Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: PSYCHO edited version

This is topic PSYCHO edited 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=000884

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 07-20-2010, 09:49 AM:

Apparently the version of Psycho most of us have been watching for the past forty years is edited. I watched it last week in HD on cable (Encore on Demand I think) and it was the usual -apparently edited for TV - version.

Here is a link to a website that details differences in various versions of movies. Much of it is pedestrian but in the case of Psycho it's quite revealing. It contains details and screen caps which are undeniable. And after you know what was cut you - being the detail oriented film professional that you are - will notice the less than adequate splice or the hurried fade. I for one will not buy another copy of this movie until Universal releases Hitchcock's complete version.

PSYCHO edits

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 08-17-2010, 04:21 PM:

Anyone pick up the blu-ray of Psycho? None of the online reviews have stated whether or not it has the complete version of the scenes as outlined in the link above. If so I plan to buy it. Otherwise I'll stick with the DVD.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 08-21-2010, 02:44 PM:

Are you sure that you are not confusing foreign versions with censorship of the domestic version? Both the cut and uncut footage pictured in those links are from foreign television.

I know someone who has access to an original release 35mm domestic release print. I will try to get access to it, to compare against the comments in the link above.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 08-23-2010, 11:10 AM:

I'd be very interested in what is on that print. It seems to me that even if that is "foreign" footage it ought to be restored to the domestic version.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 08-27-2010, 07:18 PM:

> It seems to me that even if that is "foreign" footage it ought to be restored to the domestic version.

I disagree. While it would certainly be interesting to see alternate takes as extra's on the DVD, it is very unlikely that Hitchcock approved of anything other than the domestic cut.

Just look at Vertigo. The European cut of the print had an extra scene at the end where we hear over the radio that Gavin Elster had been arrested and was being extradited back to the USA. Hitchcock vehemently opposed that ending, but his contract with Paramount only allowed him final cut over the domestic version, and the studio wanted the scene.

Just because footage exists does not mean it would make the film better. There is usually a good reason why films are cut the way they are.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 08-29-2010, 05:01 PM:

I am inclined to agree with Mitchell. If the domestic version of Phycho has been around all this years and it is the one Hitchcock had preferred, who are we to insist that it should be replaced by another version just because it exist. I never had any problem with it when I saw the movie for the very first time at the Granada Theatre in Santa Barbara in 1960 shortly after I arrived in that city to study photography at Brooks Institute.

-Claude

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 08-29-2010, 08:13 PM:

I'm just curious - do we know that Hitchcock preferred it?

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 08-30-2010, 03:36 PM:

> I'm just curious - do we know that Hitchcock preferred it?

By this point in his career, Hitchcock's contract gave him final cut control over the domestic (USA) cuts of his films.

I have never read any interview with him that he later changed his mind or was unhappy with those cuts.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 08-30-2010, 04:20 PM:

The ultimate PSYCHO edited version was a 10-minute 16mm Castle version that included many of the important scenes, including the complete shower scene and the final minute or so. You had to watch carefully or the reel was over.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 09-01-2010, 01:38 AM:

Then who would have made the other versions longer? And why?

Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 4784) on 09-01-2010, 02:30 AM:

quote: Mark Lensenmayer
The ultimate PSYCHO edited version was a 10-minute 16mm Castle version that included many of the important scenes, including the complete shower scene and the final minute or so. You had to watch carefully or the reel was over.

I was about to mention it as well. Although I quite like the Castle Film/Universal8 18 minutes version available in 16mm and super 8.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 09-01-2010, 04:53 PM:

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin
it is very unlikely that Hitchcock approved of anything other than the domestic cut.

It was 1960. There were things you still couldn't show in a "decent" movie theater in the US. It's highly more likely it was censored than Hitch just handed over cutting room floor material to the foreign distributor.

If you watch the film closely at the points where the "missing" material would begin there appear to be edit splices that are a little more - shall we say - obvious than the typical shot-to-shot change. In addition the stabbing of Martin Balsam scene seems to fade out prematurely particularly when paying attention to the score. It sounds like that particular musical cue is interrupted.

No, I think the censors in this country hacked up a bit of our classic film in this case. Hitch - having the control we can assume he did - would not have allowed additional material he deemed unnecessary added back in but he may have had no say where the state of censorship in 1960 was concerned. I say put it back in.

Mitchell - did you ever get to review the print you mentioned?

Does the BR from the UK have the scene? Maybe there will be a German version?

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin
Just because footage exists does not mean it would make the film better.

That's true, but the shot referred to as "Norman's Bloody Hands" looks exactly like where Hitch would have gone in that situation. Just looking at the still frames you can see the impact that must have in the context of the story. Perhaps someone here knows how to get in touch with a recognized Hitchcock historian or perhaps Robert Harris. Someone knows the answer.

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin
Are you sure that you are not confusing foreign versions with censorship of the domestic version?

Edited this post once I re-read the above. Mitchell...EXACTLY!!!! I am not confusing them at all! I am saying give us the uncensored version.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 09-01-2010, 06:09 PM:

FWIW: When NPR did s story on the 50th Anniversary of Psycho, someone told a story of Hitchcock shooting scenes he didn't need but knew wouldn't get past the censors so he could keep the scenes he wanted. I'm guessing this story will be part of the extras that come with the BR on Oct 19.

edit: [just read the transcript and this is not the right report, but you may want to read it anyway]
I haven't relistened to the report, but here it is:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127937275

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 09-21-2010, 11:58 AM:

I finally got an opportunity to watch the 1960 original release 35mm print that I mentioned above. It is identical to the DVD. None of the extended sequences pictured in the link at the top of this thread were in the print.

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 09-24-2010, 03:30 PM:

Did the original U.S. release prints have a different masking during the shower scene? I once saw a German language print erroneously screened in Academy format, and while it obviously was framed for wide screen projection, the 1.37 area was protected, no lights and no mikes visible.
But during the shower scene, a black masking appeared at the bottom of the picture, just in medium shots of Janet Leigh. Maybe to hide her bikini or bathing suit.

I handled a UK print later, but do not remember if it also had that "cleavage protection matte".

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 09-27-2010, 07:26 PM:

The hard matte was a last-minute addition by Hitchcock on request of the censors, who were afraid that some projectionists might think they're funny by racking down to Ms. Leigh's rack.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 09-27-2010, 08:16 PM:

Which, of course, we would have too. [Razz]

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 10-01-2010, 11:59 AM:

quote: Christian Appelt
I once saw a German language print erroneously screened in Academy format, and while it obviously was framed for wide screen projection, the 1.37 area was protected, no lights and no mikes visible. But during the shower scene, a black masking appeared at the bottom of the picture, just in medium shots of Janet Leigh. Maybe to hide her bikini or bathing suit.

The US print is identical in the above regard.

While there are not lights or cameras in the 1.37 frame, if you watch the film at 1.37 you can see a truck driving on a road across from the swamp while the car is sinking. There are a few other things masked out at 1.85, but they escape me at the moment. Nothing bad like North By North West, where you can see the soundstage lights at the bottom of the picture as Cary Grant climbs up the support girder at the Frank Loyd Wright house.