 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To be clear, and it's not our fault, we're misrepresenting these two versions by these designations. What we have are the original, at 171 minutes, the first version ever shown, at Cannes, and quickly restored back from a later 155 minute Italian cut to be the definitive version of the movie; and we have the US cut, at 124 minutes. It was edited down by Harvey Weinstein and the director, working together, but it remains the after thought of the two. What we have had delivered to us as 'Extended' would better be called 'Restored'.
That said, I have encountered, before this thread, exactly and only one person who preferred the original 171 minute version, which he saw on its initial release in his hometown of Italy. He found the chopped version to be a cowardly capitulation to the American Obsession With Happy Endings. He was, in point, a hater of any happy endings, whether earned or not by their narratives.
But that's it. Everyone else I've ever asked, which has been quite a few people, since I've wanted to watch the best one for my first viewing, and every review I've read, professional or on a weblog, comparing the two, has preferred the cut American version, whether they saw it first of the two, which most had, or they saw the original, longer version first. They all suggest that the US cut has fixed some big problems with the original. It is one of the most universally preferred hack-jobs I've ever heard of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 30, 2020 - 11:36 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Howard L
(Member)
|
Everyone else I've ever asked, which has been quite a few people, since I've wanted to watch the best one for my first viewing, and every review I've read, professional or on a weblog, comparing the two, has preferred the cut American version, whether they saw it first of the two, which most had, or they saw the original, longer version first. They all suggest that the US cut has fixed some big problems with the original. It is one of the most universally preferred hack-jobs I've ever heard of.
OK. I absolutely adored the 124 min. version for the maiden viewing and have continued to adore it upon subsequent viewings. Seeing that I am a big believer in Director's Cuts/Editions i.e. seeing it the way the director intended, however, I was compelled to see the long version and did so with much anticipation.
Bottom line recommendation for anyone who has yet to see it: Go for the 124 min. American-cut version as the man said above. The longer version with the whole sequence devoted to Toto's romantic pursuit is not worth it. And amatalqa is correct, Alfredo's concerns with Toto's future were noble-minded from the standpoint of a caring surrogate father, not that of a controlling parent who doesn't know how to let go. No way. And if memory serves, the celebrated ending was not diminished in the longer version in the sense that Toto ends up embittered and unfulfilled by the choice to marry filmmaking. On the contrary, for all his frustrations in the area of love and romance, what he saw affirmed his life's course. You see that in his face.
But I will take the challenge and re-see both to confirm all this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 30, 2020 - 1:48 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
DS
(Member)
|
The Theatrical version felt like it was missing *something* - not to any great detriment, but the love story felt rushed and the Jacques Perrine scenes were oddly extraneous (except for the ending). However, it was such a lovely and whimsical film overall that these minor quibbles didn't matter. The score by Ennio and Andrea Morricone is of course magnificent.
When "Cinema Paradiso: The New Version" was released in the US in 2002, I was very intrigued by the idea of the expanded love story and more Perrine scenes, and I was hoping (perhaps even somewhat expecting) this version to remedy the flaws in the Theatrical. I saw it and was very disappointed. I found the added material to be so bitter as to render the entire elongated narrative uneven and messy, draining the film of its power. Bitterness of course isn't a self-evidently negative quality, but in this case it sunk the entire story (as opposed to adding an interesting, tragic layer that would elevate it).
By the way, I believe the Theatrical version was edited by Tornatore himself (in part due to the film's lukewarm reception in Italy) before Miramax picked it up at Cannes in 1989, so contrary to what some websites say I don't believe Weinstein is responsible for the Theatrical version (though I could be wrong). Weinstein, however, was responsible for the US Theatrical cut of Tornatore's "Malena" years later, resulting in a lot of scenes being cut.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
