Re: Once Upon a Time in the West (Sergio Leone, 1968)
Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 2:52 pm
Thanks, Peacock. :cheers
https://test.criterionforum.org/forum/
aox wrote:Just a quick question, and not to stick my toes into this heated debate, but out of the two cuts presented on the new R1 BD, which one is closest to the proper cut and the one to show classes/or people who haven't seen the film?
Where did you get this information from that Leone trimmed the Italian cut and presented a few months later an international cut? I never found in any of the books I have read something like this.Peacock wrote:Leone created the Italian cut, then a few months later trimmed some little bits for pacing reasons and released the Theatrical Cut included on this disk. The 'Restored' cut takes a few seconds of the shots/extensions of shots, exclusive to the Italian cut, the bits Scorsese thought were more important to keep in, and created a sort of hybrid between the Italian cut, and Leone's final cut - the Theatrical version. Why... remains a mystery.
But yeah, the theatrical cut therefore is the one worth seeing.
I've been watching the restored version for too long, I guess, and I didn't think of how interesting it is without Harmonica recovering from the gunshot wounds. His reappearance, as Lighthouse describes it, is not only surprising, it takes the narrative into mythological territory. Because then when he reappears in the tavern, we have seen him die already, and then appear again out of the dark, like a phantom. Then his role is recast as a mythological character; he becomes a supernatural force of story, instead of a character crying out for psychological explanation. If Harmonica is in fact an "avenging angel," then the intensely arbitrary way he moves through the film, advancing plot as he sees fit, directing the principal characters and providing them motivation, has tremendous resonance.Lighthouse wrote:The film starts with 3 men waiting for more than 10 min at a railway station for a train. With the train comes a 4th man who shoots these 3 down, but is himself gunned down in a way that we must assume all 4 are dead. This is followed directly by another long scene which introduces McBain and his 3 children, who all got killed at the end of the scene. And the only thing that connects these 2 scenes is a name.
Then another rough cut and another long scene starts which introduces Jill and later in the desert store Cheyenne, and then now nearly 25 min after the first shoot-out it is revealed in a magnificent way that Harmonica is still alive.
And this magnificent scene when the creepy harmonica music comes from the shadows, and Harmonica is then brought into light by the swung lamp, this magnificent scene is much more brilliant if haven't seen Harmonica rising, and we were for 25 irritated what really had happened at the end of the first scene. And I don't need any more for an explanation than the short glimpse of Cheyenne at the bullet hole in Harmonica's clothes.
Christopher Frayling made the argument online shortly prior to the US DVD release (there may possibly be some mention of this on DVD Savant's website). Back in 2002-3, there was some pressure to restore the additional material from the Italian cut, which had already been released on DVD in Italy - similar to the dreadful 'restored' version of TGTBATU - but Frayling wisely vetoed the idea. His view was perhaps controversial at the time (as the article you link to demonstrates), but once one gets over the idea that longer automaticaly = better, it really is the logical explanation. We know that Leone was still working on the film during those five months, supervising the English dub and delivering the final version of the film to Paramount (Leone may be Italian but this was an American studio funded picture at the end of the day). Most directors in a situation like that would be tempted to make a few small tweaks and trims - whereas there would be no commercial reason for making such a small adjustment to the running time. And ultimately the most convincing evidence - as that 'censorship' article ironically demonstrates - is that all of the trims work to tighten the film in a positive manner (the reason, one assumes, that Scorsese and. Co. ultimately decided to leave most of this extra footage on the cutting room floor for their restoration).Lighthouse wrote:Where did you get this information from that Leone trimmed the Italian cut and presented a few months later an international cut? I never found in any of the books I have read something like this.
If this was Leone's intention, he wouldn't have shot the scene included in the international cut of the film (or scripted the longer scene this was designed to replace).feihong wrote:when he reappears in the tavern, we have seen him die already, and then appear again out of the dark, like a phantom. Then his role is recast as a mythological character; he becomes a supernatural force of story, instead of a character crying out for psychological explanation.
Don't misunderstand me.Nothing wrote:Christopher Frayling made the argument online shortly prior to the US DVD release (there may possibly be some mention of this on DVD Savant's website). Back in 2002-3, there was some pressure to restore the additional material from the Italian cut, which had already been released on DVD in Italy - similar to the dreadful 'restored' version of TGTBATU - but Frayling wisely vetoed the idea. His view was perhaps controversial at the time (as the article you link to demonstrates), but once one gets over the idea that longer automaticaly = better, it really is the logical explanation. We know that Leone was still working on the film during those five months, supervising the English dub and delivering the final version of the film to Paramount (Leone may be Italian but this was an American studio funded picture at the end of the day). Most directors in a situation like that would be tempted to make a few small tweaks and trims - whereas there would be no commercial reason for making such a small adjustment to the running time. And ultimately the most convincing evidence - as that 'censorship' article ironically demonstrates - is that all of the trims work to tighten the film in a positive manner (the reason, one assumes, that Scorsese and. Co. ultimately decided to leave most of this extra footage on the cutting room floor for their restoration).Lighthouse wrote:Where did you get this information from that Leone trimmed the Italian cut and presented a few months later an international cut? I never found in any of the books I have read something like this.
Which 68s, though? And it is odd, don't you think, that this European variant has never turned up on home video, not in Italy or anywhere else. If someone could produce a video copy of any kind it would go a long way to backing up the story (although the May '69 US premiere / UK theatrical version is still the final director's cut, imho). I mean, I suspect this version DID exist, as you say - because Scorsese was also adamant at one point that the 'Rising scene' shouldn't be included - and yet he, and the Restoration Team, ultimately left the scene intact, which says something I think. This scene comes at the beginning of a reel, if I recall; isn't it possible that it just got cut out of some of the prints by accident?Lighthouse wrote:But I want the 68 sec back in the OuTW, because they belong there imo, and I want the Rising scene out, because I don't think it belongs there.
No, no accident. I have said it all in my above posts, but now again.Nothing wrote:Which 68s, though? And it is odd, don't you think, that this European variant has never turned up on home video, not in Italy or anywhere else. If someone could produce a video copy of any kind it would go a long way to backing up the story (although the May '69 US premiere / UK theatrical version is still the final director's cut, imho). I mean, I suspect this version DID exist, as you say - because Scorsese was also adamant at one point that the 'Rising scene' shouldn't be included - and yet he, and the Restoration Team, ultimately left the scene intact, which says something I think. This scene comes at the beginning of a reel, if I recall; isn't it possible that it just got cut out of some of the prints by accident?Lighthouse wrote:But I want the 68 sec back in the OuTW, because they belong there imo, and I want the Rising scene out, because I don't think it belongs there.
I have also thought a little bit more about this. If Leone had really done some more fine cutting after the Italian release, then why he hadn't released this "superior" version also in Germany and France?Nothing wrote:Christopher Frayling made the argument online shortly prior to the US DVD release (there may possibly be some mention of this on DVD Savant's website). Back in 2002-3, there was some pressure to restore the additional material from the Italian cut, which had already been released on DVD in Italy - similar to the dreadful 'restored' version of TGTBATU - but Frayling wisely vetoed the idea. His view was perhaps controversial at the time (as the article you link to demonstrates), but once one gets over the idea that longer automaticaly = better, it really is the logical explanation. We know that Leone was still working on the film during those five months, supervising the English dub and delivering the final version of the film to Paramount (Leone may be Italian but this was an American studio funded picture at the end of the day). Most directors in a situation like that would be tempted to make a few small tweaks and trims - whereas there would be no commercial reason for making such a small adjustment to the running time. And ultimately the most convincing evidence - as that 'censorship' article ironically demonstrates - is that all of the trims work to tighten the film in a positive manner (the reason, one assumes, that Scorsese and. Co. ultimately decided to leave most of this extra footage on the cutting room floor for their restoration).Lighthouse wrote:Where did you get this information from that Leone trimmed the Italian cut and presented a few months later an international cut? I never found in any of the books I have read something like this.
But you're basing this on what? There's no evidence anywhere to suggest that Leone didn't have full creative control over the final 165m cut of the film.Lighthouse wrote:I still assume that the explanation for these missing 68 sec is that they were only cut out for the English version to make this long scene faster (maybe for a probably impatient audience).
No, not really...Lighthouse wrote:And don't you think that the film is more daring and narratively more intelligent without the Rising scene?
Well, firstly, we've still seen no tangible evidence online (eg. VHS excerpts/scan of the box with the running time, etc) that this alternate European version exists. But assuming that it does, the answer would be quite simple:Lighthouse wrote:If Leone had really done some more fine cutting after the Italian release, then why he hadn't released this "superior" version also in Germany and France?
Agreed on this. It is a pity that no extras pertaining to the restoration were included on the BD.Lighthouse wrote:Well, if Scorsese's aim was really to restore the original European version, I really would like to know for what reasons he kept the Rising scene.
Believe me, these versions exist.Nothing wrote:Well, firstly, we've still seen no tangible evidence online (eg. VHS excerpts/scan of the box with the running time, etc) that this alternate European version exists.Lighthouse wrote:If Leone had really done some more fine cutting after the Italian release, then why he hadn't released this "superior" version also in Germany and France?
And for me it is still hard to imagine that Leone made a "superior" version, but didn't care to release this "superior" version in his home country and other important European countries Especially as OUTW was released there after it was released in the US and in the UK. I still think that there was only one version from which all shorter versions were derived.Nothing wrote:But assuming that it does, the answer would be quite simple:
The film was funded by Paramount, it was an American studio picture with American actors, so the English language version of the film would have been considered the definitive version by the producers - and, as such, it is hard to believe that Leone would not have been involved. One presumes that the English language dialogue, featuring Fonda, Bronson, Robards, et al. would have been recorded and edited between Dec '68 and May '69 - and again it's very hard to believe that Leone wasn't party to this, including also the titling, which is fancier on the English version than the Italian version (and, of course, the titling occurs over the opening scene, which is where you're saying the 68s comes from, no?)... Resulting in the final English language version that premiered in May '69. In other European territories, on the other hand, France and Germany included, the film would have been dubbed and re-titled simultaneously and without the input of the original actors - and almost certainly without Leone's input either (it would be extremely unusual for a director to be involved in local versioning for foreign markets). So, to keep to their schedule, it's quite possible, indeed probable, that most if not all of the non-English language dubs of the film were based on the earlier Italian cut, whilst Leone was still tightening up the final director's cut of the film for the US.
By this rationale, we should reject the US BD entirely, since it doesn't include the Italian audio track...Lighthouse wrote:it is an Italian production, produced by Leone's own company, written in Italian by Italians and in all books an Itlian only film... it is the Italain version which counts
The film had already been released in Italy, so what was he supposed to do? And, as I already pointed out, it takes time to dub and re-title a film, and a director is rarely involved in foreign versioning, so it's not at all unlikely that the French and German versions would have followe the earlier Italian cut. As for this:Lighthouse wrote:for me it is still hard to imagine that Leone made a "superior" verision, but didn't care to release this "superior" version in his home country and other important European countries Especially as OUTW was released there after it was released in the US and in the UK. I still think that there was only one version from which all shorter versions were derived.
I've seen an archived UK release print (the shortened 144m cut was never shown outside the US) and it is identical to the current version, so no... And in any case, this quote that you unearthed surely settles it:Lighthouse wrote:What if the 1st scene was simply made shorter for the 144 min version, and the Rising scene was exclusively added for this short version, and later when the 165 min version was restored they simply kept the Rising scene, only because it was there, and they simply forgot to restore the first scene?
Presumably this settled it for Scorsese and Co. too.Ferrini wrote:Leone's personal print [shows] Harmonica rising after being wounded at the train station
In Frayling's Something to Do With Death, he explains that these two scenes had been shot but that Leone cut these and other scenes from the script midshoot - and transferred key dialogue into scenes that were yet to be shot - as he was afraid that the film was going to play too long. Imho, if there is one major flaw in the film it is the structural problems that resulted from this last-minute tinkering, although some good things did also result (Cheyenne's "whittling on a piece of wood" line originated from the barbershop scene, apparently).Lighthouse wrote:The scene with the laundry owner's wife and the sheriff is missing, another one in the barbershop, which was particularly funny... [Morton killing Frank's men] I left out on purpose, it was more important to show the result rather than how it happened.
That's your opinion, surely not mine. And I think that the Italians will have also a very different view of it.Nothing wrote:By this rationale, we should reject the US BD entirely, since it doesn't include the Italian audio track...Lighthouse wrote:it is an Italian production, produced by Leone's own company, written in Italian by Italians and in all books an Itlian only film... it is the Italain version which counts
Whereas, imho, the film was financed by Paramount and that makes it a studio picture, whether or not Leone produced most of the film in Italy, and it is of course also set in the United States, and I therefore see Mickey Knox's dialogue and the voice performances of Fonda, Robards and Bronson as an integral element - from which it logically follows that the 165m English language version that premiered in 1965 is the final cut.
According to all my books the UK version was also cut down to 144 min.The film had already been released in Italy, so what was he supposed to do? And, as I already pointed out, it takes time to dub and re-title a film, and a director is rarely involved in foreign versioning, so it's not at all unlikely that the French and German versions would have followe the earlier Italian cut. As for this:Lighthouse wrote:for me it is still hard to imagine that Leone made a "superior" verision, but didn't care to release this "superior" version in his home country and other important European countries Especially as OUTW was released there after it was released in the US and in the UK. I still think that there was only one version from which all shorter versions were derived.I've seen an archived UK release print (the shortened 144m cut was never shown outside the US) and it is identical to the current version, so no...Lighthouse wrote:What if the 1st scene was simply made shorter for the 144 min version, and the Rising scene was exclusively added for this short version, and later when the 165 min version was restored they simply kept the Rising scene, only because it was there, and they simply forgot to restore the first scene?
And yet 'the Italians' were involved in the restoration and they don't seem to be complaining (the restored version is still closest to the final English language cut, and the titles and soundtrack are in English). Anyway, since they didn't finance the picture they really don't have a leg to stand on... And this is what differentiates OUATITW from 'most other Spaghetti Westerns', which were mostly cheap knock-offs made for the Italian market, without major American stars. And then on Duck You Sucker! we have Rod Steiger insisting that the (English) dialogue be recorded direct on set. I don't think there's any serious disagreement about any of Leone's last three films being English language (just as, say, Lars von Trier shoots his films in English to work with American actors and reach a larger audience today).Lighthouse wrote:That's your opinion, surely not mine. And I think that the Italians will have also a very different view of it.
Here we go again... The 144m cut was an (unsuccessful) attempt to make the film more accessible, or at least to crowbar in more showings in a day, but there's nothing to suggest any tampering with the final 165m US premiere version.Lighthouse wrote:it has the smell of making a difficult film (slightly) more accessible for a supposedly less patient audience.
No. I sense this may open up a whole new can of worms, but the 1969 UK release version was 167m6s in length, as was the 1982 re-release. The 2000 re-issue was 165m12s. However, I'm positive that before 2000 I more than once saw a print with an AA Certificate at the head and there was no variation whatsoever... My suggestion is that this additional length may possibly relate to music running on over black after the end credits, which I do also seem to recall from these earlier screenings. I wonder if someone at the BFI could look at one of these olders prints and check (I believe they have at least one in their archive...)Lighthouse wrote:According to all my books the UK version was also cut down to 144 min.
I don't think so. There also German films which were shot in English to make them more accessible for the english market, but they are still German films. and are the James Bond films now no longer British because UA or meanwhile MGM gave the money?Nothing wrote:And yet 'the Italians' were involved in the restoration and they don't seem to be complaining (the restored version is still closest to the final English language cut, and the titles and soundtrack are in English). Anyway, since they didn't finance the picture they really don't have a leg to stand on... And this is what differentiates OUATITW from 'most other Spaghetti Westerns', which were mostly cheap knock-offs made for the Italian market, without major American stars. And then on Duck You Sucker! we have Rod Steiger insisting that the (English) dialogue be recorded direct on set. I don't think there's any serious disagreement about any of Leone's last three films being English language (just as, say, Lars von Trier shoots his films in English to work with American actors and reach a larger audience today).Lighthouse wrote:That's your opinion, surely not mine. And I think that the Italians will have also a very different view of it.
I only said that it has the smell, that doesn't mean that it was that way. Whatever the reasons were, making a slow scene faster and adding a scene which makes the whole long beginning less iritating, things like these are mostly a commercial concession. But either way, that doesn't hurt the film very much, while the cutting of the 4 important scenes does destroy the rhythm of the film and the structure. Of course.Nothing wrote:Here we go again... The 144m cut was an (unsuccessful) attempt to make the film more accessible, or at least to crowbar in more showings in a day, but there's nothing to suggest any tampering with the final 165m US premiere version.Lighthouse wrote:it has the smell of making a difficult film (slightly) more accessible for a supposedly less patient audience.
Not directed, but maybe still supervised the dubbing.rohmerin wrote:I've read somewhere that Leone did not speak English at all, so I doubt he has directed the dubbing.
If he doesn't speak the language and is unfamiliar with the nuances of the language, what could 'supervise' possibly mean?Lighthouse wrote:Not directed, but maybe still supervised the dubbing.rohmerin wrote:I've read somewhere that Leone did not speak English at all, so I doubt he has directed the dubbing.
OK, neato! But what does Loach have to do with Leone's language skills and supervision of dubbing? I am obviously dumber than you and will need you to lay this all out for me.rohmerin wrote:Ken Loach doesn't speak Spanish and he has directed in Land and freedom and Carla's song several of the best acting in Spanish I've seen. May be they have got a 6th sense.
From the UK, yes. BBFC Certification is a legal requirement for a film to be screened to the public in the UK, a film cannot then be cut or altered in any way - meaning that these runtimes are incontestable. However, in 1981, BBFC records were not available to the public, this is presumably how Frayling made this mistake in his earlier book.Lighthouse wrote:Are you from England? At least Frayling (a Brit) gives in all his books the UK runtime with 145 min? These runtimes are quite interesting, but I think the release version in the UK was still the cut one. In his book of 1981 Frayling mentions the scenes as cut out.
I could go along with that interpretation, yes. Most see a very certifiable difference between a studio-funded "British" film (eg. Harry Potter) and a genuinely British production. And you must surely acknowledge the difference between a cheap spaghetti aimed at the Italian market and a Paramount-funded tentpole starring Henry Fonda, Charles Bronson and Jason Robards...Lighthouse wrote:are the James Bond films now no longer British because UA or meanwhile MGM gave the money?
I'm sure here you are definitely wrong. Frayling has surely seen the film in the cinema, so that he knew the film was cut. He gives a detailed description of the scenes missing from the English cut.Nothing wrote:From the UK, yes. BBFC Certification is a legal requirement for a film to be screened to the public in the UK, a film cannot then be cut or altered in any way - meaning that these runtimes are incontestable. However, in 1981, BBFC records were not available to the public, this is presumably how Frayling made this mistake in his earlier book.Lighthouse wrote:Are you from England? At least Frayling (a Brit) gives in all his books the UK runtime with 145 min? These runtimes are quite interesting, but I think the release version in the UK was still the cut one. In his book of 1981 Frayling mentions the scenes as cut out.
The BBFC records show that the 144m cut of Once Upon a Time in the West has never been certified in the United Kingom, therefore it would have been illegal to ever screen this version in the United Kingdom. There can be no question.Lighthouse wrote:I'm sure here you are definitely wrong. Frayling has surely seen the film in the cinema, so that he knew the film was cut. He gives a detailed description of the scenes missing from the English cut. But I will ask a Brit I know who surely has seen it also back in the 70s.
Once upon a Time in the West was released in September 1969 in Holland.
I saw the chopped-up version in the Chicago Theater, Eindhoven, Holland. I’m pretty sure the Harmonica rising scene was in it, because I missed the scene when I saw the uncut version for the first time.
The full length version was released in Holland in 1975 or 1976, I can’t find the exact year, but it must have been one of these two. I had a weekend job in a cinema in Eindhoven were it was shown. The rising scene was not in it.