709 Red River
-
cdnchris
- Site Admin
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:45 pm
- Location: Washington
- Contact:
Re: 709 Red River
I checked the DVD in the dual-format edition and I'm pretty sure it wasn't window-boxed or else I would have made a note of it (I don't have access to right at this moment.) Since at least the dual-format releases they seemed to have done away with that. Before that I can only say that And Everything is Going Fine wasn't window-boxed on DVD. (Breathless is the only dual-format release I can think of where the DVD transfer was window-boxed. Ace in the Hole's dual-format edition even had a new encode for the DVD that at least cut down the window-boxing in comparison to the old DVD.)
-
movielocke
- Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:44 am
Re: 709 Red River
Nice. I might buy the DVD edition then to avoid the book waste. I hadn't bothered because of the window boxing image degradation of academy ratio dvds, but it was a good strategy for picnic at hanging rock.
-
Mr Sausage
- Has Risen from the Grave
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:02 am
- Location: Canada
Red River (Howard Hawks, 1948)
DISCUSSION ENDS MONDAY, DECEMBER 2nd
Members have a two week period in which to discuss the film before it's moved to its dedicated thread in The Criterion Collection subforum. Please read the Rules and Procedures.
This thread is not spoiler free. This is a discussion thread; you should expect plot points of the individual films under discussion to be discussed openly. See: spoiler rules.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
I encourage members to submit questions, either those designed to elicit discussion and point out interesting things to keep an eye on, or just something you want answered. This will be extremely helpful in getting discussion started. Starting is always the hardest part, all the more so if it's unguided. Questions can be submitted to me via PM.
Members have a two week period in which to discuss the film before it's moved to its dedicated thread in The Criterion Collection subforum. Please read the Rules and Procedures.
This thread is not spoiler free. This is a discussion thread; you should expect plot points of the individual films under discussion to be discussed openly. See: spoiler rules.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
I encourage members to submit questions, either those designed to elicit discussion and point out interesting things to keep an eye on, or just something you want answered. This will be extremely helpful in getting discussion started. Starting is always the hardest part, all the more so if it's unguided. Questions can be submitted to me via PM.
-
FrauBlucher
- Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:28 am
- Location: Greenwich Village
Re: Red River (Howard Hawks, 1948)
I am one of those who didn't love the ending, even though everything else was terrific, so I'm curious to read what folks think about this film.
-
knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 10:49 pm
Re: Red River (Howard Hawks, 1948)
Supposedly Domino has a defense of it. I was left non-plussed either way. It's not a good tonal fit, but there's something sickly humourous about it like the friendship achieved at the end of The Hateful Eight that I like in spite of myself.
-
bearcuborg
- Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 6:30 am
- Location: Philadelphia via Chicago
Re: Red River (Howard Hawks, 1948)
If Matt killed Tom, which the movie establishes he would in a gun fight, he essentially replaces him as the bad guy. So he chose to save him instead. Essentially that's what I remember Robin Wood's reasoning in his book.
I always loved the film till that point, not so much because of the decision to save Tom - but in its execution of it...it just seems to fast pedal to that end, rather than establishing as much. Knives has a good point.
I always loved the film till that point, not so much because of the decision to save Tom - but in its execution of it...it just seems to fast pedal to that end, rather than establishing as much. Knives has a good point.
-
Drucker
- Your Future our Drucker
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 1:37 pm
Re: Red River (Howard Hawks, 1948)
Re-watched Red River last night and decided to watch the Pre-release version this time. I'd only seen the theatrical version once before, but in general I couldn't point out the differences and I enjoyed it just as much the second time around as the first. I will say that I'm aware the final sequence is longer in the Pre-release, and I have to say that it didn't feel as abrupt as it had when watching the theatrical version. I also found the "pages" far from distracting, and considering how short they are on screen for, it added to the atmosphere for me rather than distract from it. They add a bit of texture and remind you that you are being told a story. I wouldn't call it better or worse than the voice over narrative. Considering how unimportant the details in the pages are, I did really like the feel of the pages turning.
I'm not the Hawks expert many others here surely are, but obviously male camaraderie is essential to this film. What I found interesting about Red River is how many of the relationships are rooted in a minor conflict that doesn't really go anywhere. Clift and Ireland plant a seed early on for a potential rivalry that never coalesces. Brennan and The Chief have a rivalry and minor feud throughout the film. There's an ongoing rivalry between Wayne and Clift as well. Perhaps most importantly, there seems to be a rivalry between both sides of John Wayne's character: the ambitious man that wants to build a life for and take care of his loved ond es, and the angry man within him that feels scorned and bitter when love isn't reciprocated properly--it's that shortcoming which almost undoes him.
In the end there's a real optimism to the film and from what I remember it's present in the few other Hawks I've seen I believe (Rio Bravo, Only Angels Have Wings, and His Girl Friday). That is that the characters are better off together and united. There are conflicts and outside forces that can disrupt the insular worlds and characters that make up his films, but at the end of the day, minor conflicts can get out of hand very quickly, and sticking together is the right course of action for most of these groups.
In Red River, with a world based around men and companionship, of course, it's up the woman in their life to explicitly call out their emotions and their true feelings. In the end we are back where we started: with two men who love one another about to set out on another journey.
I'm not the Hawks expert many others here surely are, but obviously male camaraderie is essential to this film. What I found interesting about Red River is how many of the relationships are rooted in a minor conflict that doesn't really go anywhere. Clift and Ireland plant a seed early on for a potential rivalry that never coalesces. Brennan and The Chief have a rivalry and minor feud throughout the film. There's an ongoing rivalry between Wayne and Clift as well. Perhaps most importantly, there seems to be a rivalry between both sides of John Wayne's character: the ambitious man that wants to build a life for and take care of his loved ond es, and the angry man within him that feels scorned and bitter when love isn't reciprocated properly--it's that shortcoming which almost undoes him.
In the end there's a real optimism to the film and from what I remember it's present in the few other Hawks I've seen I believe (Rio Bravo, Only Angels Have Wings, and His Girl Friday). That is that the characters are better off together and united. There are conflicts and outside forces that can disrupt the insular worlds and characters that make up his films, but at the end of the day, minor conflicts can get out of hand very quickly, and sticking together is the right course of action for most of these groups.
In Red River, with a world based around men and companionship, of course, it's up the woman in their life to explicitly call out their emotions and their true feelings. In the end we are back where we started: with two men who love one another about to set out on another journey.
-
Sloper
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 2:06 am
Re: Red River (Howard Hawks, 1948)
Good points, Drucker – especially about how minor the conflicts seem at first glance, and about the two sides of Dunson’s personality. There’s a big unanswered question here about why he becomes murderously angry with Matt. We see at the beginning that his strength/flaw is stubbornness, when the woman begs him to change his mind ‘for once in his life’, and he refuses – and she dies as a result. This stubbornness also enables him to build up a vast herd of cattle over fourteen years, and perhaps makes him stick around in Texas for longer than he ought to have done. It enables him to drive the herd a long way up the Chisholm Trail – as Matt says, they wouldn’t have got as far as they did without Dunson’s determination – but it also makes him deaf to the suggestion that they go to Abilene instead. In this instance, as when he tells his fiancée to stay with the wagon train, he sets his mind on what seems to him the safest option. She ought to have been safer with the wagon train than with him and Groot; they don’t know for sure that there is a railway in Abilene. Once he’s made a calculation about how things should be done, he upholds the law thus established, no matter what extremes or abuses he has to go to. Groot and Matt repeatedly indicate that they think he is ‘wrong’ to brutalise the men, but it’s important to recognise that whenever he goes to these extremes, he does so in cold blood: not out of rage or sadism, but because as far as he knows this thing has got to be done. He can just about stand to be told that he is wrong, and that he should be more flexible – as long as no one actually stops him from doing what he thinks is right. The result is a genuinely complex character, driven by a code that is hard to make sense of to an outsider, but seems to be understood on an instinctive level by Groot and Matt, even when they stand against Dunson.
I like the idea that his rage stems from a feeling that his love for Matt is ‘not reciprocated properly’. The relationship between these two begins with a violent conflict, and a death threat, and it’s understood that – rather like the romances in Bringing Up Baby, I Was a Male War Bride, etc. – this is a love defined partly by rivalry. Drucker points out that the women in Hawks’ films often have to spell out, and draw out, the emotional dynamics between the opaque men, which I guess partly explains the ending of Red River (which I don’t like, but which seems very Hawksian). Further to that, I think one effect of the interrupting-and-overlapping dialogue that’s so characteristic of Hawks is to suggest an unspoken rapport between these people: they don’t have to wait for each other to finish their sentences, and can even change the subject of the conversation without disrupting the flow. Indeed they can talk about several different things at once. The really remarkable thing about these intricately directed exchanges is that they appear seamless rather than chaotic, like conversational fugues – whereas Welles, for example, often uses the same technique to create a sense of disorientation and fragmentation.
In other words, Hawks is very good at showing how these very loving relationships are constituted by a kind of ongoing harmonious conflict. When Matt instigates the mutiny and takes Dunson’s herd away from him, he disrupts that harmony, hence Dunson’s fury. In the end, the conflict is resolved not by Dunson being killed, or by Dunson realising he needs to be more flexible (although he does this, not terribly convincingly); instead it is resolved through conflict. As soon as the fistfight begins, Groot says, ‘For fourteen years I’ve been scared, but it’s gonna be alright’. Perhaps he’s been scared because the conflict between Dunson and Matt – unlike the sniping between Dunson and Groot, for instance – has always bubbled under the surface, with Matt doubting Dunson’s authority but gritting his teeth and following orders anyway. The result has been a build-up of pressure over fourteen years, and the pressure can only be released by either a fatal duel or a more sociable fistfight. The latter enables the two men to let off steam without doing permanent damage, and can be stopped by Tess (they really needed a Jean Arthur type in this role, Joanne Dru doesn’t quite pull it off) when it starts to look dangerous. As in Only Angels Have Wings, The Big Sky and Rio Bravo, Hawks shows us a weird little network of relationships, grounded in all sorts of unwritten and seemingly contradictory rules, dedicated to a foolhardy but heroic endeavour, haunted by the prospect of imminent and virtually un-mourned death at every turn – and somehow it’s a pleasure and a privilege to feel like we’re in these people’s company for a couple of hours.
While we’re complaining about the ending: is anyone else frustrated by the vagueness with which Cherry Valance is dispatched? We see a couple of men run over to tend to him after Dunson shoots him down (implying that he’ll pull through, I guess?), but then he just gets left behind by the unstoppable happy ending. I like John Ireland, and it’s a real shame his part got marginalised throughout the film, but it’s especially weird that we don’t get a clear confirmation about his ultimate fate. Perhaps that was Hawks’ final slap in the face to Ireland, implying that it didn’t even matter whether his character lived or died.
Also, I love Montgomery Clift. It was brave to cast an actor as sensitive and subtle as him in this kind of film, but it really pays off: the interplay between the acting styles of Wayne, Clift and Brennan (and Ireland, now and then) is a joy to behold.
I like the idea that his rage stems from a feeling that his love for Matt is ‘not reciprocated properly’. The relationship between these two begins with a violent conflict, and a death threat, and it’s understood that – rather like the romances in Bringing Up Baby, I Was a Male War Bride, etc. – this is a love defined partly by rivalry. Drucker points out that the women in Hawks’ films often have to spell out, and draw out, the emotional dynamics between the opaque men, which I guess partly explains the ending of Red River (which I don’t like, but which seems very Hawksian). Further to that, I think one effect of the interrupting-and-overlapping dialogue that’s so characteristic of Hawks is to suggest an unspoken rapport between these people: they don’t have to wait for each other to finish their sentences, and can even change the subject of the conversation without disrupting the flow. Indeed they can talk about several different things at once. The really remarkable thing about these intricately directed exchanges is that they appear seamless rather than chaotic, like conversational fugues – whereas Welles, for example, often uses the same technique to create a sense of disorientation and fragmentation.
In other words, Hawks is very good at showing how these very loving relationships are constituted by a kind of ongoing harmonious conflict. When Matt instigates the mutiny and takes Dunson’s herd away from him, he disrupts that harmony, hence Dunson’s fury. In the end, the conflict is resolved not by Dunson being killed, or by Dunson realising he needs to be more flexible (although he does this, not terribly convincingly); instead it is resolved through conflict. As soon as the fistfight begins, Groot says, ‘For fourteen years I’ve been scared, but it’s gonna be alright’. Perhaps he’s been scared because the conflict between Dunson and Matt – unlike the sniping between Dunson and Groot, for instance – has always bubbled under the surface, with Matt doubting Dunson’s authority but gritting his teeth and following orders anyway. The result has been a build-up of pressure over fourteen years, and the pressure can only be released by either a fatal duel or a more sociable fistfight. The latter enables the two men to let off steam without doing permanent damage, and can be stopped by Tess (they really needed a Jean Arthur type in this role, Joanne Dru doesn’t quite pull it off) when it starts to look dangerous. As in Only Angels Have Wings, The Big Sky and Rio Bravo, Hawks shows us a weird little network of relationships, grounded in all sorts of unwritten and seemingly contradictory rules, dedicated to a foolhardy but heroic endeavour, haunted by the prospect of imminent and virtually un-mourned death at every turn – and somehow it’s a pleasure and a privilege to feel like we’re in these people’s company for a couple of hours.
While we’re complaining about the ending: is anyone else frustrated by the vagueness with which Cherry Valance is dispatched? We see a couple of men run over to tend to him after Dunson shoots him down (implying that he’ll pull through, I guess?), but then he just gets left behind by the unstoppable happy ending. I like John Ireland, and it’s a real shame his part got marginalised throughout the film, but it’s especially weird that we don’t get a clear confirmation about his ultimate fate. Perhaps that was Hawks’ final slap in the face to Ireland, implying that it didn’t even matter whether his character lived or died.
Also, I love Montgomery Clift. It was brave to cast an actor as sensitive and subtle as him in this kind of film, but it really pays off: the interplay between the acting styles of Wayne, Clift and Brennan (and Ireland, now and then) is a joy to behold.
-
ando
- Bringing Out El Duende
- Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 10:53 pm
- Location: New York City
Re: Red River (Howard Hawks, 1948) ugh
Absolutely. I think Hawks once said something to the effect of They're really finishing each other's sentences. Whereas, with Welles' overlapping dialogue it's more of a aural contrast - filmic counterpoint, if you will. It's especially effective in films like Touch of Evil and, of course, Chimes at Midnight, where it hightens Shakespeare's regular use of this almost musical effect.Sloper wrote:The really remarkable thing about these intricately directed exchanges is that they appear seamless rather than chaotic, like conversational fugues – whereas Welles, for example, often uses the same technique to create a sense of disorientation and fragmentation.
-
Rayon Vert
- Green is the Rayest Color
- Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:52 am
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Re: Red River (Howard Hawks, 1948)
I love this film and one of the things I like is how the Wayne character progressively becomes hateful but is very likeable at the start, so that the finale, with him reverting to humanness and goodness, makes sense and is very satisfying. A complex character, prefiguring Ethan in The Searchers.
-
dwk
- Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 10:10 pm
Re: 709 Red River
Blu-ray only edition coming out on May 29th. No word if this drops the book.
-
Costa
- Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 9:10 pm
Re: 709 Red River
haven't still seen this film, but based on caps-a-holic I prefer the more grainy, contrasty, darker look of the Eureka release.
-
nitin
- Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 10:49 am
Re: 709 Red River
In this case, overall, the new master prepared by Criterion is much preferable to the older MGM master used by MoC. Plus having both cuts is also a major plus.
-
Robespierre
- Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:31 pm
Re: 709 Red River
About how long does it take Mulvaney to respond to e-mails? One of the spindles in my digipak is damaged and I only need that replaced so I sent out an e-mail a few days ago; I don't need discs or booklet. Or perhaps someone can direct me to a better way to get a new digipak before the dual format option is out of print?
-
Yaanu
- Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 4:18 am
Re: 709 Red River
You ought to be getting a response soon. But in case you don't, I believe seeking a replacement case is as easy as sending $5 via PayPal to one of Criterion's email addresses (I can't remember it off-hand) with a shipping address and a comment specifying what you require.Robespierre wrote:About how long does it take Mulvaney to respond to e-mails? One of the spindles in my digipak is damaged and I only need that replaced so I sent out an e-mail a few days ago; I don't need discs or booklet. Or perhaps someone can direct me to a better way to get a new digipak before the dual format option is out of print?
-
Robespierre
- Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:31 pm
Re: 709 Red River
Ah ok thanks I will look on the site to see if I can find links to this e-mail address.
-
Feego
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:30 pm
- Location: Texas
Re: 709 Red River
Try e-mailing this address: [email protected]. I needed a replacement case once and received a quick response through this address. In my case, I had ordered the movie directly from Criterion's site, so I don't know if that will make a difference, but it can't hurt to try.
-
Robespierre
- Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:31 pm
Re: 709 Red River
Ok cool thanks a lot I'll shoot them an e-mail.
-
Marwood
- Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:05 pm
Re: 709 Red River
Regarding the non-dual-format version that’s being released soon, I sent an e-mail to Mulvaney asking if the packaging would change to an amaray. This is the response I got:
--
Thanks for writing. This re-issue of RED RIVER is only a packaging change and the disc itself is not being re-pressed. The Blu-ray will be in a cardboard digipak and will continue to carry the book. The DVD only edition is on plastic and does not have the book included.
I hope this helps!
JM
--
So, in other words, it's not going to be an amaray.
--
Thanks for writing. This re-issue of RED RIVER is only a packaging change and the disc itself is not being re-pressed. The Blu-ray will be in a cardboard digipak and will continue to carry the book. The DVD only edition is on plastic and does not have the book included.
I hope this helps!
JM
--
So, in other words, it's not going to be an amaray.
-
PfR73
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 10:07 pm
Re: 709 Red River
While updating my personal collection database, I realized that the Criterion Pre-release Version runs almost 45 seconds longer than the MOC edition, a difference that couldn't be explained just by studio logos or other obvious differences. I did a full comparison and found these differences, not counting minor amounts of missing frames at certain cuts (usually on the MOC). After accounting for logos, the MOC is 20 seconds shorter than the Criterion overall.
1) The nighttime Indian attack early in the film ends with a shot of Walter Brennan whistling. On the Criterion, this shot has a very quick fadeout after his second whistle. On the MOC, the shot goes on 13 seconds longer: the camera continues to push in as he whistles several more times and then gets a nervous look on his face, at which point the shot fades out more slowly.
2) The following shot of birds in the sky is over 1 second longer on the Criterion.
3) When Wayne, Brennan, & the boy reach the spot they will build the ranch, the MOC is missing around 1 second from 2 shots of Wayne stopping, and then getting off his horse.
4) During the sequence of the herd crossing the river, the Criterion has an additional 3 second shot of Montgomery Clift on his horse in the river twirling a rope.
5) When Joanne Dru goes looking for Montgomery Clift in the foggy woods at night, on the Criterion, the first shot of her saying "Matthew Garth" has an extra 1 second of her looking around before saying the line.
6) After the book page stating Matthew Garth had a growing fear there was no railroad, the Criterion has an additional 2.5 seconds of him looking back towards the herd, and then the subsequent shot of the herd.
7) The Criterion has an additional 4 seconds of the shot of the cowboys & herd on the railroad track as they approach the train engine.
8) The Criterion has an additional 4 seconds of the shot of the herd crossing the track after the conductor has told them the way to Abilene.
9) When the herd enters Abilene, the Criterion has 16 seconds total of extended shots, including a shot of Brennan & Two Jaw Quo on their wagon in the middle of the herd that is completely absent from the MOC.
Movie-Censorship had done a comparison between the Theatrical and Pre-Release Versions using the German Blu-ray, and most of the differences between the Criterion & MOC Pre-Release Versions had been listed as being differences between the Theatrical and Pre-Release Versions.
So either, previous transfers of the Pre-Release Version were missing footage that should have been included, or Criterion included footage from the Theatrical Version that should not have been in the Pre-Release Version.
Criterion's transfer notes say they started with a duplicate 35mm negative corresponding to the Pre-Release Version and then had to reconstruct the Theatrical Version using other sources for the footage unique to that version, which would normally make you think that the Pre-Release Version would be edited correctly and if there were mistakes, it would be in creating the Theatrical Version; however, why does the Criterion Pre-Release Version have the shorter shot of Brennan whistling, which is the only real instance of the MOC including more footage than the Criterion? That shot is the same on the Theatrical Version disc, so the extended shot is not included on the Criterion release; additionally, the following shot of the birds, which is longer on Criterion's Pre-Release Version, is the same length as the Theatrical Version, where there is narration, which may have necessitated extending the shot for Theatrical Version, but not necessarily meaning the longer shot would be in the Pre-Release Version.
1) The nighttime Indian attack early in the film ends with a shot of Walter Brennan whistling. On the Criterion, this shot has a very quick fadeout after his second whistle. On the MOC, the shot goes on 13 seconds longer: the camera continues to push in as he whistles several more times and then gets a nervous look on his face, at which point the shot fades out more slowly.
2) The following shot of birds in the sky is over 1 second longer on the Criterion.
3) When Wayne, Brennan, & the boy reach the spot they will build the ranch, the MOC is missing around 1 second from 2 shots of Wayne stopping, and then getting off his horse.
4) During the sequence of the herd crossing the river, the Criterion has an additional 3 second shot of Montgomery Clift on his horse in the river twirling a rope.
5) When Joanne Dru goes looking for Montgomery Clift in the foggy woods at night, on the Criterion, the first shot of her saying "Matthew Garth" has an extra 1 second of her looking around before saying the line.
6) After the book page stating Matthew Garth had a growing fear there was no railroad, the Criterion has an additional 2.5 seconds of him looking back towards the herd, and then the subsequent shot of the herd.
7) The Criterion has an additional 4 seconds of the shot of the cowboys & herd on the railroad track as they approach the train engine.
8) The Criterion has an additional 4 seconds of the shot of the herd crossing the track after the conductor has told them the way to Abilene.
9) When the herd enters Abilene, the Criterion has 16 seconds total of extended shots, including a shot of Brennan & Two Jaw Quo on their wagon in the middle of the herd that is completely absent from the MOC.
Movie-Censorship had done a comparison between the Theatrical and Pre-Release Versions using the German Blu-ray, and most of the differences between the Criterion & MOC Pre-Release Versions had been listed as being differences between the Theatrical and Pre-Release Versions.
So either, previous transfers of the Pre-Release Version were missing footage that should have been included, or Criterion included footage from the Theatrical Version that should not have been in the Pre-Release Version.
Criterion's transfer notes say they started with a duplicate 35mm negative corresponding to the Pre-Release Version and then had to reconstruct the Theatrical Version using other sources for the footage unique to that version, which would normally make you think that the Pre-Release Version would be edited correctly and if there were mistakes, it would be in creating the Theatrical Version; however, why does the Criterion Pre-Release Version have the shorter shot of Brennan whistling, which is the only real instance of the MOC including more footage than the Criterion? That shot is the same on the Theatrical Version disc, so the extended shot is not included on the Criterion release; additionally, the following shot of the birds, which is longer on Criterion's Pre-Release Version, is the same length as the Theatrical Version, where there is narration, which may have necessitated extending the shot for Theatrical Version, but not necessarily meaning the longer shot would be in the Pre-Release Version.
-
M-A
- Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2022 8:34 pm
Re: 709 Red River
I checked the shot of Brennan whistling on some of the other releases and here's what I found:
-The French Wild Side BD does have the shot extended like the MoC
-The German Capelight BD does not have the shot extended
-The older (R2) MGM DVD does not have the shot extended
-The French Wild Side BD does have the shot extended like the MoC
-The German Capelight BD does not have the shot extended
-The older (R2) MGM DVD does not have the shot extended
-
PfR73
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 10:07 pm
Re: 709 Red River
It's likely the French BD & MOC BD are sourced from the same master, and I'd venture that the Capelight (advertised as a 2K restoration) is using Criterion's restoration. But it is interesting the the old R2 DVD doesn't have the extended shot; I wonder what the R1 DVD had. I found a rip of a TCM broadcast and it has the extended shot, but I don't know when the broadcast was.