criterionforum.org

oldsheperd wrote:That egg scene! I gag whenever I think about it.

Well if you get Blu-ray you'll probably ralph.

I was actually planning on eating some under-cooked hard boiled eggs while watching it.

I actually teach a lot of Japanese students English and Natural Foods cooking. And their favorite part of my classes is when I show them classic films from their native country. You wouldn't believe how most of the (modern) Japanese have no idea who Mizoguchi, Ozu, Naruse etc. are, at all. But something tells me, even though the deviant in me says otherwise, we won't be visiting this one. They do know Teshigahra, the father and Ikebana teacher though, not the director.

DVD Beaver review of the Blu-ray In the Realm of the Senses.

Well, now I'm disappointed that Criterion didn't use the Madonna pull-quote

Looking at the bitrate on the DVD edition, and the length of the special features, I'm wondering why Criterion didn't opt for a 2-disc edition of this title (especially because it's upper-tier priced anyway). It seems like everything's a little cramped onto one double layer disc.

Napier wrote:I actually teach a lot of Japanese students English and Natural Foods cooking. And their favorite part of my classes is when I show them classic films from their native country. You wouldn't believe how most of the (modern) Japanese have no idea who Mizoguchi, Ozu, Naruse etc. are, at all.

Back in my rep cinema days (early 1990s), we used to play the film regularly, and there was always a huge Japanese turnout - for much the same reason, I suspect, that A Clockwork Orange played permanently in Paris in the 1980s and 1990s and the audiences tended to be native English speakers.

According to the DVD Beaver review, this is still the 102-minute international edit -- despite the 108-minute runtime given on Criterion's site -- and with the missing six minutes presented as an extra. Even if Oshima gave Dauman permission to remove those scenes, it seems bizarre that Criterion would go with the "producer's cut" over the original, unless Oshima has expressed a preference for the shorter version. I'm guessing Gary is the only one here who's heard the commentary, so if he's reading this, does Rayns discuss this issue at all?

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:According to the DVD Beaver review, this is still the 102-minute international edit -- despite the 108-minute runtime given on Criterion's site -- and with the missing six minutes presented as an extra.

When I first saw the Criterion runtimes, they made sense to me. This is what I'd surmised:

There is the 100-minute "Western censored cut" featured on the Fox Lorber DVDS and prior VHS release(s).

There is the 102-minute "official Director's cut" that so far as I know has only appeared on the French Arte disc, and which would also be featured on the Criterion release.

Then, there are about 6 minutes of additional footage, essentially extended scenes with very little content (or merit) which is also on the French Arte disc, accessible only if you select the option that causes the "button" to appear on-screen at moments when extended footage is available. Hit "enter" when the button appears, and that footage plays. This, I presumed, would be the footage included by Criterion as "deleted scenes". I would add that if this footage corresponds to the French Arte disc as described, then it has rightly been consigned to the "extras".

Again, I don't yet have the Criterion disc. This is (was) all conjecture. But after reading your comments, I took the French Arte disc off the shelf and now I'm roundly confused. First, I presume PAL speedup would need to be taken into account, suggestiing that the runtimes should be shorter than the Criterion disc, all other things being equal. However, these are the times as listed on the French Arte package: "105 mn (version courte) 111 mn (version longue)".

So, this is a long-winded way of saying I got no idea what we're looking at here. :-k

Rich Malloy wrote:But after reading your comments, I took the French Arte disc off the shelf and now I'm roundly confused. First, I presume PAL speedup would need to be taken into account, suggestiing that the runtimes should be shorter than the Criterion disc, all other things being equal. However, these are the times as listed on the French Arte package: "105 mn (version courte) 111 mn (version longue)".

If you have the disc to hand, why are you quoting the packaging? What's the actual running time as given by your player?

Sorry for the cynicism, but I've encountered countless situations in the past of running times being supplied on the packaging by people who haven't had access to the disc, who know nothing of PAL speedup and who grabbed the nearest running time to hand out of a reference book or the IMDB! None of which is to say that the Arte box is necessarily wrong, but I certainly wouldn't take it at face value.

MichaelB wrote:If you have the disc to hand, why are you quoting the packaging?

I was appearing in court this morning, and only had time to check the box before rushing out. One continuance later, I can now follow-up on your question... the answer to which resolves everything.

The total running time for the French Arte "version originale Japonaise" per my player is 1:37:54 (1:37:44 sans the Argos Films credit, beginning with credits proper). By my math, this corresponds precisely to 102 minutes when 4% PAL speedup is factored out. This is the "international cut", inclusive of the scene discussed above that's never been featured on any other release.

The total running time for the French Arte "version originale integrale et ineractive" is... well, not worth my time adding up. As you likely expect, when this option is selected the player still indicates the same runtime as the "version originale Japonaise". As I detailed above, the only way to re-integrate the additional footage is to hit "enter" on-the-fly when the button appears on-screen at various points throughout the film. I've watched the disc in this way before, found all of the additional sequences to be utterly superfluous, and am willing to take it on faith that it's roughly 6 minutes of footage (though that does seem like quite a lot). Like I said above, in my opinion all of this footage is best relegated to the "extras" and not reintegrated into the film proper. Further, it's my understanding that this is not Oshima's intended cut, nor do I think it should be, and I suspect this is why the French disc presented that footage in this manner.

So, based on the runtimes, Criterion's release will be the uncut original version with a runtime of ~102 minutes, with the additional 6 minutes of footage rightly relegated to extra features.

But, of course, this is my opinion only and I'd like to toss it back over to the Fanciful Norwegian (or anyone with an opinion on the subject). Are you saying that those additional 6 minutes should be integrated into the film due to Oshima's stated preferences or your own aesthetic conclusions as to their merit?

I made it pretty clear in my post that I don't actually know "Oshima's stated preferences," hence my question to Gary re: the commentary. The menu capture at DVD Beaver says this:

With Nagisa Oshima's approval, In the Realm of the Senses producer Anatole Dauman shortened six scenes, to bring the film to his preferred length. The sections of deleted footage (just over six minutes) are presented here in the context of their original placement in the film. They appear in full color, surrounded by final-cut footage in black and white.

There's nothing in here about Oshima's preferences -- only that he gave Dauman approval to do his own edit. Hence my surprise that Criterion defaulted to what seems to be a producer's cut. If Oshima subsequently expressed a preference for the short version (which is hardly impossible), then it's remiss of Criterion to not mention that in their explanation.

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:I made it pretty clear in my post that I don't actually know "Oshima's stated preferences,"...

This maybe so, but this text you left earlier suggests otherwise:

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:According to the DVD Beaver review, this is still the 102-minute international edit -- despite the 108-minute runtime given on Criterion's site -- and with the missing six minutes presented as an extra. Even if Oshima gave Dauman permission to remove those scenes, it seems bizarre that Criterion would go with the "producer's cut" over the original, unless Oshima has expressed a preference for the shorter version.

So, if you do not know what Oshima's preference was, why are you speculating that the 102-minute cut is the "producer's cut" (the fact that the deleted scenes are not part of the version presented on the Criterion disc does not indicate that they were intended to be there - and this is what Rich pointed out to you above). The 102 version that was released in France sometime ago is indeed the uncensored version of the film which Mr. Karmitz not too long ago screened in his theaters. Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, the deleted scenes Criterion offer were never incorporated into a new "director's cut" of the film that was approved by Mr. Oshima (Tony Rayns certainly does not elaborate on Oshima's preference either, though he explains in detail the censoring the film underwent - including the fact that it was screened in Japan uncut, with the controversial scenes being blurred).

Rich Malloy wrote: Are you saying (Fanciful Norwegian) that those additional 6 minutes should be integrated into the film due to Oshima's stated preferences or your own aesthetic conclusions as to their merit?

Intentionally or not, he does.

Pro-B

pro-bassoonist wrote:So, if you do not know what Oshima's preference was, why are you speculating that the 102-minute cut is the "producer's cut"

It's a producer's cut unless Oshima expressed an actual preference for it (that's a pretty significant adverb clause you chose to elide there). If Oshima cut those scenes himself and/or preferred the film with the edits, then it's counter-intuitive to ascribe the editing to the producer and refer to the 102-minute version as "his [i.e. Dauman's] preferred length," while saying nothing about the director's preferred length. Again, if the shorter cut actually reflects Oshima's wishes, that should be mentioned. To leave it out (assuming it's true) is to invite speculation.

Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, the deleted scenes Criterion offer were never incorporated into a new "director's cut" of the film that was approved by Mr. Oshima (Tony Rayns certainly does not elaborate on Oshima's preference either, though he explains in detail the censoring the film underwent - including the fact that it was screened in Japan uncut, with the controversial scenes being blurred).

There are two Japanese cuts. The first is from 1976, with several minutes of Eirin-imposed edits. This version apparently came to 104 minutes, which hints that the six minutes removed by Dauman were not removed here. In 2000 it was re-released uncut-but-blurred, first theatrically and then on video. This version runs 108 minutes on DVD (the theatrical runtime is usually given as 109m, but we can assume it's the same cut) and includes the footage deleted from the 102-minute cut.

So we have the not-unprecedented situation of separate "domestic" and "international" cuts, although the former description isn't completely accurate (the long version has been shown abroad, at least in the UK and Quebec -- anyone know which cut was shown at the Quandt retrospective?). The 2000 Japanese re-release carried "Oshima's blessing"; this, on the face of it, is no stronger than the "approval" he gave to Dauman's revisions, but the domestic reissue definitely post-dates that.

Intentionally or not, he does.

Does what now?

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:It's a producer's cut unless Oshima expressed an actual preference for it (that's a pretty significant adverb clause you chose to elide there). If Oshima cut those scenes himself and/or preferred the film with the edits, then it's counter-intuitive to ascribe the editing to the producer and refer to the 102-minute version as "his [i.e. Dauman's] preferred length," while saying nothing about the director's preferred length. Again, if the shorter cut actually reflects Oshima's wishes, that should be mentioned. To leave it out (assuming it's true) is to invite speculation.

This is what I know about Criterion's release, which also happens to be the same cut of the film that was distributed in France for many years: the 102 version of In the Realm of the Senses is the same cut of the film Oshima approved, which was consequently screened during his restrospective. I don't own the French DVD set, so I don't know if there are any extras addressing Oshima's preference there, but I know for a fact that the deleted scenes found on the Criterion release have not been integrated in a longer, more complete "cut" of the film and released in France. Therefore, since the Criterion release does not carry the "director's approved" tag, then you could obviously speculate quite a bit here. With other words, Oshima really did not have to express any preferences towards the 102 version of the film as this has always been the uncensored version he and the French producers agreed upon (I personally am not familiar with the 1976 cut of the film you refer to, but have to say that I find it extremely unlikely that it is in any way representative of Oshima's intent as the final version that was approved by him, the 102 min., was indeed worked on in France, not in Japan). This also goes for the "theatrical" cut of the film, which, again, to the best of my knowledge has never been blessed by Oshima (dismissing the 102 cut as incomplete etc) - which, of course, should explain why Criterion offer the deleted scenes in the extras department.

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:Does what now?

Speculate that it is a producer's only cut of the film. As mentioned earlier, the 102 French cut of the film is very much representative of Oshima's vision.

Pro-B

pro-bassoonist wrote:This is what I know about Criterion's release, which also happens to be the same cut of the film that was distributed in France for many years: the 102 version of In the Realm of the Senses is the same cut of the film Oshima approved, which was consequently screened during his restrospective.

There are two cuts Oshima approved. I kinda covered this already.

I don't own the French DVD set, so I don't know if there are any extras addressing Oshima's preference there, but I know for a fact that the deleted scenes found on the Criterion release have not been integrated in a longer, more complete "cut" of the film and released in France.

They have in a longer, more complete "cut" of the film released in Japan back in 2000. I kinda covered this already.

With other words, Oshima really did not have to express any preferences towards the 102 version of the film as this has always been the uncensored version he and the French producers agreed upon (I personally am not familiar with the 1976 cut of the film you refer to, but have to say that I find it extremely unlikely that it is in any way representative of Oshima's intent as the final version that was approved by him, the 102 min., was indeed worked on in France, not in Japan).

The 1976 cut was quite obviously not representative of Oshima's intent, since he went to court over it (more specifically the five-odd minutes that the censors removed). When the chance came to reissue it in 2000, it included both the censored footage and the six minutes under discussion. This reissue also had Oshima's approval, so referring to the short cut as "the final version" is more than a little shaky. At the very least there are two director-approved cuts, one that the French producers agreed upon and one that they apparently didn't, and the latter approved as recently as 2000 (unfortunately Oshima is probably in no shape to approve much of anything these days). I kinda covered this already.

This also goes for the "theatrical" cut of the film, which, again, to the best of my knowledge has never been blessed by Oshima

Which theatrical cut? The 108-minute one? Because yeah, Oshima "blessed" that one. I kinda covered this already.

I'm tempted to play the version integrale and patiently await each button to review the additional footage one more time... but with the blu-ray on-the-way, I can't bring myself to dilute my anticipation by viewing the film in its entirety now. I'm sorry. I just can't dampen the joy of that viewing for something so purely academic.

I hesitate to rely too much on my memory here - and 6 minutes is nearly a reel's worth of footage - but I don't recall in that additional 6 minutes a single shot that would be removed for censorious reasons (even where arguably "explicit", nothing moreso than the 'uncut' footage that preceded it). So, I can't imagine these represent the "Dauman cuts". But I'm going on memory here, and we just might have an interesting discussion to come. I will say that if anyone wants the entire, integrated 108-minute cut version (requiring a bit of interactivity and French subtitles only), I have the French Arte disc on my trade list.

BTW, thanks for the great information and discussion on the history of this film, most of which was totally unknown to me.

Rich Malloy wrote:I hesitate to rely too much on my memory here - and 6 minutes is nearly a reel's worth of footage - but I don't recall in that additional 6 minutes a single shot that would be removed for censorious reasons (even where arguably "explicit", nothing moreso than the 'uncut' footage that preceded it). So, I can't imagine these represent the "Dauman cuts".

Dauman wouldn't have cut anything for "censorious" reasons -- it was he who approached Oshima with the idea of making a "hardcore" film, so he was probably the last person who would've been freaked out by the graphic material. The six minutes in question were evidently cut for time ("to bring the film to his preferred length", per Criterion), although some sexual material was removed. This page has a rundown of the differences if you don't want to wait for the CC, but note that it isn't accurate in all respects (e.g. referring to the two cuts as the "theatrical" and "home video" versions, even though both cuts have been shown in both formats).

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:There are two cuts Oshima approved. I kinda covered this already.

I actually went back to read the article one more time, and Mark Schilling's wording is anything but conclusive as to whether or not Oshima approved this new "director's cut" you mention. The blessing Mark Schilling talks about has to do with the fact that years ago Oshima vowed to oppose any official screenings of the film in Japan (which I am going to assume is why the article mentions again the blurring - hence the blessing). This is a well known fact and I don't know where you kinda get the idea that there are two director's cuts of the film (in fact, the stamp of approval the article mentions addresses the censors' decision to allow the film to be screened uncut but blurred for the first time in years).

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:They have in a longer, more complete "cut" of the film released in Japan back in 2000. I kinda covered this already.

I know that you did, but you are speculating that Oshima approved two cuts of the film. So, again, the only director's cut is the one the French distirbutors have had in circulation for years.

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:The 1976 cut was quite obviously not representative of Oshima's intent, since he went to court over it (more specifically the five-odd minutes that the censors removed). When the chance came to reissue it in 2000, it included both the censored footage and the six minutes under discussion. This reissue also had Oshima's approval, so referring to the short cut as "the final version" is more than a little shaky. At the very least there are two director-approved cuts, one that the French producers agreed upon and one that they apparently didn't, and the latter approved as recently as 2000 (unfortunately Oshima is probably in no shape to approve much of anything these days). I kinda covered this already.

This is a huge speculation on your part and something Mr. Rayns never discussed in detail. I am sorry, I simply cannot agree with what you've written.

Which theatrical cut? The 108-minute one? Because yeah, Oshima "blessed" that one. I kinda covered this already.

I've made it clear how I feel about the blessing above.

Pro-B

I'm looking forward to seeing the cut 6 minutes again to see if my opinion still holds, and I'll be particularly interested in reading everyone else's opinions as to whether the footage should have been reintegrated. Given what appears to be a rather murky history, I'm not sure if we're really able to suss out Oshima's precise intentions.

It's not as though we haven't been faced with similar situations. Many of you are likely aware that Tarkovsky explicitly approved of the cuts in the official Mosfilm release of "Rublev" from conversations we had years ago when the Ruscico disc emerged. Frankly, who's buying that? The cuts inflicted on Rublev were either of the censorious nanny variety (picture prudish Party members clutching their pearls and collapsing on their fainting couches at the sight of a bare bum), or the for-the-sake-of-time carving up of carefully-orchestrated, scene-long, essential-Tarkovsky, tracking shots (such as the hack-o-matic editing of the blinding of the artisans scene, originally depicted in a single virtuoso take).

I'm not as familiar with Oshima as Tarkovsky, and so may well have missed some Oshimic aesthetic that's dulled or destroyed by the missing 6 minutes. But I've so far only read attempted divinations of Oshima's intent, and no personal opinions as to the significance, if any, of that footage. This, I'd love to read, particularly from those of you who are much more familiar than I with the breadth and depth of Oshima's art.

Sorry guys, just a quick backtrack to the earlier discussion on the legality of importing the 'un-zoomed' version of Realm of the Senses into the uk.

Does this therefore mean Criterion's "Fat Girl" would also get confiscated by customs?

Napier wrote:I actually teach a lot of Japanese students English and Natural Foods cooking. And their favorite part of my classes is when I show them classic films from their native country. You wouldn't believe how most of the (modern) Japanese have no idea who Mizoguchi, Ozu, Naruse etc. are, at all. But something tells me, even though the deviant in me says otherwise, we won't be visiting this one. They do know Teshigahra, the father and Ikebana teacher though, not the director.

Actually I would believe that most of the younger Japanese have never heard of these directors. I do not know what age your students are, but I would imagine it is a similar situation in the US that younger people do not know Hollywood directors from that same time period (Hitchcock comes to mind as a possible exception).

I now live in Japan and even many Japanese in their 40’s to 60’s that I talk to have no idea who these directors are or their movies. Also, every Japanese person I have talked to about movies has seemed surprised that a non-Japanese person would even know these directors, unless it is Kurosawa, or the major actors from that time. They are therefore just as surprised that the films by these directors are available in the states on DVD.