Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Cinema Paradiso Special Edition Vs Standard Version

This is topic Cinema Paradiso Special Edition Vs Standard Version in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000160

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 06-23-2003, 12:53 PM:

Managed to finally see this movie on video over the weekend (It was the special edition that I saw). A great film I really enjoyed it.

Does anyone know of a website that details all the additional scenes that are in the special edition (UK 15 Cert) and not in the standard version. (UK PG Cert).

Posted by R. Andrew Diercks (Member # 1725) on 06-24-2003, 11:07 AM:

If you haven't seen the original theatrical version you need to. While the extended version is great, the original had great editing. For length mainly they cut the correct scenes that weren't necessary to the story. Mostly after the protagonist returned to the village for Alfredo's death. Sadly, I don't know of any websites.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-05-2003, 12:09 AM:

Having just seen the New Version....I can understand the change in rating...none of the nothing left to imagination [sex]

scenes were in the original theatrical version.

I have mixed views of the extended version...as with most deleted scenes...I'd say that 10% of them would have added to the movie whilst the rest should have been deleted. In the case of the New Version...it actually changes the feel of the story greatly. The added scenes at the end of the film almost don't fit in correctly...like they were just tacked in there and distrupt the story. At the same time, they give a great understanding to some of the back story and better sense of closure.

Steve

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 07-13-2003, 10:04 PM:

The DVD that I have has the original version on one side and the new extended version on the other.

Personally, I think the original version is a bit more magical. The new version adds some harsh realities that take away from the romanticism of the original. There are three things in the new version that bother me: the explicit scenes of Toto losing his virginity to the town prostitute (although it explains the look he gives her when he watches them destruct the cinema), Alfredo not telling Toto that Elena came by as she promised (makes Alfredo a bad guy of sorts), and all of the added scenes that practically turn Toto into a stalker. But at least they didn't make Toto the father of Elena's daughter, which would have reduced the plot to that of a made-for-TV film.

In both versions, the film ends with him watching the montage of kissing scenes in the theatre. IMHO, this works better in the original, because it represents his lost love, than in the new version, where his relationship has been resolved. Then (in the original), the credits roll, and there's a very short scene of him seeing a woman who looks like his girlfriend (as an adult.) It's up to the audience to decide whether they get together again or not (and punishment for those who leave before the credits.) I thought that worked much better because the audience can decide for itself what happens and each audience member will probabl decide what happens based upon their own view of romance and life.

So while Harvey Weinstein was originally heavily criticized for cutting this film from the director's original intention, IMHO, he did exactly the right thing.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 07-14-2003, 09:56 AM:

This is the third version of this picture. When it originally opened in Italy it bombed. Then they re-cut the film into what is the US version and now they added more to the originally Italian for the new Special Edition Version.

155 minutes-----Italian version
123 minutes-----International Shorten version
173 minutes-----Director's Cut

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 07-16-2003, 01:38 PM:

Off Topic:

Soon I'll be watching Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet.

..and it's the 'proper' 4 hour version I picked up on video (mmmm widescreen also) [Smile]

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 07-16-2003, 05:10 PM:

You should of seen it in 70MM. [Razz]

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 10-03-2004, 05:24 PM:

It has been 445 days since the last post.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-03-2004, 05:24 PM:

Well, I just watched it again and it still is a GREAT movie. I chose the Director's cut this time. The added scenes still feel awkward and still change the feel of the story greatly.

Some movies will live on through the ages...this is certainly one of them.

Steve

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-03-2004, 09:16 PM:

quote: Michael Brown
Soon I'll be watching Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet

I have so say thats not something I'd ever want watch [sleep]

! I have to agree with what Billy Bob Thornton said the other night on Leno.... "Shakespere and all his cronies are old stuff now".... "they've been done way too many times already". I never could stand that stuff.

Now Cinema Paradiso, no matter which version you watch is a brilliant film and I too have some misgivings about the directors cut. The ending on the original has alot more meaning to it. Both versions have their purpose though.

Mark

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 10-04-2004, 03:27 AM:

Cinema Paradiso didn't need additional sex scenes for this crowd. If it just had a couple of extended, explicit shots of RP-40 running on the screen or of an RTA on the projector, it would be cinema technician porn. Add one of those 1970s porno movie soundtracks of guitar, bass & Hammond organ, & folks here would be ashamed to admit that they watched it.

quote:
Soon I'll be watching Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have so say thats not something I'd ever want watch

Ugh, Branagh's Hamlet, ugh! Turgid, glacial, pompous, self-obsessed with both its Shakespeareyness & 70mm-ness! And Branagh can't help when he gets blown off the screen by actors doing what they're supposed to & making it real & entertaining, like the gravediggers & Heston as the tragedian. And I don't even particularly like Billy Crystal or Charlton Heston, but they were running the game right!

I like Shakespeare, but I can't think of a Shakespeare movie off the top of my head that was even acceptable as a piece of popular entertainment, with the exception of the recent "Titus" with Anthony Hopkins & the Warner "Midsummer Night's Dream" with Cagney, Mickey Rooney, Joe E. Brown, etc.

They can't even get Macbeth right. It's the shortest, fastest play, & the play is basically a 90 mile an hour, hold onto your hair & behind horror movie. But if they make a movie of Shakespeare, they've always got to make it some damn ponderous thing like the Pope slogging his way through a mudhole.

They played it differently when they had to put butts in the seats & it was popular entertainment, not pretentious & ponderous "culture". Who'd pay to see that Shakespeare movie sludge, much less come back?

There's a great article on the evolution of the degraded state of Shakespearian presentation in the US at
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~DRBR/levine.html

Posted by Joshua Waaland (Member # 287) on 10-04-2004, 06:55 AM:

Cinema Paradiso has been my favorite film since the first time I saw it about 7-8 years ago. Not necessarily because it is about a projectionist but because it is just a great movie. I always felt like I was left hanging at the end of the original cut. I too saw the part in the credits when Toto sees Elena, but it never solidified it for me. I wanted to see them get back together and live happily ever after. Isn't that what the movies are for? I go to get away from real life. I see enough real life every day. I don't won't to be depressed when I watch a movie too. I hate sad endings. I mean he is left lonely and by himself in the end. What fun is there in that?

I bought a director's cut DVD from someone on ebay that was in China. I almost wish I hadn't watched it now. I was loving it when Toto found Elena again, but I didn't like that she was cheating on her husband with him. I felt it really cheapened it for me. It helped bring closure to the film but like someone else said it is almost like a cheap made for tv movie and it does lessen the romanticism of the film's original ending.

Posted by Gilbert Travin (Member # 2138) on 12-06-2004, 01:55 AM:

Hi all !
I had seen, a "lot" of years ago, a long version at TV.
Last week, I saw the dvd standard version.
I like this film because it shows a magic time : the time of single theaters with two machines and carbon arc lamphouses ! The time of familial public, the time of NO TV [Big Grin]

Curiously, Cinema Paradiso shows only one machine in the booth.
What do you think of that ???
Jacques Perrin (adult TOTO) is a "specialist" of this kind of role :
In "Le pacte des loups" ("Brotherhood of the Wolf"), he plays an aristocrat who became old ;
In "Cinema Paradiso" he plays Toto adult ;
In "Les choristes" ("Chorists") he plays the young singer adult.
Do you remember that he was the young sailor starring " Les demoiselles de Rochefort" ("The young girls of Rochefort") in 1967 ???!!!

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 12-06-2004, 01:03 PM:

quote: William Hooper
I like Shakespeare, but I can't think of a Shakespeare movie off the top of my head that was even acceptable as a piece of popular entertainment, with the exception of the recent "Titus" with Anthony Hopkins & the Warner "Midsummer Night's Dream" with Cagney, Mickey Rooney, Joe E. Brown, etc.

At the time I thought Zefirrelli's 1968 Romeo & Juliet did a pretty good job as both good Shakespeare and popular entertainment, to say nothing of Kurosawa's various takes on the Bard. But then again I'd nominate Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead. [Big Grin]

Haven't seen the latest long cut of Cinema Paradiso yet, and perhaps I never will after reading people's comments here. It sounds like the longer version makes the film more literal and less magical. Which is my take on director's cuts in general--they usually serve someone's ego at the expense of better storytelling. Editors exist for good reason. I'll take a magical story well told any day.

I saw a screening of Cinema Paradiso at the Warner Grand in San Pedro, CA a couple of years ago. Projection quality at the Grand was pretty hit-or-miss in those days, mostly miss. At that screening in front of a packed house of about 2000, the film stopped. Of course a cry of dismay went up in unison from the crowd, followed shortly thereafter by a lone Italian-sounding voice shouting from the balcony, "Alfredo!" The crowd lost it in laughter and applause. I think it was the best audience reaction to a film stoppage I've ever seen.

[ 12-07-2004, 01:32 AM: Message edited by: Paul Mayer ]

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 12-06-2004, 01:26 PM:

The Warner Grand Theatre (original name Warner San Pedro) is a perfect setting for this film. A 1500+ seat Art-Deco theatre hidden away in San Pedro, California. This former Warner house has a pair of Norelco DP-70's, that came out of the UA Four Star Theatre in Los Angeles that was originally installed in the Fox Wilshire Theatre in Beverly Hills.