Psycho (1960) (50th Anniversary Edition)

[grodd]

I asked Robert Galluzzo. As many know he created The Psycho Legacy documentary which is also within the set.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Psycho_Legacy

He stated:
"Yes, this "German" version is actually Alfred Hitchcock's original theatrical release. Over the years, there have been trims on home video releases, so this is restoring the original version as was always intended."

[JohnCarpenterFan]

This wouldn't be the first time a huge film was given a compromised and shortened release on home video which many assumed was the original cut.

Hence why it's best not to assume something is the "proper" version when its validity is in doubt just because its the one you're most familiar with.

[bigbadwoppet]

Originally Posted by Markgway

Yeah, but if Universal wanted to release it in the US no one is going to freakin' stop them.

Universal licensed II and III to Shout and then release them in the US themselves.

I'd happily buy a separate release of the uncut version if it were made available. A 60th anniversary uncut release could feature higher bitrate by not including the 5.1 audio and the extras from the standard release. Just give me the uncut version on 1080p with DTS HD MA 1.0 and if you want to throw an HD scan of the theatrical trailer and a digibook even better!

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by grodd

I asked Robert Galluzzo. As many know he created The Psycho Legacy documentary which is also within the set.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Psycho_Legacy

He stated:
"Yes, this "German" version is actually Alfred Hitchcock's original theatrical release. Over the years, there have been trims on home video releases, so this is restoring the original version as was always intended."

I think the paperwork referenced by the AFI is pretty conclusive. The alternative requires one to believe that the League of Decency requested three cuts, Hitchcock cared enough to protect those three cuts that he appealed the decision, managed to argue his way to a lower grade without cuts (which would be difficult in those days), but then he decided he didn't care *that* much and allowed those three specific cuts (and no others) to be made after the fact, while also keeping trimmed footage available for whatever random TV censors decided to replace the bloody hands shot, and somehow allowing those cuts to creep into the negative despite the fact that he owned it. And nobody would have a theatrical print which could prove this, even though the film was in wide release in the US.

So you can see why it's easier to believe that Hitchcock made the cuts prior to the theatrical release in order to ensure that the League of Decency didn't condemn the film. What evidence does Galluzzo offer to support his claim?

[bigbadwoppet]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

I'd be happy with a standalone release in Germany. That box set is too rich for my blood. I'm willing to believe this is Hitchcock's preferred cut, but that's not enough to make me double dip on the sequels I do like and pay for the ones I don't.

I'll be waiting for that eventual release, too. Psycho is not going anywhere. It's one of those titles that will always be reissued and now that the work has already been done on restoring these trims for this release, it's only a matter of time before we get a standalone release.

[Markgway]

Time for you Americans to bombard Universal with request e-mails.

[grodd]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

I think the AFI paperwork is pretty conclusive. The alternative requires one to believe that the League of Decency requested three cuts, Hitchcock cared enough to protect those three cuts that he appealed the decision, managed to argue his way to a lower grade without cuts (which would be difficult in those days), but then he decided he didn't care *that* much and allowed those three specific cuts (and no others) to be made after the fact, while also keeping trimmed footage available for whatever random TV censors decided to replace the bloody hands shot, and somehow allowing those cuts to creep into the negative despite the fact that he owned it. And nobody would have a theatrical print which could prove this, even though the film was in wide release in the US.

So you can see why it's easier to believe that Hitchcock made the cuts prior to the theatrical release in order to ensure that the League of Decency didn't condemn the film. What evidence does Galluzzo offer to support his claim?

I'll ask. In the meantime Turbine Media seems to be saying the same thing.

".....as well as "Psycho" (Uncut) with Germanized picture master. For the first time on this limited edition so also the original Theatrical version of the Hitchcock thriller "Psycho" from 1960 can be found."

Phil Friederichs: | U , Managing Director of Turbine Media Group: "We started 15 years ago to produce fans' products for fans, and in cooperation with Universal Pictures Germany we can now refine titles that make our fan heart beat faster It's a great honor and joy to be able to bring 'Psycho' to the unabridged version of the world for the first time in the history of home entertainment. After all, we're not talking about an obscure bonus gimmick here, but about film history. "

Stefan Tiedemann | U , marketing director of Universal Pictures Germany, announced that he wanted to expand his collaboration with Turbine and work alongside the "Psycho Legacy Collection - Deluxe Edition" on cult films such as "The Thing" and Peter Jackson's early work ` The Frighteners ' . "

http://beta.blickpunktfilm.de/details/434954

[thatguamguy]

Turbine isn't explicitly saying that this cut was theatrically released intact in America, that is the claim which I am questioning, along with the explanation that the cuts were done for video releases (or TV edits, which is what the guy who wrote the book about Psycho was quoted as saying earlier in the thread). I'm not arguing that this cut was not released theatrically in Germany (if it wasn't, I can't imagine where it came from), and I do think it's a reasonable assumption that Hitchcock would've preferred this footage stay in. And, to be clear, I'm not sure that the claim is wrong, but so far the AFI is the only place I have seen with cites a specific source which can therefore be checked and verified, and their explanation has the fewest holes in it. I don't think anybody is lying, I just think "this cut was released in tact in America" is apocryphal and has been passed back and forth between scholars who accepted it without looking for a source. It seems like an extraordinary claim, but I'd settle for even just ordinary evidence.

EDIT: In fact, it looks like a Turbine rep in the thread for the German boxset release specifically said this was not the US theatrical release, although admittedly he got two other facts wrong while making the statement.

[grodd]

I still haven't gotten an answer but some fact checking on the AFI article with regard to cuts seems to find some errors.

For example AFI states
According to an internal memo, the film was rejected because of the beginning scene between Sam and Marion, which was “entirely too passionate”; a sexually snip....full text....
On 3 Mar 1960, the office issued Paramount a seal of approval “based upon the revised scenes as reviewed in our projection room” the previous day, so presumably the cuts demanded by the PCA were made.
https://catalog.afi.com/Catalog/moviedetails/53260

Yet according to more detailed sources Hitchcock didn't make edits to the shower scene and didn't reshoot the opening like they wanted.

"The film was returned with strict instructions for Hitchcock to remove any shots of nudity and to then return the newly edited scene for approval. Script supervisor Marshall Schlom recalled that Hitchcock agreed to edit the sequence, but simply sent it back to the PCA Office without making a single change — this time, the censors who had previously seen nudity thought it had been removed, and those who hadn't, claimed they could now see nudity."

According to Script supervisor Marshall Schlom
"... [the PCA officials] never showed up, so we never [reshot the opening sequence]. And they finally agreed they didn't see the nudity in the shower sequence which, of course, was there all the time."

https://the.hitchcock.zone/wiki/Prod...e-afipsycho-27

Ironically the site uses the same AFI article as a source. After reading this it seems more likely these edits could have certainly happened considering how he got through many PCA's edit requests. But again I don't have an exact source yet for or against the "German" debate. Still heading down the rabbit hole.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by grodd

Yet according to more detailed sources Hitchcock didn't make edits to the shower scene and didn't reshoot the opening like they wanted.

If I'm being honest, both of those "Hitchcock gets one over on the censors" stories have always struck me as a little bit too good to be 100% true. There's a lot of mythology around Hitch, and not all of it is true, even when he's the one telling it. The AFI page is pretty consistent about disagreeing with both of those claims, though not always with as much specific evidence as the Legion of Decency cuts.

[Show spoiler]

At the end of a paragraph listing contemporary sources indicating that Hitchcock reshot the opening scene, they add this sentence which I think is pretty dismissive: "Modern sources allege, however, that Hitchcock offered to redo the sequence, but only if someone from the PCA office was present at the time to approve it, and when no PCA officials attended the scheduled reshoot, the matter was not pursued."

As for the shower scene, AFI says this "The only shot of [nude body double Marli] Renfro that Hitchcock attempted to insert into the finished picture was an overhead shot showing the length of Marion’s body after she was slain, but it was censored due to Renfro’s bare buttocks being visible, according to Leigh and screenwriter Joseph Stefano." (I'm not sure who to believe here; it's hard to believe that Hitchcock would've thought he could get a bare butt in, but it seems quite possible that he would put a bare butt in to give them something concrete to point to to cut out...)
[EDIT: I found a source which summarizes the "Psycho" commentary by Stephen Rebello, saying that he tells this story: For the final cut, Hitchcock cut an overhead shot of Marion’s dead body on the bathroom floor. Stefano was adamant to keep the shot in because he felt it was essential to the emotional impact of the character’s death. However, Hitchcock cut the scene to misdirect the censors so they would overlook two shots: one that shows the knife actually penetrating the flesh and another where a glimpse of nipple is seen.
https://filmschoolrejects.com/33-thi...-ffcd101d964e/ ]

For the second memo to make sense, they had to have shown at least two scenes which they claimed were revised. (I'd note that nothing in the excerpt contradicts the possibility that he showed them the identical shower scene and lied and they were placated.) There's also a shoot date listed for the film (3/1/1960) which would almost certainly HAVE to be pick-up shots for the PCA. Unless the AFI summary has left out key information, it seems to me like a bunch of evidence that Hitchcock likely *did* reshoot the opening scene (at least in part) -- nothing conclusive, but pretty suggestive, if a bit circumstantial.

[grodd]

I'm more inclined to believe the far more detailed info from the 1990 book from first hand sources than an admitted presumption from AFI.

This brings up another another likely error on the AFI article regarding the nudity. The screen shot visible on the link clearly shows the out of focus nude breast shot.
https://the.hitchcock.zone/wiki/Hitc...20image%207540

"As Schlom correctly notes, Hitchcock had indeed slipped in some rather obvious nudity into the sequence — when the dying Marion reaches out to grab the shower curtain before collapsing out of the bathtub, her out-of-focus breasts are clearly visible. As actress Janet Leigh filmed all of her sequences wearing patches of pink moleskin over her breasts, it's seem more likely the segment was shot with Leigh's body-double, Marli Renfro."

This is fluid with the remarks above regarding keeping the nudity. The bare bottom scene was also mentioned in the previous link. Not sure if it was filmed.

AFI has some detailed info on the cuts Legion of Decency wanted and some sources go further with more info on NCLoD cuts, but some sources even state Psycho was given a C rating at first. But no information shows that any cuts were made for the National Catholic Legion of Decency.

The info on the AFI article regarding reshoots seems to be conflicting and combining the shower scene and the intro scene. Not sure I see anything dismissive, just a bit conflated when compared to the more detailed info from the other article.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by grodd

Not sure I understand what shows any reshoots or suggests it for the intro.

Click on "details"; they list the shooting days. Note that there's a shoot date scheduled for 3/1/1960 (well after principal photography). Then remember that the PDA sent a memo dated 3/3/1960 referencing the revised scenes they had scene the day before.

Going by the AFI, the PDA requested four cuts; based on the "German" cut, we know that the bra scene was not cut out at this time, so that leaves "the opening scene", "the shower scene", and a single line of dialogue. The only one of those three scenes that anybody has ever claimed had reshoots is the opening scene. It's implausible that they'd do reshoots for a single line where dubbing could be employed (but possible, without more details). So, unless their summary of the memo is missing other things, that seems very suggestive to me. Since every story about the shower scene agrees that he showed it to them twice, it seems fair to assume that was one of the "revised" scenes shown to the PDA (whether he actually revised it or not).

This brings up another another error on the AFI article regarding the nudity.

I believe that's actually a formatting issue, that the intent of the line about the "only shot featuring Renfro" was that it was still part of the previous paragraph's "According to a Sep 1960 LAMirror-News article and Leigh’s book". (Leigh very famously claimed for years that every shot in the shower scene was her, before eventually acknowledging that every shot where you can't see her face is not her.)

I'm more inclined to believe the far more detailed info from the 1990 book from first hand sources than an admitted presumption from AFI.

The guy who wrote that book is the person who tells the story about the shower scene being cut on the commentary track.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by grodd

But no information shows that any cuts were made for the National Catholic Legion of Decency.

If you're really looking to poke every hole you can in the AFI summary, it's worth pointing out that there is no National Catholic Legion of Decency. There was a Catholic Legion of Decency, and then they changed their name to the National Legion of Decency.

I don't think AFI is the end-all or be-all, but I like the way that they simply summarize information without much editorializing, just saying "This is what this source says, and this is what another source says." When the sources are internal memos from the time of production, though, those seem like pretty good sources.

[grodd]

Ah I see, what you are talking about regarding shooting dates. Would be interesting to pursue, seems reasonable to explore.

With regard to Renfro, I'm not sure here, its a very small scene so I can see how AFI missed the quick nude shot. I was also quoting it because it keeps with the previous claims about keeping the nudity. Although it was a small shot.

The guy who wrote that book is the person who tells the story about the shower scene being cut on the commentary track.

I think we may be mixing some things. The shower buttock scene may very well have been shot. It's in both articles. I was referring to the nudity kept and the Renfro quick shot. Both which do refute AFI claims although its a quick shot. Point being Hitchcock clearly got something past the PCA, likely more given the quotes. Not too remarkable that those cuts could have gotten past the Legion of Decency. Either way I do look forward to more info pro and con and thank you for the good solid discussion

[thatguamguy]

I wasn't gonna post again tonight; I was searching through the website that AMPAS has set up, because they have a lot of the Hitchcock papers, plus the PCA collection, plus the Legion of Decency collection. I was just browsing, to see what they had, and found a specific date for when the Legion of Decency requested/demanded those cuts (May 17), but that wasn't enough to post.

Then I saw this entry, under "Psycho - correspondence", and I thought people would actually enjoy this:
handwritten letter from Stanley Kubrick to Leigh praising her performance, "[i]n a part that was not particularly rich or fruitful along psychological lines, I think you accomplished a wonder of subtlety and immagination[sic] and good taste," adding that he thinks "the picture is a gas, and Hitchcock is delightfully sick and perverse," August 18, 1960

[Richard--W]

If I may interrupt this very interesting discussion ...

I know I'll get assaulted for saying this, but I want Universal to do for Psycho what
Criterion did for On the Waterfront: release the film on bluray in three different aspect
ratios. The 1.85-1 theatrical aspect ratio as currently issued, a 1.66-1 aspect ratio which I'm
convinced was widely shown , and the TV-safe alternate which contains important directorial
touches in the additional top and bottom areas that makes it a legitimate alternative
composition (although not the default or preferred composition). As to the latter, it's time to
remove the shadowing at the bottom of the frame during the shower murder. It was put
there out of necessity to placate censors in 1960, not because Hitchcock wanted it. We're all
adults now and it's so tame by today's standards that it can't possibly traumatize anybody.

A fresh 4K scan and an option for the original mono track (uncompressed) are also long overdue.

Additionally, the recently unearthed footage exclusive to the German theatrical release would
be a welcome supplement.

[Colson]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

a 1.66-1 aspect ratio which I'm
convinced was widely shown

Source on this?

[Egbert Souse]

Originally Posted by Colson

Source on this?

Jeff Wells

[Colson]

Originally Posted by Egbert Souse

Jeff Wells

I've just never heard of this; haven't followed this thread closely because I usually stick to the 4K subforum. Do you have a link where I could read up on that?

Edit: After doing some reading of my own, Wells doesn't seem to provide any evidence that the film was shown in 1.66:1; he just seems to prefer the movie that way. The hard matting of the opening title sequence to a widescreen ratio is the most damning evidence imo of his theory that it was meant for 1.66:1.

[bigbadwoppet]

Originally Posted by Colson

I've just never heard of this; haven't followed this thread closely because I usually stick to the 4K subforum. Do you have a link where I could read up on that?

Edit: After doing some reading of my own, Wells doesn't seem to provide any evidence that the film was shown in 1.66:1; he just seems to prefer the movie that way. The hard matting of the opening title sequence to a widescreen ratio is the most damning evidence imo of his theory that it was meant for 1.66:1.

Matted films were shown in all three ratios (1.66, 1.75 and 1.85) depending on the territory they were exhibited.

The fact that the opening credits are hard matted doesn't mean they film was intended expressly for 1.66:1. Of course it can be shown that way.

Now, the 1.33 one poster is suggesting is another case of "I want the movie like I saw it on TV" syndrome. The fact that anyone would want to watch a film intended for matting open matted on a 16x9 TV escapes me.