Psycho (1960) (60th Anniversary Edition) (Uncut)

[HanShotFirst]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

There have been longstanding rumors that the cuts were only made for a US re-release in the mid or late 60's. It didn't help that the German company announced the release and said something like "We can't find the evidence of whether this was released in the US or not." However, the actual post-production notes are stored at the AFI, and have been summarized on-line, and have the specific date in 1960 when the cuts were physically made.

The way they have marketed releases of this version have tended to use vague language to suggest things like that, while not being technically inaccurate. Yes, this cut (probably) did get theatrical release, somewhere in the world, but I agree with you that the wording on the back is misleading. (I also find the phrase "uncut" to be a bit generous, but it does appear to be the least censored version to ever get any official release, so, again, not entirely inaccurate, just a bit misleading. The "uncut" version of Psycho would have the oilman's line about "bed is the only playground more fun than Vegas" or whatever he said, which was cut prior to the Legion of Decency submission.)

EDIT: Looking at the packaging, I would say "exactly as intended by Alfred Hitchcock" is flat-out inaccurate. You can either make the argument that Hitchcock himself supervised and approved the final cut (which is true), and therefore it represents his intentions, or you can say that the cut that Hitchcock supervised and approved for submission to the censor boards (which is also true), and therefore it represents his intentions, but I don't see how you can claim in either direction that he intended the MPAA cuts but not the Legion of Decency cuts.

Note that, when the restoration was announced, Universal clearly had NO IDEA about it, they didn't even know they had the print until somebody else told them where to look, and they are probably basing their description off of things that German company said, which were accurate regarding the German release; again, I don't wish to accuse anybody of deliberately lying without any real proof, the origins of this cut have long been shrouded in rumors and mystery, all of which are a lot more interesting than what actually happened.

In looking at the back of the packaging, it states "The extended version of the movie as seen in theaters in 1960 is exactly as intended by Alfred Hitchcock and now available with additional footage for the first time ever.

The way I'm reading this, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, is that the uncut version on this blu-ray release is what was seen in theaters originally, before the cuts for US re-releases in the mid or late 60's, plus additional footage. Perhaps the both the MPAA cuts and the Legion of Decency cuts are included? The wording on this, for me anyway, is unclear.

[Michael24]

Well, I've yet to get the original on Blu-ray, so I suppose I can just pick this one up. Doesn't the restored footage amount to barely twenty seconds' worth of material? I think the film is perfection the way it already exists, so the uncut version could be an interesting curiosity at the very least.

[whiteberry]

Comparisons between the two versions:

YouTube

https://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=1921

[The80s]

Originally Posted by whiteberry

Comparisons between the two versions:
YouTube
https://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=1921

On one hand, I can't believe the US had to cut out the unclipping of the bra and the two extra stabs. On the other, this extended cut is so minor it adds almost nothing to the movie.

[BluCollector13]

We find out this is where Hitchcock actually had Norman... well, if you saw Van Sant's version, you know where this joke's going.

[HD Canuck]

Originally Posted by BluCollector13

We find out this is where Hitchcock actually had Norman... well, if you saw Van Sant's version, you know where this joke's going.

Are you saying this one will show Norman as the true master of the Bates Motel?

[Jay H.]

Yes!!! We finally get to see inside the spaceship!

[emmet otter]

No original audio = no sale for me

[Lozin]

i literally just purchased the 4 pack Blu-Ray the other day

[Professor Echo]

I’m not sure you can definitively call the US release version the preferred Hitchcock cut anymore than you can say the “uncut” one is. Until more evidence surfaces, neither statement is accurate.

Hitchcock liked to surreptitiously break taboos within his films rather than confront or negate studio policies openly and head on. As such, I would never venture to say he was at all ok with the cuts he had to make nor that they were planned or that the finished result was necessarily his personally preferred version. He may have compromised simply as a way of not rocking the boat. But this is all guesswork as so far there is no paperwork to substantiate what he wanted, either in the first place or the last place.

My own PERSONAL OPINION on the matter? He was a consummate visionary and planned each and every second of a film in minute detail before a single frame was shot. As such, I find it unlikely he had any excess footage that he didn’t want from the beginning and the cuts were imposed upon him. But who knows?

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

I’m not sure you can definitively call the US release version the preferred Hitchcock cut anymore than you can say the “uncut” one is. Until more evidence surfaces, neither statement is accurate.

My point is simply that if you take the position that the censorship cuts were imposed on Hitchcock, which is a completely reasonable position, then you can definitively say that this cut is NOT "exactly as intended by Alfred Hitchcock", because it does not restore footage cut by the MPAA. If you take the position that Hitchcock approved of the censorship cuts, then this cut is still not "exactly as intended by Alfred Hitchcock", because it includes footage which he approved of removing. So that specific claim doesn't work in either direction. The only way the statement could be true is if Hitchcock somehow intended on the MPAA making the cuts that it imposed, but didn't approve of the Legion of Decency cuts, which really doesn't make a lot of sense in the larger historical context.

But as far as your opinion, I'm not sure. I think the extra stabs look silly, and that scene works better in the shorter cut. I think that the shot of Marion's side boob does help the film, but he had to have known that it would never make it past the censors. So I can see why people find the claim that he left one or both of those in solely to give the censors something to cut to be credible. Even with the "bloody hands" cut, which I think is much better in the "uncut" version... they didn't do any reshoots (there's a whole funny side rumor about that), so Hitchcock had already shot the alternate footage during production. (But he also might have done so to protect his investment in the film; there are rumors that he considered selling the film to TV as a fallback safety option, if the studio wouldn't put it out, and this might've been shot with an eye towards a possible TV release.)

I think people tend to like to think of creative geniuses as master plotters who can do things like anticipate the censors, and set elaborate plans in motion so that they can appear to give in to the censors while actually fighting back and getting the film they want released... but the truth is, Hitchcock was just a guy making movies, and he was willing to make small sacrifices of things he didn't consider important to his overall vision, even if they were tiny compromises in the overall quality.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

Hitchcock liked to surreptitiously break taboos within his films rather than confront or negate studio policies openly and head on.

A fun thing to do is read the documents detailing the exact specifications under which the opening scene is approved, the very heavy limitations they placed on him about people lying vs sitting in bed, exactly what they can show and how suggestive they can be, and then compare it to the actual film. You can almost hear Hitchcock blowing a raspberry at them, sometimes following the letter while deliberately avoiding the spirit, and sometimes finding a way to completely ignore the instructions while appearing innocent. I swear, it is really funny. Almost every shot for the first two minutes is him rebelling in some way.

That is also where the reshoot story comes into it. The MPAA listed that scene among the problems that it had. He had broken rules that you can’t cut around and was going to have to reshoot it. That much is documented. Supposedly, Hitchcock told them “I am willing to reshoot it, but we don’t have a lot of money, so you have to send a representative to be on set and supervise, so that I know exactly what I can shoot.” And he scheduled it, everybody got a day’s paid work, and nobody from the MPAA showed up. No idea whether there is any truth to that, but the MPAA did approve the release without him reshooting the opening scene (there might have been some minor dialogue cuts). And for whatever it's worth, there is a reference in the log to a scheduled day of reshooting in between submissions to the MPAA, with no actual footage logged as being shot or developed, let alone edited into the picture. (In case you can't tell, I'd really like to convince myself to believe this one.)

[grim_tales]

What movies are in the "4 pack" BD?

[Lozin]

Originally Posted by grim_tales

What movies are in the "4 pack" BD?

All 4 films

[Professor Echo]

I think Hitchcock WAS a “master planner” on most of his films (THE BIRDS being a rare exception), but still, anything is possible. The simplest explanation is that there was slightly more racy and violent footage shot for the overseas markets, a practice which was just becoming common then and would continue even more so as the 60’s and 70’s went on. However, I don’t believe there is any instance of Hitchcock ever doing this before or after PSYCHO, so that may render it doubtful. Like I said, it’s all just guesswork and none of us are right or wrong.

As for the “new” footage, I don’t know, I guess I kind of agree about the multiple stabbing not being as effective as the scene we are so used to seeing. I’ll have to think about that some more. But I do feel the other short inserts in the restored version are great and while perhaps not ESSENTIAL, still very effective.

Great discussion!

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

I think Hitchcock WAS a “master planner” on most of his films (THE BIRDS being a rare exception), but still, anything is possible.

Small clarification -- I phrased myself poorly, because you're right. I meant more like they want him (or Kubrick) to be some kind of 4-D chessmaster who is pulling a magic trick and somehow Jedi mind-tricking everybody so that the final post-censorship result is exactly what he intended in the first place.

[format916]

If its not 4k, its not worth talking about.

[AllAboutMatt]

Originally Posted by format916

If its not 4k, its not worth talking about.

I disagree

[WaverBoy]

Originally Posted by format916

If its not 4k, its not worth talking about.

You’re on the wrong forum, Sparky

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

A fun thing to do is read the documents detailing the exact specifications under which the opening scene is approved, the very heavy limitations they placed on him about people lying vs sitting in bed, exactly what they can show and how suggestive they can be, and then compare it to the actual film. You can almost hear Hitchcock blowing a raspberry at them, sometimes following the letter while deliberately avoiding the spirit, and sometimes finding a way to completely ignore the instructions while appearing innocent. I swear, it is really funny. Almost every shot for the first two minutes is him rebelling in some way.

Do you have more specifics on this?