 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What a shame no-one has (to my knowledge) released the Director's cut of this highly regarded Sci Fi classic. I saw it many years back at the L.A. County Art Museum with Don Siegel and Kevin Mc Carthy both in attendance. This version without the studio imposed prologue, epilogue and needlessly distracting narration is nothing short of a masterpiece as for one thing the events happen to us as they happen to the characters so everything from character identification, suspense, the transformation of Becky, and most importantly the corresponding emotional impact it has on Dr. Bennell are dramatically heightened ten fold. This version ends as it should with Bennell running through the cars and trucks shouting "You're Next!" with a freeze frame on his face. This leaves us just as astonished and helpless as he is...an emotional impact impossible to overestimate. I mention all this because Olive Films (a reputable company) has just released a Blu Ray but it is of course the regular version. I heard a rumour from a friend in the industry that this Director's Cut was destroyed in a fire. Any confirmation or information about this Director's Cut's existence would be most welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
arthur, I started a thread about this a while back, with lots of good input from Richard W etc. I think the post title was "Invasion of the Body Snatchers (56) - Specific Qs", but I can't get the search engine to find the relevant thread. Maybe someone else will have more luck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Still can't locate the thread, arthur, but I think it was PhiladelphiaSon who said that he saw the "director's cut" with Don Siegel in attendance... Can't remember if anyone could confirm if the voice-over had been deleted. That's what bugs me most about the "tampered-with" version we all know and (despite everything) love. Damn, where is that thread?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for posting that. I obviously missed it the first time. Just to clarify the version I saw at the L.A. County Art Museum was WITHOUT the narration and that is what changes the film completely from a story recollected to a story about the strange events happening to these characters the same time we witness them. Imagine if you would seeing the first PLANET OF THE APES for the first time and before the story starts there's Taylor recounting to some human Doctor what happened to him from the very beginning and we witness the events unfolding in flashback, his comments interrupting the events as they occur telling us how he felt etc. and then coming back to Taylor at the end. Right from the beginning we know he's safe, got over all that's happened, and here's the BIG ONE...somebody actually believes him! Honestly after seeing the regular version a dozen times before that screening I was sitting there disappointed that Siegel chose TO OMIT stuff from the print about to be shown. You have to see it for yourself. It's Miles better (pun intended). When it came to Becky's transformation I was truly horrified and yet I'd seen it before. For the first time watching those scenes without the narration there were tears in my eyes. Truly heartbreaking! I could feel his loss with him instead of him emotionlessly recalling the event. This narration device works well for DOUBLE INDEMNITY and many other film noirs but it's typically a killer for sci-fi like BLADE RUNNER and this fine film. Siegel knew best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To each one's own, but i like the ending as it stands, plus i thought like in nearly every film i ever saw the narration was an asset, but some people are looking for different things in films, for instance i hated the ending of THE MIST, other people did too, some loved it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Must agree with arthur here. I've always loved the film - I saw it on TV as a kid and knew nothing of course about the way Siegel intended it to be. It IS still great today, but the voice-over really does hurt more than ever in retrospect. It hurts even more than the framing device because it's so constant throughout. The bit when Miles kisses Becky and we see the huge close-up of her emotionless face and his horrified reaction is one of the most chilling moments of any film I can remember, but it's diluted in the end because when we see his terrified flight out of the cave and down the hill he says something like (paraphrasing - can't recall the exact words) "I've known fear before, but I'd never known the meaning of real fear until I kissed Becky". Thanks, we got that. And just think back to the start (the "real" start of the film) - barely five minutes into it we see the little Grimaldi boy running in front of Miles' car. Mrs Grimaldi says he doesn't want to go to school, Miles asks her about the vegetable stall which she and her husband had kept, and which now lies abandoned, and she says that they simply gave it up. There is so much subtle detail in that short scene alone, but it's immediately spoiled by the voice-over which has Miles explain (and again, I'm paraphrasing) "I should have known immediately that it was more than a simple fear of school that sent the little Grimaldi boy running away. I'd seen that vegetable stand just a few weeks before and it was the cleanest, neatest little vegetable stand in the town. Now it lay neglected, abandoned" - and we see a shot of it lying neglected and abandoned.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
arthur grant criticizes the movie (above with his imaginary version of "Planet of the Apes") by claiming the doctors believe Miles' story from the start so all the suspense is gone. Wrong. We all know they only believe him at the end when the seed pod truck crashes. Btw, the original novel of "Planet of the Apes" happens to be bookended by someone reading the manuscript of Taylor's odyssey, so that story device in itself is not a plot-killer.
My intention was not to criticize the movie most know and love (as I do), and it certainly wasn't to indicate *when* in the framing device the Dr.s' believe Miles' story, which has nothing to do with anything. I was only suggesting their belief at the end came as a bit of an added surprise. (I know it comes at the end thank you). My intent was only to tell everyone how amazing the director's cut is. It's one thing to speculate. I was skeptical at first *before* I saw Don's preferred version (before they made him do the voice over and add the additional scenes) and I've seen both. Honestly, how can you effectively debate this if you haven't seen it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To each one's own, but i like the ending as it stands, plus i thought like in nearly every film i ever saw the narration was an asset, but some people are looking for different things in films, for instance i hated the ending of THE MIST, other people did too, some loved it.
"To each one's own..." but if you haven't seen the director's cut you can only speculate. I thought *before* I saw it, like you, it would be a much lesser experience having scenes and narration removed. The experience was as I've stated, shockingly different, and much more impactful happening "in the moment" instead of being re-called.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jan 22, 2017 - 7:35 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Last Child
(Member)
|
arthur grant criticizes the movie (above with his imaginary version of "Planet of the Apes") by claiming the doctors believe Miles' story from the start so all the suspense is gone. Wrong. We all know they only believe him at the end when the seed pod truck crashes. Btw, the original novel of "Planet of the Apes" happens to be bookended by someone reading the manuscript of Taylor's odyssey, so that story device in itself is not a plot-killer.
My intention was not to criticize the movie most know and love (as I do), and it certainly wasn't to indicate *when* in the framing device the Dr.s' believe Miles' story, which has nothing to do with anything.
Why not re-read what you wrote:
Right from the beginning we know he's safe, got over all that's happened, and here's the BIG ONE...somebody actually believes him!
Seems to me your biggest point is that he's believed from the start. Or am I misunderstanding what "here's the BIG ONE" means? 
Clearly the point of the analogy was to criticize the framing of the film (flashback versus a straight story), which is fine to do, but you exaggerate how the framing effects the viewer. Many suspense thrillers start with the ending known and still work because we get involved with the story. And obviously the suspense still works in this film. As the film progresses, we dont know for sure that he's safe or that anyone will believe him (insensitive Richard Deacon could have been a pod).
Honestly, how can you effectively debate this if you haven't seen it?
Honestly (a word that seems to have lost its meaning these days), I only critiqued your inaccurate analogy to POTA. I never mentioned the directors cut, so your last comment must be directed at someone else.
It sounds like you're saying the director's cut is inherently more suspenseful. The framing might lesson some suspense, but maybe the biggest difference is the final scene which suggests a happier outcome? Miles in the hospital versus the highway? Regardless, if it still has a significant impact on someone (you) who has seen the original multiple times over the years, then it deserves to be released. Don Siegel died in 1991, but maybe his family still has his alleged copy, or it was archived at UCLA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"To each one's own..." but if you haven't seen the director's cut you can only speculate.
I bet to differ. The director's cut is all there in the final version. I have a good imagination and I'm fully able to skip the prologue and freeze-frame the image before the epilogue, as well as ignore the narration.
I think you're on some kind of mission to just spoil the movie for those of us who are fine with the movie in its final form. I think that's pointless.
However, if it makes you feel any better, I would like it if both versions were on a special Blu-ray edition. Why not?
"I bet to differ. The director's cut is all there in the final version. I have a good imagination and I'm fully able to skip the prologue and freeze-frame the image before the epilogue, as well as ignore the narration."
Fair enough. Your "imagination" allows you to do all that, still be engaged in the drama at hand and make a hypothetical comparison. (It's still speculation though.)
"I think you're on some kind of mission to just spoil the movie for those of us who are fine with the movie in its final form. I think that's pointless."
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 23, 2017 - 10:36 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
RoryR
(Member)
|
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!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
arthur grant criticizes the movie (above with his imaginary version of "Planet of the Apes") by claiming the doctors believe Miles' story from the start so all the suspense is gone. Wrong. We all know they only believe him at the end when the seed pod truck crashes. Btw, the original novel of "Planet of the Apes" happens to be bookended by someone reading the manuscript of Taylor's odyssey, so that story device in itself is not a plot-killer.
My intention was not to criticize the movie most know and love (as I do), and it certainly wasn't to indicate *when* in the framing device the Dr.s' believe Miles' story, which has nothing to do with anything.
Why not re-read what you wrote:
Right from the beginning we know he's safe, got over all that's happened, and here's the BIG ONE...somebody actually believes him!
Seems to me your biggest point is that he's believed from the start. Or am I misunderstanding what "here's the BIG ONE" means?
Clearly the point of the analogy was to criticize the framing of the film (flashback versus a straight story), which is fine to do, but you exaggerate how the framing effects the viewer. Many suspense thrillers start with the ending known and still work because we get involved with the story. And obviously the suspense still works in this film. As the film progresses, we dont know for sure that he's safe or that anyone will believe him (insensitive Richard Deacon could have been a pod).
Honestly, how can you effectively debate this if you haven't seen it?
Honestly (a word that seems to have lost its meaning these days), I only critiqued your inaccurate analogy to POTA. I never mentioned the directors cut, so your last comment must be directed at someone else.
It sounds like you're saying the director's cut is inherently more suspenseful. The framing might lesson some suspense, but maybe the biggest difference is the final scene which suggests a happier outcome? Miles in the hospital versus the highway? Regardless, if it still has a significant impact on someone (you) who has seen the original multiple times over the years, then it deserves to be released. Don Siegel died in 1991, but maybe his family still has his alleged copy, or it was archived at UCLA.
"Honestly (a word that seems to have lost its meaning these days), I only critiqued your inaccurate analogy to POTA. I never mentioned the directors cut, so your last comment must be directed at someone else."
It was not an analogy. It was a hypothetical, you know... a "what if" scenario. By using that, I was trying to point out that if a series of strange occurrences (as in science fiction not film noir) is recalled to someone after they've happened, those events, in comparison, are less immediate and impactful in comparison to them happening to the person in the moment. I used POTA because it has (at least for me) a similar effect as that Director's Cut of I.O.T.B.S. When I mentioned the "big one" meaning they believe him, (again a hypothetical) they would do so *after* Taylor (Heston) tells his story. (Which as I wrote it, coming after everything else, I thought was pretty clear, sorry if it wasn't for you). At the conclusion of the *released* version of I.O.T.B.S. there is a clear indication of those who have heard Miles' story, that they are starting to "come around". At that point the dramatic emphasis in the story shifts to how his bizarre tale is understood. His story's believability detracts from the dramatic developments at hand, at least to me, and I was hoping that if one compared this to an "imaginary" tampered with P.O.T.A. my point might be better understood. It's not "happier" or "sadder" I'm concerned about. Miles could have found someone on the highway (obviously not transformed yet) and mapped out a positive strategy. It's all of the events that happened before the ending being narrated in the past, that makes the final revelation (he's believed!) a further "sidestep" to the conflict at hand. Honestly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
