 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Siegel died in 1991, but maybe his family still has his alleged copy, or it was archived at UCLA.
Is there or is there not Siegel's cut in negative or print form? If in fact it was destroyed, then that's it. Restoring it would involve removing the narration from the existing movie and having to remix the audio. It could be done (We have the score on CD even), but how likely is that, and would the result really be Siegel's original cut or just a simulation? My guess is this will never happen.
Now this kind of speculation I appreciate. You are probably right. I am trying to reach Siegel's son about whether his estate might have his director's cut but have been so far unsuccessful. Many are very happy with the theatrically released version. I'm not here, despite what someone has suggested, to convince anyone of its perceived shortcomings. Even those who *think* that Siegel's version wouldn't be as good as the one released theatrically, I'm sure would have no objection to it being made available. So perhaps we are at least all in agreement on that. I'll continue my championing of this remarkable film and efforts to make it available, despite those who think it a waste of time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Siegel's original cut, before the studio meddling, must have been a much more subtle affair, and ultimately much more effective. As it is, INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS is a great SF thriller which still works on many levels, but take away the framing device and above all the voice-over and you have one of the greatest films ever, of any genre - y punto.
Thank you Graham. It is. I wouldn't have believed it *before* I saw it myself. Sitting there before it screened, I thought: "He took stuff out??!! Damn! This will be awful." It was a masterpiece. The most emotionally profound sci-fi film ever made and a completely different film.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it really necessary to speculate about *me* now, or is this just a personal attack? I've only said how great a movie is that its director made before it was tampered with. I didn't say how bad the tampered with film was. "... some kind of mission..." Jesus.
Not an attack, just an observation because what I can't imagine is what your point is. Fine, you think Siegel's original cut was superior. You know what? I agree with you, BUT it looks like that's not what's been handed down for posterity and isn't going to be. You're just going to have to learn to live with the version of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS most everybody who've seen it knows. Siegel lived many years after this film was released, and if he cared so much that his cut should be the one that everyone should see, I think he would have done something about it in his lifetime -- but he didn't. So, the issue is moot. I'm not trying to be hard-assed about it, but the situation is what it is, and guess what?
Not even Jesus can do anything about it!!!!!!!!
I meant my last comment in a purely colloquial sense as in WTF are *you* "observing"? My "mission"? So you think it's an exercise in futility. Fine. Do you know what finally happened with Touch of Evil? But perhaps you're right and it is. Are you 5 years old? Do you think I am? Do you really have to keep harping on this?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You're personal attacks on me here are offensive and unwarranted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jan 24, 2017 - 10:31 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
RoryR
(Member)
|
I meant my last comment in a purely colloquial sense as in WTF are *you* "observing"? My "mission"? So you think it's an exercise in futility. Fine. Do you know what finally happened with Touch of Evil? But perhaps you're right and it is. Are you 5 years old? Do you think I am? Do you really have to keep harping on this?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You're personal attacks on me here are offensive and unwarranted.
We'll have to agree to disagree on whether I'm making a personal attack on you, or just your sensibilities in regard to this matter, but I'd like you to ponder this...
In the case of TOUCH OF EVIL, executives at Universal, the studio that has always owned the film, got behind restoring Welles' original cut and that's why it happened -- not because it was supposed to happen.
In the case of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, the studio that produced it, Allied Artists, no longer exists. I'm not sure who owns the movie now. The Blu-ray gives the 1956 copyright to something called Melange Pictures, but there's also a 2012 copyright from Paramount Pictures. In any event, the film is kind of a bastard child now.
I would imagine that any negative or print of Don Siegel's original cut, especially if it's being held by his heirs, would have to be purchased or licensed by the current copyright owner of the 1956 studio version of the film. I think this makes what you're trying to achieve all the more less likely. You may be chasing at windmills.
Another thing to consider is that INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS is not a director's picture (it's not an "auteur's work), but rather, a producer's picture. The original poster advertising for the movie, carried over to the cover of the Blu-ray, has this at the top "Walter Wagner creates the ultimate in science-fiction!" Don Siegel was just the hired director, it's not his movie, it's Walter Wagner's movie. I have to imagine that the final version released to the world was what not just the executive at Allied Artists wanted, but Wagner as well, and that Siegel contractually had no say in it (no final cut clause in his contract).
The version of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS that we've always had is the film as it was always meant to be. Siegel's cut is little more than the first cut of the film. This is how the sausage got made back in those days. Really, the idea that his version of the film was tampered with and ruined by the producers is false. You can make all the arguments you want on how Siegel's cut is artistically superior -- and maybe most would agree, including myself -- but that doesn't delegitimize the film's final version given the reality of the film's production.
The fact that the final version of the film is as well-respected as it is sixty years later is all the tribute that needs to be paid to Siegel's work on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
