Psycho (1960) (50th Anniversary Edition)

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by 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.

Absolutely, we have lived with an edited version of From Russia With Love for 50+ years because BRITISH censors took a moral disliking to certain "lurid" elements of the dialogue which in the present day would be considered absolutely tame.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

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

See this gets to the point though... I'm happy to have that back in. My issue is more with people acting like the original version is somehow bad or lacking because something isn't put back in. In other words it's nice to see, and I hope to see this version of Psycho someday, but I'm not sitting here craving it and cussing out Universal for sticking with the traditional version.

I guess it's all semantics.

[thatguamguy]

I hear you, I wouldn't want anybody to dismiss the US version the way that, say, the original theatrical cut of "The Wild Bunch" has disappeared. It wouldn't be right for it to be dismissed as compromised. This is way closer to "Candyman", where we can see minor tweaks that were done to appease the ratings board but don't have a major impact on the film.

There's a part of me that thinks that, since Hitchcock literally owned this film for years, if he had considered the cut footage to be important, he would have restored it or at least maintained it in some way. That's why I'm cuious to read any opinion he expressed about this.

[Markgway]

Can I just say I don't reserve my criticism for the MPAA.

As has been mentioned, in the UK the Bond films have been screwed over the decades (still are) and everyone else has to put up with it.

So don't get me started on that!

[Rzzzz]

Has anybody seen this?


I am going to get it, just waiting for a price drop....

[glennstl]

Originally Posted by Rzzzz

Has anybody seen this?


I am going to get it, just waiting for a price drop....

I watched it when it first came out on tv. If you’re a big Hitchcock fan, I would definitely recommend it. From what I remember, it REALLY goes in-depth obviously on Psycho, especially the shower scene. I am an enormous Hitch fan, and while I completely appreciate Psycho, it is not one of my favorite Hitchcock movies. However, they do such a great job on this documentary, that I still really appreciated it. I think also any film fans or film makers should see it.

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I'd still probably say the home country version is the "true one" regardless.

Surely the one the director wanted is the "true one"? Which is more likely than not to be the uncut one, as making cuts due to censorship makes much more sense than adding footage for other markets.

Doubly so in the Hays era, where there was a very strict list of things that couldn't be done, rather than now where things might just get bumped up a rating, and even if a lower rating is targeted and cut for that's still a conscious decision, rather than being the only option.

[drush9999]

Originally Posted by koberulz

Surely the one the director wanted is the "true one"? Which is more likely than not to be the uncut one, as making cuts due to censorship makes much more sense than adding footage for other markets.

Doubly so in the Hays era, where there was a very strict list of things that couldn't be done, rather than now where things might just get bumped up a rating, and even if a lower rating is targeted and cut for that's still a conscious decision, rather than being the only option.

This pretty much
In this particular case Hitchcock did compromise slightly for the US version, thankfully his original version got released elsewhere.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by drush9999

This pretty much
In this particular case Hitchcock did compromise slightly for the US version, thankfully his original version got released elsewhere.

As I've said before, EVERY movie ever made has earlier versions with stuff included that eventually gets cut for a variety of reasons, so anyone screaming censorship etc etc doesn't really understand how the film business works.

If a film is released THEN cut for whatever reason in some markets, then that can be considered censorship, but it's just not the same thing if all the cuts are pre-release, since every film has those. Unless you believe every movie is censored, which 100% isn't the case. Especially before the ratings system was invented, filmmakers KNEW the limitations and worked within those. Hitchcock and others pushed the boundaries to see what they could get away with, but when things were cut that's just the way it was. And filmmakers knew and accepted that.

Fact is, Psycho is a classic and the film is not changed in the slightest but the extra bits off footage that amount to very little. It's a curiosity at best, but the US release was always the "real" release.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

If a film is released THEN cut for whatever reason in some markets, then that can be considered censorship, but it's just not the same thing if all the cuts are pre-release, since every film has those.

So you're saying that you think that if the MPAA insists on a cut to a Japanese movie, that is censorship, but if the MPAA insists on a cut to an American movie, that's something completely different? But is somehow comprable to the trims left on the floor of the edit room in between the rough cut and the director's cut? That seems like an arbitrary distinction.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Are people really that unfamiliar with the concept of a director's cut or really how any of this works?

Yes, sometimes filmmakers would intentionally submit a version of the film for certification with excessive violence that they know would be cut, as to make the footage that they wish to remain appear lighter by comparison in the hopes that it won't get slashed too.

But do you really think that when they submit this cut, and content that they suspected would be removed is actually left intact, that the filmmaker is then always going to run out and cut it themselves?

Then you have cases where a submitted cut of a film is loaded with gratuitous violence in hopes that trims won't be made to content the filmmaker wishes to remain in the film, but the gratuitous footage is removed along with some of the lighter stuff. The US receives an R-rating but internationally, the content that the fillmaker wanted to be present domestically, is present theatrically. Is the US version still the "proper" version then?

Virtually every film is "compromised" and it's not up to the posters on Blu-ray.com to determine which version is closest to the true director's cut. Funny thing is, nobody complains about A Streetcar Named Desire (and plenty of other films) on Blu-ray having minutes of extra footage that was never in the theatrical cut because said footage was considered questionable at the time of its release and was excised.

Seems like whatever cut most people on here are familiar with, is the "proper" version. Director's preference be damned.

"Sorry Cronenberg, I know the domestic release of Videodrome was cut against your wishes and the international version is your true director's cut and was how the film existed before the R-rating, but the censored version is the true version because that's how it was shown in the US/Canada and that's how I watched it on VHS and DVD for decades."

[JohnCarpenterFan]

In short, nobody here is qualified to determine which version of a film is the most faithful to the director's vision unless there's documentation stating so one way or another.

If having a few scenes added to Psycho that weren't in the domestic theatrical release bothers you, then you should be in the threads for dozens and dozens of other films made around the same time whose Blu-rays contain footage that was cut before the theatrical release.

There is virtually zero difference other than the most accessible version of Psycho is the R-rated cut and the most accessible cuts for films like A Streetcar Named Desire are versions that contain footage that was forcibly removed before release. Warner have reinstated pre-release censorship cuts for plenty of classics, Universal haven't to the same extent. That's the difference and it has no bearing at all on which is closest to the director's vision.

[foultone]

There seems to be some confusion here. This "German TV version" is, in fact, the version of PSYCHO released to theaters in 1960. The various annoying trims, which the "German" version *corrects*, were done by Universal for the movie's re-release in 1966. The "Official U.S. version" is, in point of fact, the snipped 1966 re-release. Original prints from the 1960 version managed to persist in Germany, but not here. This new release is definitive.

[bigbadwoppet]

Originally Posted by foultone

There seems to be some confusion here. This "German TV version" is, in fact, the version of PSYCHO released to theaters in 1960. The various annoying trims, which the "German" version *corrects*, were done by Universal for the movie's re-release in 1966. The "Official U.S. version" is, in point of fact, the snipped 1966 re-release. Original prints from the 1960 version managed to persist in Germany, but not here. This new release is definitive.

Yet another reason why this disc should've been released WORLDWIDE by Universal themselves.

This should be issued as a standalone disc. It is an essential release!

[BluProofie]

Originally Posted by foultone

There seems to be some confusion here. This "German TV version" is, in fact, the version of PSYCHO released to theaters in 1960. The various annoying trims, which the "German" version *corrects*, were done by Universal for the movie's re-release in 1966. The "Official U.S. version" is, in point of fact, the snipped 1966 re-release. Original prints from the 1960 version managed to persist in Germany, but not here. This new release is definitive.

Source?

[grodd]

I've heard a variation of the story for some time. It may very well be true, I haven't double checked.

When PSYCHO was released to theaters in 1960 in the US it apparently had these scenes. However when it was re-cut for TV markets, various edits were made in different regions. The German version made no cuts to the movie.


https://deadlymovies.wordpress.com/2...of-psycho-196/

[foultone]

Originally Posted by BluProofie

Source?

Stephen Rebello, author of the book "Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho". He addressed the issue on the book's Facebook page today, too:

"Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of "Psycho"

"There is no special "German cut" of PSYCHO, meaning Hitchcock did not release a different version of the movie for German audiences. The so-called "German cut" is the original U.S. release version that, over time, has been trimmed and edited for TV. Again, the "German cut" is PSYCHO, as Alfred Hitchcock intended it to be seen and as millions and millions of international moviegoers saw it on its first release to theaters in 1960 - 1961. Originally, the film had more footage of Norman staring through the peephole, a revealing side glimpse of Marion undressing, Norman's bloodied hands from cleaning up the motel bathroom, and more plunges of the knife right after the falling-down-the-staircase murder."

[BluProofie]

Originally Posted by foultone

Stephen Rebello, author of the book "Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho". He addressed the issue on the book's Facebook page today, too:

"Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of "Psycho"

"There is no special "German cut" of PSYCHO, meaning Hitchcock did not release a different version of the movie for German audiences. The so-called "German cut" is the original U.S. release version that, over time, has been trimmed and edited for TV. Again, the "German cut" is PSYCHO, as Alfred Hitchcock intended it to be seen and as millions and millions of international moviegoers saw it on its first release to theaters in 1960 - 1961. Originally, the film had more footage of Norman staring through the peephole, a revealing side glimpse of Marion undressing, Norman's bloodied hands from cleaning up the motel bathroom, and more plunges of the knife right after the falling-down-the-staircase murder."

Hitch authorized the re-release and even did voiceovers saying it’s “The version TV didn’t show”. I find it strange that a cut version would be approved by him.

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

As I've said before, EVERY movie ever made has earlier versions with stuff included that eventually gets cut for a variety of reasons, so anyone screaming censorship etc etc doesn't really understand how the film business works.

If a film is released THEN cut for whatever reason in some markets, then that can be considered censorship, but it's just not the same thing if all the cuts are pre-release, since every film has those. Unless you believe every movie is censored, which 100% isn't the case. Especially before the ratings system was invented, filmmakers KNEW the limitations and worked within those. Hitchcock and others pushed the boundaries to see what they could get away with, but when things were cut that's just the way it was. And filmmakers knew and accepted that.

Fact is, Psycho is a classic and the film is not changed in the slightest but the extra bits off footage that amount to very little. It's a curiosity at best, but the US release was always the "real" release.

Dude Psycho's cuts came later. It was originally released in theaters with that trimmed footage. lmao

[Deadguy2322]

Originally Posted by Kyle15

Dude Psycho's cuts came later. It was originally released in theaters with that trimmed footage. lmao

Bates Motel is such an over-and-above poster he deserves a special title to denote his skills. He’s clearly a master poster.

Can the mods give him the appropriate honours? Change his name to Master Bates Motel!