging art or not having it be seen in the first place: which is worse? A lot of films exist in forms that the original or credited director may not have been completely in favor of or participated in all of, best example I can think up off the top of my head is ALIEN 3 which is regarded as a David Fincher film, though only the 2004 Director's Cut DVD features only scenes that he filmed or approved of. The commonly seen theatrical version is somewhat different in tone and mood but he still gets credit for it even if he more or less disowned the project.
CONQUEROR WORM is certainly a different movie than WITCHFINDER GENERAL while still sharing the same core storyline and majority of scenes. Yet it is still Michael Reeves' film and the version that most of us got to know here in North America was the WORM re-cut -- mostly due to so many local TV creature feature screenings during the 1970s as to almost make the film ubiquetous. And of course the Orion home video and Laserdisc releases, both of which featured the altered AIP cut. That's what we are used to even if it wasn't "right" or "legit" or even entirely what Reeves had in mind, a situation compounded by the fact that he died before the film was even in general release, meaning he never got to see his movie become a sensation. But even if he had been alive to protest the alterations AIP "owned" the rights to the film in North America and added the content they did, mostly because the form that the movie appears to take -- gothic period horror -- almost "required" that kind of content to resonate with the more jaded North American audiences and their taste for ghoulish excess. Put in a different way, if the CONQUEROR WORM prints did NOT have the AIP inserts & alterations it may not have developed the ferverent following and controversy that the film engendered. Like it or not, that's the way we were introduced to the movie and got to know it and for many viewers the more "pure" British and European versions don't quite have the same suckerpunch of flesh, sadism, blood and mind numbing gloom. I am sure that the WITCHFINDER GENERAL prints are probably a better version of the same story but it's not any or more less legitimate than the CONQUEROR WORM prints, even if Reeves himself was not the one to make the additions and in fact reacted vocally in opposition to the alterations. Movies get re-cut or altered by their distributors all the time. For better or worse the AIP prints of CONQUEROR WORM seem to be a more calculated blunt force trauma assault on the nerves and sensibilities of the viewer when considering the time in which the movie was made. Yes it is a blasphemy that Reeves' art was @#%$ with in the way that it was but the result was a movie that really did catch viewers by surprise. It has the appearence of a Hammer-esque production with shapely babes in push up gowns, people riding horses and living in castles or quaint villages, but underneath it's surface there is a barely contained rage that really boils over in a way that exceeds anything that similarly looking & sounding movies had ever done. By contrast the WITCHFINDER GENERAL prints come across as a costume drama that just happens to center on Matthew Hopkins but is just as much about the Cromwell era and the changes it brought to the traditional rural feudal order. The contradiction here is that Reeves' film as he envisioned it may not have engendered the reaction that the AIP altered form did, for better or worse, and my thinking has always been that the AIP staff who got the job of promoting the film for North American audiences came to the conclusion that it needed to be spiced up. As for the Vincent Price narration of the Edgar Allan Poe verse from which the AIP print takes it's name that was also a marketing ploy to try and snooker viewers into making an overt Poe association with the film, which is what most viewers circa 1968/1969 thought of when the name Vincent Price came up, the reason for which should be self explanatory when looking at Price's resume from the 1960s. It also bears noting that Price wasn't Michael Reeves' first choice for the role: He wanted Donald Pleasance to play Hopkins but the decision to use Price was forced on him, and if the accounts I have read are correct he and Reeves did not get on well during the filming. To a certain degree then it is correct to surmise that the entire project was taken from Reeves' control and became a "filmed deal", and when AIP saw the finished product they decided it was too ambiguous and heightened the exploitation angles to appeal to the horror movie sect since their ultimate involvement in making the film wasn't to create "art" as it were but to sell tickets to a movie. They wanted a film that would guarantee box office and this was a very low budget potboiler, Reeves still a very young director just getting started and his creative control over the project thus extremely limited. AIP went ahead and changed WITCHFINDER into WORM and the result was a sensation that more or less created the witchhunt & inquisition idiom -- and I for one don't think that would necessarily have been the case if they had left the movie as he had assembled it himself. Whether or not such meddling was right or wrong is almost a separate issue, though it is very sad to consider that having his work hijacked and bastardized by AIP probably contributed to the anxiety & depression that ultimately resulted in his death by drug overdose (barbituates). Just to be clear I am not saying that one version or the other is better or more desireable, and like finally getting to see something like Sergio Martino's original version of ISLAND OF THE FISHMEN as opposed to Roger Corman's distillation called SCREAMERS it is important that Reeves' original vision for the film gets seen as it was intended to. But at the same time you can't fault people who are used to the sleaze and filth that made WORM so potent to be somewhat hung up on that version as well. The obvious solution is a 2 DVD set that shows both of them with equal care given to presentation ... and if I recall a discussion thread back at the Latarnia forums it was pretty much accepted that Tigon would have staged WITCHFINDER GENERAL as a 4:3 open matte shoot that would then have been cropped to 1:66:1 for theatrical screening so both the fullframe and LBX presentations are "correct" depending upon which context you intend to view the film. My own preference is for Reeves' WITCHFINDER cut to be seen letterboxed and the AIP print shown fullframe, which sort of enhances the scuzzy exploitational nature of their edit by removing it from any artifice of appearance in terms of "film as art". As such I can understand why MGM might have been less than eager to release WORM based on the somewhat more worn and home video-ish transfer by Orion, which even on Laserdisc has a kind of cruddy, grindhouse look to it that is at odds with the whole idea of DVD restorations. And we have also seen how film companies now routinely go ahead and crop or otherwise reformat picture ratios to cater to the 16x9 widescreen TV crowd even if doing such is not in the best interests of the film in question. I would be interested in having one of these French releases in my library but would ALWAYS be drawn to the AIP version of WORM if only that it delivers the motion picture that I came to admire & be downright afraid of. The last time I watched CONQUEROR WORM I was zonked out of my skull on a certain hallucinogen and the scene where Elizabeth Clark is immolated while tied to the ladder stopped the show cold, this is not a "party movie" to be taken lightly or watched on whimsey and like it or not the more staid WITCHFINDER edit will always feel like it's missing something, even if it didn't belong there in the first place. |
|||
Tumak |
Re: Witchfinder General | ||
|
Great comments, Squonk; a most interesting read.
I've never seen Witchfinder General in any form; it's one that has somehow always eluded me. But from what I am gathering, there are actually three versions of the film?? 1) Reeves' cut 2) "Continental" version with added violence and nudity, but the same music as Reeves' cut 3) "Conqueror Worm" version, which is the Continental version with a name change, the added poem, and different music. Is this correct? |
|||
Jameson281 |
Re: Witchfinder General | ||
Quote: The theatrical version had the same music as the "Reeves cut"; it was only replaced for the home video release. |
|||
Tumak |
Re: Witchfinder General | ||
|
OK, I did a little poking around on the web, and now, as I understand it, only nudity was added to Reeves' cut, all the violence was his to begin with. So that means we have five versions:
1) Reeves' original cut, includes all the violence but never had nudity 2) UK theatrical version- censored version of Reeves' cut, missing violent scenes 3) Continental/export version- Reeves' original cut plus added nudity 4) Conqueror Worm theatrical version- Continental/export version with name change and added poem 5) Conqueror Worm home video version- different music from CW theatrical Squonkamatic, are you comparing Conqueror Worm with the toned-down UK theatrical version rather than the restored Reeves' cut? (If the violent content of the Reeves' cut and CW are the same, I find it difficult to believe that the mere addition of a few boobies could result in the differing responses to the film that you describe.) |
|||
Tim Lucas VW |
Re: Witchfinder General | ||
Quote: The US theatrical version did NOT feature the nudity found in the continental version, and it also had less graphic violence than was featured in the reconstructed version issued on Region 2 DVD. |
|||
todmichel |
Re: Witchfinder General | ||
|
For Squonkamatic:
The problem is that we are not speaking of the same British version... As Tumak noticed, your post refers to the CUT British version, as it was originally released in British cinemas. Of course, "The Conqueror Worm" is much more interesting than that version ! But my own post was about the original version shot by Reeves, which is quite another movie, much bloodier than the version seen in British cinemas. And in fact this original version is even MORE, not "less" bloodier than "The Conqueror Worm", I agree with Tim Lucas on this point. In fact, it's the version (if I remember well) which was released in Brussels in 1970, when I discovered the movie. This version doesn't include the "nude" sequences, which were in another "alternate version". The girls in these sequences are clothed, and they are the original actresses (for the nude sequences, other girls were chosen). It doesn't include the Price prologue and epilogue narration. And the ending of this "complete British version" is much more frightening than the voice of Price in the American version, where the strident screams of the heroin were eliminated. "The Conqueror Worm" version was without a doubt considered as an important work of art as you told in your post - but in Europe, the complete version of "The Witchfinder General" was also a triumph and considered as one of the best English films ever made. In England, reviews were of course mixed, as almost nobody saw the complete version at the time of release. If you have seen the Region 2 DVD mentioned by Tim Lucas, the current French DVD presents exactly the same version. The only - but important - difference being that the scenes which were censored for the British release in theaters in 1969 and replaced for the DVD are NOT taken from an inferior source (as it was the case in the British DVD), but are totally indiscernable from the rest of the movie. And the transfert itself (for all the movie, not only these sequences) is superior. |
|||
Tumak |
Re: Witchfinder General | ||
|
OK, another try...five versions, as follows:
1) Reeves' original cut, includes all the violence but never had nudity 2) UK theatrical version- censored version of Reeves' cut, missing violent scenes 3) Continental/export version- Reeves' original cut plus added nudity 4) Conqueror Worm theatrical version- toned-down version of Reeves' cut (but not as toned-down as UK theatrical version?), with name change and added poem 5) Conqueror Worm home video version- Continental/export version with name change, added poem, and new music |
|||