Sergio Leone Web Board

Films of Sergio Leone => Once Upon A Time In America => Topic started by: Shambaby on May 19, 2012, 07:32:10 AM



Title: Fletcher Scene
Post by: Shambaby on May 19, 2012, 07:32:10 AM
Leone: "I prefer is this one, that bit of reclusiveness is just what I like about it.  I saw the scene with Louise Fletcher.  It only answered very obvious things.  Sergio created his masterpiece by being to forced to whittle it down to the utmost important scenes.  And it give it that "reclusiveness" or sense of mystery that keeps us intrigued and using our brain throughout the movie.  Also, I dislike the razor-sharp focus of the new scenes.


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: dave jenkins on May 19, 2012, 06:00:55 PM
Just watched the scene (posted by MattViola in the other thread)
http://trovacinema.repubblica.it/multimedia/copertina/cannes-cera-una-volta-con-26-minuti-in-piu-scena-tagliata/31846181
I have to say the scene really bites; it is awkward and adds nothing of interest and actually hurts what was one of my favorite sequences of the film.


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 19, 2012, 10:57:53 PM
Abbreviations:
229MV = "229-minute version"
RV = "restored version"

----------------------------------------
I like that scene in the cemetery that is in the RV.

The issue of how the mausoleum and recording got there is one (of the many) that IMO was not explained properly in the 229MV.
It may not have required explanation as badly as, say, Noodles meeting Eve, but still, it is something that IMO was not as clear as it could have been in the 229MV, and I am glad that they have the explanation in the RV.

And the part where Fletcher encourages Noodles to get a cemetery plot, fits wonderfully with the theme of this movie, about death and passage of time. This is all a dance of death. (What OUATITW is to the Wild West and the Western Movie Genre; OUATIA is to the modern American Dream and the Gangster Movie Genre). For that line alone, this scene is great.

As for the part with limo, and then Noodles seeing it blow up outside the Bailey mansion: it explains why Noodles is following this story. In the 229MV, the movie cuts from the car in the river to the newscast of this story, with no explanation as to why Noodles cares about it. In the RV, now that we know Noodles has seen the car tailing him blow up, we know why he is following this story, and why fat Moe asks him if he knows any of the guys they are mentioning on the newscast.
And it puts the whole Secretary Bailey connection into focus a bit earlier and more clearly. Some may say it is too blatant, but IMO there is a lot that is unexplained in the 229MV, and I am happy for anything that the RV explains better.

(I just wish they'd say where Noodles got that party invitation from, and how he figured out that Deborah was living with Secretary Bailey. That still bothers me. Though I'd bet that the 6-hour version explains it  ;) )


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: stanton on May 20, 2012, 02:15:11 AM

And it puts the whole Secretary Bailey connection into focus a bit earlier and more clearly. Some may say it is too blatant, but IMO there is a lot that is unexplained in the 229MV, and I am happy for anything that the RV explains better.


Films don't need too many explanations. If everything is explained into the detail films lose their secret. And often begin to drag. I admire directors which can tell in a short time span a complex story.


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 20, 2012, 05:09:42 AM
Films don't need too many explanations. If everything is explained into the detail films lose their secret. And often begin to drag. I admire directors which can tell in a short time span a complex story.

When analyzing whether a scene fits, IMO it should be taken on a case-by-case basis, and not with general rules about telling complex stories in short time spans.

And I think that in the case of the Cemetery scene, it does help to explain certain parts of the story that are not explained as well as they should be. OUATIA is my all-time favorite movie, but it always bothered me how many plot points aren't explained better. (Of course, the mystery is part of it, and I don't want all the mysteries to be revealed right away!) But there are certain things that should have been fleshed out just a little better. How the mausoleum was erected and how the recording of Cockeye's Tune and the inscription got there, is something that always bothered me.... And the part with the limo explains Noodles's intense interest in the story of the Bailey scandal. In the 229MV, Noodles suddenly shows an intense interest in some political scandal unfolding, and there really isn't yet much justification  as to why he should be so interested in that story. (Unless he had already received Bailey's invitation; but we don't know anything about the invitation yet, and really never find out when/how he receives it, and that is another point that IMO definitely should have been explained).

Maybe you can argue that the limo scene is a bit too direct and could have been done in a little more subtly, but I still prefer it as it is more than what we have in the 229MV, in which there is really no justification for why Noodles should care about the unfolding Bailey scandal. Not everything should be told to Noodles right away, but as an audience member, I would like to know what Noodles knows. Knowing that some guy claiming to be Aaronson is responsible for this mausoleum helps explain a little.

And no matter what else is in that scene, the last line about Noodles selecting his own "haven" makes it all worth it!


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: Groggy on May 20, 2012, 07:30:42 AM
Films don't need too many explanations. If everything is explained into the detail films lose their secret. And often begin to drag. I admire directors which can tell in a short time span a complex story.

Agreed. With Leone's films in particular, their eliptical nature is often part of the charm. I never cared how/why Angel Eyes got to Betterville in GBU; the shock of seeing him there was enough for me without exposition. I don't need a depiction of the Cheyenne-Morton shootout in OUATITW for Frank's return to the train to work dramatically. I don't apply this universally to Leone's films (the initial shorter cuts of OUATITW and DYS were definitely deficient) but sometimes it's fine to leave well-enough alone.

My problem with OUATIA isn't that certain things were unexplained; no gaping plot holes anyway. It never bothered me they never showed Noodles never met Eve and none of the info imparted in this Fletcher scene adds anything of import. I guess if you like everything explained to you in big bold letters they're fine. Maybe we can add a long epilogue explaining about the garbage truck, or an end credit caption telling the audience whether the film's a dream or not. I don't see how leaving things ambiguous, or allowing the audience their own interpretation, is at all bad.


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: MatViola on May 20, 2012, 07:53:56 AM
I think this is precisely what Leone meant when he said, "The other perhaps explained things more clearly and it could have been done on TV in two or three parts. But the version that I prefer is this one, that bit of reclusiveness is just what I like about it.

Mat


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: stanton on May 20, 2012, 08:21:22 AM
t in analyzing whether a scene fits, IMO it should be taken on a case-by-case basis, and not with general rules about telling complex stories in short time spans.

It isn't a general rule. Haven't said that, haven't meant that.

Of course it depends what a film demands


Quote

And I think that in the case of the Cemetery scene, it does help to explain certain parts of the story that are not explained as well as they should be. OUATIA is my all-time favorite movie, but it always bothered me how many plot points aren't explained better. (Of course, the mystery is part of it, and I don't want all the mysteries to be revealed right away!) But there are certain things that should have been fleshed out just a little better. How the mausoleum was erected and how the recording of Cockeye's Tune and the inscription got there, is something that always bothered me.... And the part with the limo explains Noodles's intense interest in the story of the Bailey scandal. In the 229MV, Noodles suddenly shows an intense interest in some political scandal unfolding, and there really isn't yet much justification  as to why he should be so interested in that story. (Unless he had already received Bailey's invitation; but we don't know anything about the invitation yet, and really never find out when/how he receives it, and that is another point that IMO definitely should have been explained).

The Mausoleum and the invitation parts never made me ask for anything more.


Quote

Maybe you can argue that the limo scene is a bit too direct and could have been done in a little more subtly, but I still prefer it as it is more than what we have in the 229MV, in which there is really no justification for why Noodles should care about the unfolding Bailey scandal. Not everything should be told to Noodles right away, but as an audience member, I would like to know what Noodles knows. Knowing that some guy claiming to be Aaronson is responsible for this mausoleum helps explain a little slesh out


The limo scene on the other hand is probably something which makes the film slightly better, but I have to see it.

One thing which always irritated me was the short moment when we see Joe Pesci leaving the hospital. The directing seems to indicate that this has some importance for later, but the film comes never back to him. But this isn't explained in the new scenes nor have I ever read anything about it. I still don't understand it.

The only other thing I ever thought was that the role of Treat Williams doesn't make much sense in the 229 min narrative. It was the only character who seemed to be unfinished. His appearance in the film was either too long or too short. His new scene at the end could probably repair this narrative problem.




Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: Groggy on May 20, 2012, 08:25:34 AM
Quote
One thing which always irritated me was the short moment when we see Joe Pesci leaving the hospital. The directing seems to indicate that this has some importance for later, but the film comes never back to him. But this isn't explained in the new scenes nor have I ever read anything about it. I still don't understand it.

I never thought there was any great mystery or significance to that scene. It's just a quick symbol of the Mob's continued hold on Max despite Noodles' attempt to maintain their friendship. Frayling's outline in STDWD doesn't indicate any extra scenes with Pesci's character.


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: stanton on May 20, 2012, 08:36:43 AM
I never thought there was any great mystery or significance to that scene. It's just a quick symbol of the Mob's continued hold on Max despite Noodles' attempt to maintain their friendship. Frayling's outline in STDWD doesn't indicate any extra scenes with Pesci's character.

Yes, I know.

But every time I re-watch the film I still think there's something missing, or it must have an importance I don't understand.


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 20, 2012, 08:52:47 AM
The scene with Pesci at the hospital, like the scene with the Frisbee, is one that many people assumed was part of a bigger scene, but is actually not (based on everything I have read). And I've seen it explained well enough to satisfy me that it is indeed not part of a bigger scene.

The point of that scene is to show the connection between the Mafia, organized labor, and politics. Sharkey has visited with O'Donnell, and now Joe is visiting him as well. So the mafia is backing organized labor, politicians are getting involved, Max has thrown in with them. Noodles wants to continue living without any bosses, and Max has moved way beyond that. What started out as doing some hits for the Combination has now become a full-fledged partnership; and Max is about to start laying plans to get rid of the dead weight he is carrying around.

---------------------------

No Groggy, I don't need something in big, bold letters, though if you want to believe that, I'll let you enjoy that thought.
It's not that the movie makes no sense at all, like the 139-minute version. All I am saying is that there are some parts that should be explained a little better.

Take for example  some scenes with Bugsy (which were not restored): the gang asks the Capuano Brothers to have Bugsy's job, then we see Bugsy going after the gang and trying to kill them. In deleted scenes, it turned out that the gang ratted on Bugsy and got a shipment he was escorting smashed by cops, and Bugsy arrested. Then, they took over Bugsy's job. So yeah, it makes a little more sense now when they say they want Bugsy's job, and when Bugsy eventually gets out, he comes gunning for them. Does the movie work without it? Yes. Is it better with it? Yes. Ditto for the Fletcher scenes and the limo scenes.

You know who agreed with me? Sergio Leone. At least if you believe Frayling, who says that Leone very reluctantly had to cut 45-50 minutes of what Leone called "significant material."

As for those GBU restored scenes which you seem to hate, they were all in the Italian print. Leone wanted them in. The only scene he wanted removed was the Cave scene (and it certainly should not be in any print). Otherwise, he wanted all those restored scenes in there, and it is only United Artists who made them be removed. There is no justification for Angel Eyes showing up at Betterville otherwise. But maybe Sergio Leone liked to have everything in big, bold letters?

And more importantly, not every scene is necessarily there cuz it is essential for the story. Eg. Leone was really upset that the desert sequences with Tuco and Blondie were trimmed, because he said that Delli Colli shot them so beautifully, like the great surrealist paintings. (I don't think anyone will argue that they were necessary for the narrative, but narrative isn't everything, especially in a Leone film). Of course, you have every right to disagree with Leone's preference, (just as I have every right to disagree with Hitchcock's final shot in Psycho  ;) ) But wanting certain points to be explained better does not mean that I think the narrative doesn't work without them



Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: Groggy on May 20, 2012, 09:02:26 AM
I'll make the general point that no sane director wants their work to be cut. Especially one like Leone, who had quite a bit of trouble with studio editors. It's more important, to me, that Leone was ultimately satisfied with the 229 minute version, even calling it "my version." "Significant material" does not mean essential. And if something is near-perfect it's best to leave well-enough alone.


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 20, 2012, 09:12:34 AM
I find it amazing: A year ago, we were all excited beyond belief at hearing that we would be getting new Leone material. This was a day that we never ever thought would ever happen for the rest of eternity: NEW LEONE MATERIAL! We were all overjoyed! And when it turned out that the amount of new material released was only half as long as we had believed it would be, we were all upset because we wanted to have as much material as possible. Our goal was to have as much Leone material as we could possibly have. We were all eagerly anticipating it! And now, when that long-awaited day has finally arrived (actually, it will only arrive when it is actually widely released, but still, it has arrived somewhat...) there is all this complaining about whether this stuff is truly necessary.

I, for one, am thrilled beyond belief that this material is released, and I hope that more will eventually be released. If you think the 229MV is the best version, relax -- there won't be any Leone Police going around confiscating your 229MV! Enjoy it. Imagine what you'd feel if you were told that this new restored version is all a hoax -- I think you would be mighty disappointed. So my suggestion is to be glad for the new release. And even if you think some or all of the material is unnecessary or even bad -- which you have every right to believe you have every right to believe -- then at least enjoy it as an extra, as a piece of trivia, and feel free to consider the 229MV the "true version." (and feel free to be thankful for studio execs forcing Leone to trim to 229 mins  ;))

(and btw, will never believe that the 229MV is Leone's truly preferred version, even though he did say something in the late 80's to the effect that it was, but at that point he probably believed that no longer version would ever be released, and he wanted to put a brave face on it and promote that version. In my heart of hearts, I truly believe that if he had cart blanche, he would have put out a significantly longer version). Therefore, while there is no way to ever know the precise version he would have released if he would have been given the opportunity to do so, I am supremely confident that the restored version is closer to what Leone wanted than the 229MV is.

BE GLAD!!!!  :) :) :) :) :) :) :)


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: Groggy on May 20, 2012, 09:17:35 AM
I find it amazing: A year ago, we were all excited beyond belief at hearing that we would be getting new Leone material.

I wasn't.

Quote
And now, when that long-awaited day has finally arrived (actually, it will only arrive when it is actually widely released, but still, it has arrived somewhat...) there is all this complaining about whether this stuff is truly necessary.

Is there some point you think you're making Drink? One can have high expectations that are dashed by reality. I guess if something doesn't live up to the hype we shouldn't complain?

Anyway, I'm not going to "appreciate" something Leone-related just because it exists. That's a very simple way of thinking. When I watch GBU it's the 161 minute cut not the Kirk restoration and I suspect this would be the same. The scenes in and of themselves are interesting but why integrate them into the existing film? That's what special features are for.


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: Groggy on May 20, 2012, 09:22:01 AM
Quote
while there is no way to ever know the precise version he would have released if he would have been given the opportunity to do so,

It seems you missed my point entirely. Not surprising.


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 20, 2012, 09:57:24 AM
I wasn't.

Is there some point you think you're making Drink? One can have high expectations that are dashed by reality. I guess if something doesn't live up to the hype we shouldn't complain?

Anyway, I'm not going to "appreciate" something Leone-related just because it exists. That's a very simple way of thinking. When I watch GBU it's the 161 minute cut not the Kirk restoration and I suspect this would be the same. The scenes in and of themselves are interesting but why integrate them into the existing film? That's what special features are for.


It is not The Kirk Version; It is the Leone Version! (besides the Cave Scene). I don't know how you can possibly argue with that.Of course that doesn't mean that you have to watch the Leone Version. If you prefer the United Artists Version, then that is what you should watch. But let's call a spade a spade: (Just hit "next Chapter" when you reach the Cave Scene), and the Special Edition is the Leone Version.

That is why we should "integrate the scenes into the existing film." If you prefer to watch a shorter version of the movie, then that is the only version you should watch. But when releasing a dvd, the studio should release the version that Leone wanted (and each individual can choose which scenes he/she wants to watch); the studio should not release the version that some cocksucker at the studio thinks is the correct version. It is the same twisted thinking that caused Jerk to argue that the the Cave Scene should be included, that would cause someone to argue that the other scenes should not be included: the line of thinking that says I should do what i think makes sense, rather than what Leone thought made sense.

You can argue all day long that the 161 version is BETTER. But there is no way you should be arguing that the 161-minute version is the one that the studio should release.
I prefer that they release the version Leone wanted, rather than the version -- whether longer or shorter -- that SOMEONE decides is better


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: Groggy on May 20, 2012, 10:05:59 AM
And doesn't the Grotto scene invalidate that argument?


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 20, 2012, 10:15:39 AM
And doesn't the Grotto scene invalidate that argument?

I don't understand what you are referring to -- doesn't that scene invalidate what argument?

My point is that when releasing a dvd, I would hope that the feature is exactly as Leone wanted: if there are any scenes that any individual viewer doesn't like, he/she can forward to the next chapter. And any scenes that were shot but Leone chose not to include in the final cut, should be in the special features as a deleted scene. Can you agree to this paragraph?

Therefore, my ideal version of what the released dvd of  GBU is, is a version that has all the scenes currently in the MGM Special Edition minus the Cave Scene, which would be in the special features instead. But since that version is unavailable, the closest thing I can get is the MGM SE, and hit Next Chapter when the Cave scene comes on.

If you prefer the old dvd, enjoy it. It has the additiinal 16 minutes as special features, which is perfect for you. But my point here is not so much to discuss what version Groggy likes best vs. what version I like best. My point is, what version should be released on the dvd? And the answer is:  the exact version Leone wanted.

Similarly, with OUATIA, as far as we know, Leone preferred to have all 45-50 minutes in there, and therefore my view is, let's have it all there; after watching it, each viewer should decide what scenes (if any) he/she doesn't like, and skip those scenes in future viewings. But the dvd itself should be as close as possible to what Leone wanted





Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: Groggy on May 20, 2012, 12:38:39 PM
Not as far as we know. As far as you pretend.


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 20, 2012, 05:27:32 PM
Not as far as we know. As far as you pretend.

Um, No. As far as Christopher Frayling says. That passage from p. 458 of STDWD, which must have been quoted a hundred times here, says  that Leone very reluctantly had to cut 45-50 minutes of what he called "significant material" to get to the film down to 229-minutes.

So this new material that you are trashing was something Leone actually wanted in the movie. You have every right to think it's trash, and that the 229MV is best. But IMO a version of the movie should be released that includes all that "significant material"


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: Groggy on May 20, 2012, 05:48:59 PM
Sorry Drink, I assumed you could read.

I'll make the general point that no sane director wants their work to be cut. Especially one like Leone, who had quite a bit of trouble with studio editors. It's more important, to me, that Leone was ultimately satisfied with the 229 minute version, even calling it "my version." "Significant material" does not mean essential. And if something is near-perfect it's best to leave well-enough alone.

I'll stand by that regardless of your long-winded vociferations.


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 20, 2012, 05:50:52 PM


I'll stand by that regardless of your long-winded vociferations.

then why did Leone choose to cut the Cave Scene and Socorro Scene in GBU, and the Harmonica Rising Scene in OUATITW?


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: Groggy on May 20, 2012, 05:53:15 PM
Because he realized they were junk.

I do not mean literally, under zero circumstances will a director cut his work. A director has a different idea of the film than his producer or the studio, which is my point. Leone made those cuts of his own volition; the others in question were forced upon him. This is a different question, again, of whether Leone was satisfied with the end result - which he apparently was.


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 20, 2012, 07:00:53 PM
Because he realized they were junk.

I do not mean literally, under zero circumstances will a director cut his work. A director has a different idea of the film than his producer or the studio, which is my point. Leone made those cuts of his own volition; the others in question were forced upon him. This is a different question, again, of whether Leone was satisfied with the end result - which he apparently was.

I never said that Leone wasn't satisfied in some way with the 229MV. I believe he thought it was a damn good movie, and I think most Leone fans believe so as well. It's just that he would have preferred it to be even longer. But certainly, he felt the 229MV was a good movie. And that is why he refused to cut it below 229 minutes: cuz he knew that if anything were cut from the 229MV, it would render the story meaningless. I agree that the 229MV is a damn good movie -- heck, it's my favorite movie of all-time! -- but it always bothered me how some things aren't explained as well as they should have been.

------------------
p.s. there is a quote from Leone, from some time after the fact, where he says that he actually prefers the 229MV, for it leaves certain things more ambiguous. I don't know if he really meant it, or was just trying to put a brave face on it all and sell his movie: ie. he knew that the 229MV was still a great movie, and as far as he knew it was the longest version that the public would ever see, so he figured that he may as well stop fantasizing about the longer version and do his best to sell the 229MV as the best version of the movie. There is no way for me to really know what he believed in his heart of hearts, but I have a hunch that he just may have been putting a brave face on it all, and that he really believed a longer version was better. Of course I have no way of knowing the truth; but if Leone had truly felt that the 229MV was better than a longer one, then do you think his children would have made it their life's work to see that additional footage was released?


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: MatViola on May 20, 2012, 08:18:58 PM
Of course I have no way of knowing the truth; but if Leone had truly felt that the 229MV was better than a longer one, then do you think his children would have made it their life's work to see that additional footage was released?

d&d,

When all this was first announced a few years ago, Raffaella said, In collaboration with Sky we want to restore forty minutes of new scenes that we have found. Mind you, we will not reassemble the film; it will stay what my father did. Wed love to show, however, perhaps in a screening at a festival, this interesting footage.

So, originally the plan was not to reinsert the footage. It was going to "stay what my father did."

Mat


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 20, 2012, 08:20:34 PM
d&d,

When all this was first announced a few years ago, Raffaella said, In collaboration with Sky we want to restore forty minutes of new scenes that we have found. Mind you, we will not reassemble the film; it will stay what my father did. Wed love to show, however, perhaps in a screening at a festival, this interesting footage.

So, originally the plan was not to reinsert the footage. It was going to "stay what my father did."

Mat

they just wanted to do the scenes separately, like a "special feature," without actually showing a version of the film with those scenes included?


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: MatViola on May 20, 2012, 08:28:52 PM
they just wanted to do the scenes separately, like a "special feature," without actually showing a version of the film with those scenes included?

Yeah, then flash forward a couple of years and all of a sudden the plan was to reinsert the scenes into the existing version and declare it the "director's cut." Why did they change their minds? Who knows? Did they find a passage from Leone's secret diary confirming that he was just putting on a brave face? Did Leone's ghost appear and encourage them to go forth with a full restoration?

I'd really like to hear more about this from the Leone family.

Mat


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: Groggy on May 20, 2012, 08:37:09 PM
Of course the Almighty Dollar (or, um, Euro) may play its part as well.


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: stanton on May 21, 2012, 02:29:01 AM
Problem with Leone's statements is that he changed his opinions very often, and you can never be sure if he said what he meant or if he only said what he thought to be opportune. And that his statements are too often contradictory.

And even if he was still alive, the decisions he would made now wouldn't be the same he made back in the 80s, or if he had reconstructed the film in the 90s.


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: Groggy on May 21, 2012, 04:20:39 AM
This is true Stanton. We also have the examples of Coppola and (ugh) George Lucas to draw upon, editing their work well after the fact.


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 21, 2012, 04:35:33 AM
Yeah based on STDWD, when Leone says something, you never know what you can believe. He'd say anything anytime for a calculated reason. So unfortunately, despite that statement, I don't think we can know what he would have wanted. My gut feeling is that he definitely would have wanted a longer version.

And once they did release these scenes, I am sure glad they put 'em back into the movie. Idk who made that decision; whether it was Raffaella and Andrea, or Scorcese or Gucci. Perhaps the Film Foundation and Gucci insisted upon it. who knows. But all those articles I saw from March 2011 announcing the restoration say that a new version of the movie would be released. Once you release these scenes, it would be ridiculous not to make a version of the film with it. I don't care what you call it -- Director's Cut, The Childrens' Cut, or anything else -- but I am sure glad that they made this version. Once we watch it, we can decide which version we consider the REAL version, and which one we'll watch in the future. The 229MV will always be available on dvd as well. Worry not  :)


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: MatViola on May 21, 2012, 05:49:52 AM
Problem with Leone's statements is that he changed his opinions very often, and you can never be sure if he said what he meant or if he only said what he thought to be opportune. And that his statements are too often contradictory.

Apparently, his children inherited that same trait, considering Raffaella first said the film would "stay what my father did."

Anyway, not only do we have Leone's word on the subject, we also have his actions - or inaction, as the case may be. Even in 1984 there were reports that Leone was planning to release the longer version to Italian TV. But he never did. He decided against it. You'd think if those additional scenes were really important to him that he would have taken the opportunity then to reinsert them. But he didn't. I think that's significant.

Mat


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: stanton on May 21, 2012, 05:59:16 AM
He probably lived not long enough to do so.

But it is a bit shocking that the film stock wasn't preserved in the best possible condition.


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: dave jenkins on May 21, 2012, 06:08:18 AM
And once they did release these scenes, I am sure glad they put 'em back into the movie. Idk who made that decision; whether it was Raffaella and Andrea, or Scorcese or Gucci. Perhaps the Film Foundation and Gucci insisted upon it. who knows.
It gives the stake owners a new property, and for the original rights owners effectively extends the length of their copyright. Do you EVER think like a lawyer?


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: MatViola on May 21, 2012, 06:24:16 AM
He probably lived not long enough to do so.

But he consciously decided not to do so. Sure, it's possible that he might have changed his mind later (say, in the afterlife), but that's just speculation. I'm going with the evidence we have, which tells us that ultimately Leone preferred the 229-minute version.

Mat


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: Groggy on May 21, 2012, 03:00:15 PM
It gives the stake owners a new property, and for the original rights owners effectively extends the length of their copyright. Do you EVER think like a lawyer?

Maybe he's not a copyright lawyer Jinks. :P


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: cheem_2000 on May 23, 2012, 07:45:19 AM
For me seeing extra scenes restored for  Once upon a Time in America is not based on understanding the story better. We have all come to love Leone's ellipitical style which relies more on sound music and camera. Just being able to see his marvellous shot selection and composition is enough. ;) O0


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 23, 2012, 07:47:38 AM
Maybe he's not a copyright lawyer Jinks. :P

that is correct. Intellectual Property Law never interested me and I never took a single class on it


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: Novecento on May 23, 2012, 10:58:01 AM
For me seeing extra scenes restored for  Once upon a Time in America is not based on understanding the story better. We have all come to love Leone's ellipitical style which relies more on sound music and camera. Just being able to see his marvellous shot selection and composition is enough. ;) O0

My thoughts exactly.


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 23, 2012, 11:16:59 AM
My thoughts exactly.

agreed. I don't see how anyone complain about getting more Leone scenes. This may well be the last time we ever get that


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: dave jenkins on May 24, 2012, 05:48:26 AM
For me seeing extra scenes restored for  Once upon a Time in America is not based on understanding the story better. We have all come to love Leone's ellipitical style which relies more on sound music and camera. Just being able to see his marvellous shot selection and composition is enough. ;) O0
Agreed. But that doesn't mean I want the footage re-integrated with the rest of the film.


Title: Re: Fletcher Scene
Post by: noodles_leone on May 24, 2012, 06:49:57 AM
Agreed. But that doesn't mean I want the footage re-integrated with the rest of the film.

It won't. Because it's green.