| Welcome to THE CINEHOUND FORUM: Dedicated to Bill Barounis (RIP). We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Are these DVDs cut?; DEVIL'S KISS and BLOOD ON SATAN'S CLAW | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 13 2008, 04:29 AM (2,907 Views) | |
| videohunter | Oct 15 2008, 10:21 PM Post #31 |
|
Superstar Member
|
o.k. I see your point , but I still don't buy it, your entire arguement is situated around the strict censorship laws of spain, and is the only reason that these so called versions r considered the "prefered versions" is that they basicly really had no choice, IMO they're still cut versions and if the censorship laws would not have been implemented, we would have these stronger prints in spain that u call "export versions" the cuts on many of these "prefered versions" in general r noticable and sometimes abrupt, which means the final edit was complete with all the violent footage intact, and THEN, they cut from there to make the "prefered version" , it's not like they edited the "prefered version" first and then spliced in the gory/violent footage afterwards for export .... the only point i agree with is that alternate "clothed/nude" scenes may have been shot for export, AGAIN, only because of the homeland censorship, not because they prefer to see these beautiful spanish woman clothed....come on now...even the directors know that showing beautiful naked babes is a selling point........ and as far as what the director "said" in interviews, i personally can't take a 2nd person's account in print of what a director may have or have not said.... also ,italy has some heavy cenorship ,so r u saying all the fulci , d'amato, argento , lenzi films ect... that r "uncut" outside of italy, r these "export versions" too ? what about every place else that has heavy censorship, does that mean all the US films that r cut, r the "prefered versions" and the "uncut" prints the "export versions" , sorry i just don't buy it... where does the justification end wanyon ? I guess we r going to have to agree to disagree with this one... |
![]() |
|
| WANYON | Oct 18 2008, 01:28 PM Post #32 |
|
Superstar Member
|
The point that is important here is that not all directors felt that the Franco-era restrictions were harmful to their product, either in a personal-vision sense or business-sense. Some had a passion for a more subtle form of cinema and so didn't feel the pinch of the censorious times as they were more interested in atmospherics instead of the newer violent trends; sexiness and erotic suggestion rather than nudity and lurid sex scene...etc. Sure, many Spanish genre film directors of the time were realising that times were changing and the the money lay in a more explicit product and so started going in that direction. But not all. And of those who DID start taking the more edgy approach to their product by shooting extra bloody violence or nudity for export versions, there will have been a tokan amount for whom shooting that alternate footage was a financial neccesity and requirement of their producer who maybe prefered the less visceral or saucy version of their film. Sure, the majority swung with the times and adopted a more modern approach to their filmmaking and enjoyed the outside avenues for which their films could be seen in a stronger form unrestricted by censorship hassles. But there have always been those for whom an old-school mentality for a more subtle approach was always going to be their prefered method. Mario Bava shot footage one one or two occasions for producers desiring a little extra "edge" to his films but he would always make it known what his prefered edit of the film was and these were the ones, more often that not, circulated in his home country and also that became the standard edits outside of his country (save for the American edits). Michael Reeves shot extra footage for export prints of his classic, THE WITCHFINDER GENERAL, but made it known that his prefered edit of the film was the one he had prepared for UK consumption. The Continental release prints bore alternate footage in various scenes that showed nudity and other saucier material that Reeves himself was not happy using in his prefered edit of the film. Essentially, that is the basis of my argument here: Reeves felt that the footage he shot for the export market was not to his personal taste. The film was violent, but it NEEDED to be to convey the corrupt tone and distrubing story of the film and its real-life characters. But nudity, for Reeves, had no purpose other than to titilate and that was not his intention with the film. The export print remained an "illegitimate child" of sorts in his mind and the the original edit he shot was the one he lovd and laboured over and considered HIS true vision. This does not differ from country-to-country as whether it be the UK, Spain, Italy, France or wherever, there was a time when export versions of films were desired to cater to specific demands and tastes of either a continent or a specific country. Polselli did it with DELIRUM also, which is another strong point to make for my case. Renato's prefered edit of the film and the one that he had always claimed was his original cut of DELIRIUM was the Italian version. The 'Nam footage and re-edited nature of the English language edit was asked for by distributors/buyers who felt it would sell better to various markets and the extra-explicit version of the film was demanded for certain territories such as France who had a preference for extra sexy material in their films. Renato said that the Italian version (minus the more explicit sexy footage and minus the 'Nam stuff to explain the killer's condition) was his prefered edit. It told the story exactly how he originally intended and did not re-shuffle moments or re-structure the story in any way like other edits did for outside of Italy. He was never bothered that he had made those other edits of the film, but he just had his original edit and to him that was important as it was his original vision... As far as where edits are apparent in films where footage has been cut, then i appreciate what you are saying and agree. Although, again, it can sometimes be that a more subtle original moment was trimmed as opposed to a more explicit moment being cut in its entirety. The only way to know for sure is to have access to that missing footage! I can confirm that Jess Franco said what he said because i was present when he said it. I can also confirm what Renato said about DELIRIUM as that was information he gave me. Same goes for Norma J. Warren speaking about TERROR and SATAN'S SLAVE as i was present during the interview. As for Larraz, i have seen text as well as video interviews where he expressed his true intentions on more sexy and violent footage shot in his films and for specific films of his also. The only one i can say i cannot confirm as such is Michael Reeves, for whom i only ever read of his dissatisfaction for the export version's alternate footage in text/written form. But one piece was a written article and another was as told by someone close to him... |
![]() |
|
| videohunter | Oct 18 2008, 02:38 PM Post #33 |
|
Superstar Member
|
whether it's a directors "prefered vision" or not, cut is cut ....in almost ALL cases 1st edits r completed with all footage intact, and then a "prefered" edit is struck from there, so going by that principle any footage excised from said complete print whether it is "director prefered" or not ,it's cut, I'm the consumer so I prefer the full edit, so Wanyon I think we r going to have to agree to disagree....it's a personal preference situation ......... also the version a director prefers doesn't always coincide with what sells and what is good buisness and violence , sex, and nudity sells....there's no other way around it, look at the porn industry it's been a cash cow for decades, enough said...., I have also heard and read from directors that they specifically shot or made films with alot of gore and nudity, more than they would like, but it was needed to in order to produce a successful product, so I think a "directors vision" or "prefernce" is usually irrelevant to what is indeed his final product... look at the food industry , i'm sure many chefs and food manufactuers would rather put natural preservative-free ingrediants in thier product instead of fats and sugar, but they know that's what sells, consumers want a food product to taste good ,and to achieve that the chief or manufaturer may have to use ingredients that r not his "prefered" ingrdediants......my point is preference and finished product doesn't always match...... so I do respect what ur saying , but I still have to disagree and stand by my assertion that CUT IS CUT, I always go by the finished product and any alterations to the finished product results in a cut/incomplete product, so I laways prefer the most complete print featuring all the gore,sleeve and nudity also all these so called "directors prefered versions" r always in regions where there is heavy censorship laws....coincidence ? , i think not, so your arguement doesn't hold water with me...sorry.... interesting debate none the less...... |
![]() |
|
| Jack J | Oct 18 2008, 05:13 PM Post #34 |
|
Superstar Member
|
Apart from all of that... I find it really odd to think that Italy is a country with strong censorship regulations. I mean, this is the country that gave us 1001 gore movies in all kinds of genres. Weird indeed. :huh: Jack |
|
2019 AD. The only blog that survived the nuclear holocaust: EN LEJEMORDER SER TILBAGE The ONLY site in the world devoted entirely to trashy Filipino war flicks: When the Vietnam War raged... in the Philippines The FLIPSIDE of Asian cinema: Backyard Asia | |
![]() |
|
| WANYON | Oct 18 2008, 05:55 PM Post #35 |
|
Superstar Member
|
I appreciate what you are trying to say and even though i agree we should probably disagree i think it is indeed because of personal preference as far as you and i as consumers are concerned as opposed to the preference of the filmmakers! A filmmaker's prefered edit IS important (and i don't understand why you would say it is "irrelevant" as surely it is just as important to appreciate a film how the director was trying to get their vision across as much as it is important to appreciate a film with extra explicit footage that was shot for "outside territory" prints?). To say a filmmaker's original vision is irrelevant next to the needs of the viewer is bizarre! Neither one is more important than the other. The public must be given their money's worth and the director needs to make money. But the artisitic integrity of someone's vision, whether done on the cheap or with plentiful budget, is important as that is why many serious film fans watch a certain director's films...because usually they know of them and appreciate their vision... So, i appreciate what you are saying about wanting to see EVERYTHING that was filmed for a particular film and seeing it in its most complete version, irregardless of whether it is the director's prefered edit or not. But the director had a purity of vision in the first instance that was put down on celluloid. The process for many usually includes visualising a film in their head, putting it to paper as screenplay and storyboards and then followiing through. If they are happy adding extra explicitness to what was originally meant to be more subtle, fine. But if not, then if lucky enough to release their own vision as well as an edgier version, they can be happy that both sides are catered for@ the director as well as those who crave something a little more graphic. The problem with your argument about including everything shot is that it would be improbable at times. Try taking a Jess Franco film and throwing together all the footage he shot for a particular film for diferent territories into one film...it would be nonsensical! Ok, maybe that is a weird example seeing as many of his films WERE nonsensical! lol. But, while some were revisited by the director at times with newly shot footage and re-edited, others were shot and the left-over budget used to shoot footage for other films, then the footage mixed-and-matched also! Franco has done this on many occasions, taking a budget given him by a producer and instead of making one film he would make 2 or 3! He would make one, then another and, if possible, squeeze another out of that budget, sometimes using the same actors and sets (while he had them), sometimes not. Then the films would be released. Then they would be revisited a while later and footage taken from one and put into the otthe, re-edited and re-released under a new title. THEN, to add even further confusion to it, he would often return to them AGAIN and add some footage from a newer project or some new footage he felt would make the older film a little better in some way. JUst crazy and almost impossible to follow as far as tracing his career at times! At the end of the day, i think what DVD offers at times is the chance to CHOOSE. The possibility of watching a director's PREFERED edit of a film (or the 'directors cut' as it is sometimes known) or a longer 'explicit' cut of a film is something that i think bridges the gap and allows not only people like you and I to pick and choose which we prefer, but allows the historical importance of the variant edits to be preserved. This is why i am at pains to make my point clear. It has nothing to do with you prefering a more explicit edit and nothing to do with my belief that a director's original prefered vision is more important...it has to do with clarifying that one is no more important than the other...they both have historical value/importance as one represents a filmmaker's true vision and the other often is either accepted by the filmmaker (if they wished to shoot more edgy footage) or not to their taste as they feel it cheapens their original vision. EIther way, they have tremendous importance and entertainment value for US! For the record, i love Renato's original edit of DELIRIUM and i love the AU-DELA DU DESIR edit of it also as i feel the extra-explicit sexy footage adds an extra perverted weight to the killer's personality. The 'Nam version is also something i love as it gives a different slant on the story and also a valid reason for the killer's impotence and rage. But i will always find Renato's original edit to be superior as it doesn't NEED the explanatory wraparound segments and it doesn't NEED the extra raunchy stuff...it is warped enough and the psychological underpinnings are there for the viewer to pick up on and i think it makes it more satisfactory than having everything explained to use as though we are too dumb to understand it ourselves! As for Norman J. Warren's TERROR...the export version was released in a stunning widescreen print on video here in the UK in the late-1990s on the Satanica label. I have it and i also remember watching the mint remastered export print being screened at a film festival here a year or two before the video release. It was stunning to watch on the big screen and in this slightly more explicit "Continental release print". Then to get a release on video in this version was fantastic. But i believe that the version of this film (as well as SATAN'S SLAVE) that was released on DVD by Anchor Bay UK was Warren's 'directors cut', is prefered original edit minus the extra shots. I can't confirm this but i believe that is what i heard or read and i think the alternate/deleted footage was added as supplements on the DVD. Personally, as with anything like this, i like to own ALL the variant edits! I am not after just the longest edit or most explicit edit...i want the director's original prefered vision intact; i want the longest print with extra 20 minutes of dialogue; i want the more explicit variant export edit with unclothed footage; i want the clothed edit; i want the edit with the xxx footage shot by someone else; i want them all! lol |
![]() |
|
| cinehound | Oct 20 2008, 07:35 PM Post #36 |
|
Administrator
|
I just found out Spanish giallo A CANDLE FOR THE DEVIL has a UK18 release. Is this uncut? Anyone knows for sure? I think this is the very first DVD release worldwide, right? |
![]() |
|
| Bill Knight | Oct 20 2008, 08:04 PM Post #37 |
![]()
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's uncut but the quality is not so good. If you have the Dutch original VHS it is better than this DVD. |
![]() MIDNIGHT LEGACY Giving the films the respect they deserve! http://www.midnight-legacy.com eBay auctions (rare VHS tapes from around the world): http://shop.ebay.com/midnight_1/m.html?_nk..._from=&_ipg=200 | |
![]() |
|
| cinehound | Oct 20 2008, 08:10 PM Post #38 |
|
Administrator
|
Thanx Bill
|
![]() |
|
| boyblue32 | Nov 2 2008, 05:41 PM Post #39 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There is an Australian dvd of Blood On Satan's Claw - does anyone know if it's the same as the AB UK version? |
![]() |
|
| BELOWaverage | Nov 2 2008, 08:39 PM Post #40 |
|
Unregistered
|
most likely. All those australian DVDs are just rips of popular US and UK releases. |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Register Now |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DVD, VCD & Blu-Ray · Next Topic » |









![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)


2:42 PM Jul 11