Psycho (1960) (50th Anniversary Edition)

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Markgway

By everywhere you mean America?

Because as we all know America is the World.

It must be difficult to type with that chip weighing down your shoulder.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

For instance, Hitchcock may have deliberately prepared a pre-release cut with material he was willing to cut out in order to negotiate the shower scene, and that this cut was sent to Germany without realizing the extra footage was there. Or he handed in a cut and then decided he had crossed a line into bad taste, went back and made some trims. The thing that seems weird, to me, is that we have no explanation of this cut.

My understanding is that Hitchcock was simply willing to sacrifice that material in exchange for the shower scene being left uncut not that he filmed it for that express purpose. Big difference. Also, to counter your second point, it's unlikely Hitch had qualms of bad taste (i.e. a shot of blood hands, Janet in a bra, etc). He loved pushing the envelope, and you can see in something like Frenzy what he would do when allowed.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

It must be difficult to type with that chip weighing down your shoulder.

Shouldn't that be fries? But seriously. There's an awful lot of 'if it happened in America, it's global, baby' on this forum. Psycho was released in different versions overseas. By 'pretty much everywhere' Stinging Velvet can only mean the USA.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Markgway

Shouldn't that be fries? But seriously. There's an awful lot of 'if it happened in America, it's global, baby' on this forum. Psycho was released in different versions overseas. By 'pretty much everywhere' Stinging Velvet can only mean the USA.

Meh, it's an American film released by an American studio. I'm good with the version released in the USA being regarded as the "true" version of the movie.

And I say that as a non-American.

[Donl1282]

Originally Posted by Dailyan

No. Popular Hitchcock titles such as "Psycho" are too much of an "evergreen" title for studios to let go. Not to mention with Uni getting into B&W 4K starting with "Schindler's List"; I expect for "Psycho" to follow.

It would be great to get this film on 4K UHD format.

[ghostsofjoy]

Originally Posted by Donl1282

It would be great to get this film on 4K UHD format.

I don’t see myself investing in another non-4K release of this one.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Markgway

Shouldn't that be fries? But seriously. There's an awful lot of 'if it happened in America, it's global, baby' on this forum. Psycho was released in different versions overseas. By 'pretty much everywhere' Stinging Velvet can only mean the USA.

It's my understanding the longer cut played in Germany and a few smaller countries only. That's why I said "pretty much everywhere" and not "everywhere." If it played in all of Europe with the longer cut then forgive me for not knowing that, but as RC said I'd still probably say the home country version is the "true one" regardless. I'd say the same for a British movie's British version, like say Get Carter.

It's my experience that people are always on the lookout for a peep of perceived American arrogance to jump on.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

The place of production or fan preference have no say on which version of a film is the truest.

There are plenty of directors who prefer the international cuts of their films over the domestic release. Reason being, they submitted their director's cut for certification, the international censors saw fit to pass it uncut, the MPAA have a problem that the international censors don't and the film will require some cuts. One version is more compromised than the other, technically speaking and parts that the director would have liked to remain there have been removed to accomodate an R-rating.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by bigbadwoppet

I thought of that, too. The problem with that argument is that censorship is relative. There's no way for Hitchcock to have known exactly what he would have been asked to cut, hence putting it expressly as bait.

...

I'm sure that if the MPAA had not requested these cuts, the US would have seen this version in theatres back in 1960.

The MPAA didn't exist in 1960. The Hays Code was allowed to be very specific and allowed to negotiate.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by Markgway

My understanding is that Hitchcock was simply willing to sacrifice that material in exchange for the shower scene being left uncut not that he filmed it for that express purpose. Big difference. Also, to counter your second point, it's unlikely Hitch had qualms of bad taste (i.e. a shot of blood hands, Janet in a bra, etc). He loved pushing the envelope, and you can see in something like Frenzy what he would do when allowed.

If you can find anything specific that Hitchcock has said about these cuts, I'd love to see it. Without that, my point is that it's ALL speculation why these cuts were made. Nobody even seems to have a clear record as to WHEN they were made.

[bigbadwoppet]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Ehhh... the cut that played pretty much everywhere is the classic, true version of the film I'd say. People always think more is better, but it's not always the case. Not saying I wouldn't be interested in this cut, I would, but I wouldn't say it's some holy grail lost "true version of the movie" or anything.

That's me though.

What's most likely is that the uncut version played everywhere in the world EXCEPT the US.

I had a laugh when I bought the UK blu-ray for Ridley Scott's legend. It lists the Fox cut as the "European version" while in fact it was released all around the world (it's the version I saw in cinemas in '85).

Same with Brazil, Once Upon a Time in America, Casino Royale, even Austin Powers! The US invariably gets the censored version.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

It's my experience that people are always on the lookout for a peep of perceived American arrogance to jump on.

Let's face it, we don't have to look hard, do we?

Seriously though. We just disagree on the matter. Let's not get salty at each other.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

If you can find anything specific that Hitchcock has said about these cuts, I'd love to see it. Without that, my point is that it's ALL speculation why these cuts were made. Nobody even seems to have a clear record as to WHEN they were made.

Many moons ago I read a book about the Making of Psycho. I think there was something in that about the cuts. Not sure it was very specific though. All that said, I think common sense would tell us that the "German" cut is the uncut version. Hitchcock reportedly edited the films in his head and never shot anything he didn't intend to use.

Originally Posted by bigbadwoppet

Same with Brazil, Once Upon a Time in America, Casino Royale, even Austin Powers! The US invariably gets the censored version.

But no doubt you'll find people on this forum who'll argue that the US versions are the originals.

[StingingVelvet]

There's censorship on both sides of the Atlantic. I've read about tons of stuff trimmed for European censors or to get a 12 rating certificate. Think of all the movies with edited out headbutts and nun-chucks alone! Then you've got the video nasties thing. It's not a U.S. issue alone.

I think the thing we all generally seem to disagree with is assuming pre-release cuts are something to be craved. I tend to think the theatrically released movie is the "true" version, so when people crave something else for something like Cobra or Casino I just kinda shrug. This is a case where the longer cut played theatrically in some places though, so I get why some are adamant it be seen everywhere. However I still just bristle at the idea of the classic cut of Psycho people have loved for 50 years being considered incomplete in any way.

[captainsolo]

Universal has continually spit on its Hitchcock library for all of home video and I’m beyond tired of it.
Subpar transfers and effort on VHS, Laserdisc and Beta. A few decent editions started to appear pretty much beginning with the Psycho LD boxset which is presumably the first time they got materials together and this became ported for the DVDs. Then came the two restorations-Vertigo had the stupid 5.1 modern remix applied at studio insistence and the Rear Window restoration was mostly buried. Both have since been revisited and reworked to positives and minuses. The Harris-Katz 2000 RW restoration is the best the film has looked to date and wipes the floor with the disc versions yet they refuse to use it.

In the dvd era the first discs were a mixture of good and bad and like the first wave of Kubrick DVDs needed more work. Then came the 2005 masterpiece line which advanced every title to have at least a good presentable dvd edition save for the further deterioration of TMWKTM 56.

And then came the hd iterations that made small improvements to some, tweaked new versions of Vertigo and RW, and totally ruinous for others.

None of these absolute essentials have ever looked as well as they should on any video format. In this day and age of even the most niche of cult film recovering 4k scams and multitudes of extras it is ludicrous that these films are still mistreated. I still prefer the old original DVDs for TMWKTM and arguably RW because it more resembles the 2000 restoration. Then the 2005 DVDs are essential for Frenzy and others hit with dnr on BD but mostly for Family Plot which is an awful BD.

This footage from Psycho has been known of for several years at least and should be presented in a US edition even if only as an extra. There should be a new transfer done with better grain retention and a presentation of the 1.33 framing and new helpful extras. The film is such a landmark that it will definitely sell copies and deserves a proper release instead of an older disc with a subpar transfer endlessly repackaged.

[captainsolo]

It has never been proven where and what this footage came from so it’s impossible to say whether this was the intended cut or restored for foreign release prints or simply an error. We’d have to obtain cutting notes or original materials to compare in order to formally establish which version is which.
But as stated above one cannot simply throw away the standard version because new footage is found. That is unfortunately a mistake commonly made when marketing goes too far and thus the longer or different edition becomes the standard when it may have never been intended to be so.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by Markgway

Hitchcock reportedly edited the films in his head and never shot anything he didn't intend to use.

There's a problem with that logic, with regard to the bloody hand scene. I mean, the bra scene, the extra stabs, those are just cuts, but the bloody hand scene has alternate footage. If Hitch never shot anything he didn't intend to use, why did he shoot coverage of Perkins walking into the bathroom in a facial close-up if he only intended the (much more effective) bloody hand shot? It really doesn't make sense because the extra movement of Perkins going into the bathroom is a big complication on the lighting of the shot.

This is why I'd rather go by official word rather than guesswork.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by bigbadwoppet

What's most likely is that the uncut version played everywhere in the world EXCEPT the US.

That is a bold claim, again I'd love to see some proof of that. I've seen a lot of speculation in the last few years about this cut, I'd love to see something a bit more definitive than people (including me) trying to decide which guess they think is most likely.

Originally Posted by bigbadwoppet

Same with Brazil, Once Upon a Time in America, Casino Royale, even Austin Powers! The US invariably gets the censored version.

I'm sure "Popeye" and "The Shining" and even "Dumb and Dumber" and "Brüno" would have a response to that.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

However I still just bristle at the idea of the classic cut of Psycho people have loved for 50 years being considered incomplete in any way.

Do you watch "King Kong" without the shot where he eats the native? People loved that movie for decades without that shot.

[BluProofie]

Yeah it’s kind of hilarious to claim the US always gets censored cuts just based on a few films when there are so many movies that are significantly cut down in other countries, including ones that are outright banned.