The Ur-Version

[titoli]

I mean, the one Leone completed at the moviola before doing cuts for the censure (or for his own second thoughts).
Eastwood is quoted as saying, in an old biography I reviewed in another thread, that the first time he saw FOD it was more than 2 h long. I wonder where he saw it. I don't think he could have seen it after shooting ended, as he must have returned to USA at once or almost. But he was sent a copy in USA (this he told during a press conference in Rome, when somebody gave him a copy of the 45 and he candidly admitted he didn't need that as he was sent the reels almost at once). The same, I assume, he showed Burt Reynolds as reported in Frayling's Leone's bio. I don't think he owns the uncut version (that I don't think it was ever shown publicly on Italy and anyway it's not the one I saw in 1965 and in later years in the cinemas and was shown on TV, the only difference being the missing sequence of Joe's recovery being cut from many dvd's release but I presume restored for newer releases). I am sure the material is still somewhere: I only wonder when and if the family will decide to bring it to light again.

[sergios specs]

i remember reading that too many moons ago. if eastwood was correct. it adds up to about half an hour of unseen footage. also in frayling's book he states TGTBTU was originally 4 hours long. so there must have been an hour of unused footage. i would love to know what all the footage was, but i do not think we will ever see any of it. the best we can hope for, is if some whizzkid uses CGI to reconstruct the socorro scene and releases it as an extra on some future deluxe edition dvd. because the reconstruction on the special edition is shit and just leaves me feelng annoyed and frustrated. happy new year by the way

[titoli]

I don't know if we'll ever see any unreleased footage of any L.'s film during our (expecially mine) lifetime. But I'd bet  the material is still existing.

[The Firecracker]

Eastwood is quoted as saying, in an old biography I reviewed in another thread, that the first time he saw FOD it was more than 2 h long. I wonder where he saw it.

Eastwood's first time viewing was with some friends back in the states (at first he was embarassed to show them the movie not knowing what to expect).
The timeline was sometime just before going back to Italy to shoot FAFDM.

Not sure if this info is legit but it has been cited many times.

[titoli]

Eastwood's first time viewing was with some friends back in the states (at first he was embarassed to show them the movie not knowing what to expect).
The timeline was sometime just before going back to Italy to shoot FAFDM.

Not sure if this info is legit but it has been cited many times.

I doubt  it then that it could be a more than two-hour version.

[Jordan Krug]

I have the interview with Eastwood that I think the quotes are from, I'll find it, scan it and post it soon...

[dave jenkins]

Eastwood's first time viewing was with some friends back in the states (at first he was embarassed to show them the movie not knowing what to expect).
The timeline was sometime just before going back to Italy to shoot FAFDM.

So . . . this was before it was dubbed into English? Because he would have had to watch the film in order to dub it, and once it was dubbed he would have seen it. But why would Eastwood show his Stateside friends the film in Italian or completely undubbed? Something doesn't add up here.

[The Firecracker]

So . . . this was before it was dubbed into English?

That is how the story goes.

C'mon guys... Eastwood has told this story several times.
I won't believe this is the first time anybody here has heard this.

[Groggy]

The only time I've heard of it was a passing reference in Spaghetti Westerns.

[The Firecracker]

The only time I've heard of it was a passing reference in Spaghetti Westerns.

I assume you're talking about the Frayling book?

Well now I know the story has been told elsewhere because I've never read that book.

I've also seen an interview with Eastwood telling the story.

[titoli]

So . . . this was before it was dubbed into English? Because he would have had to watch the film in order to dub it, and once it was dubbed he would have seen it. But why would Eastwood show his Stateside friends the film in Italian or completely undubbed? Something doesn't add up here.

Uh? He would show it undubbed because it was his first feature as a protagonist. And the movie was the smash it was overseas. And it's not a movie which cannot be at all go unappreciated even if not understood completely. And it was a masterpiece anyway. We're talking about 45 years ago, no vhs or dvd available then.

And still I wonder where the f... Eastwood saw the longer version.

[cigar joe]

Could he have possibly seen a work print?

[Groggy]

It was probably a rough cut. I remember Frayling quoted Eastwood as calling it "absolute madness", which implies bad things (Clint's not the type to use madness in a good way). No reason to assume that it was coherent or fit for release in any way, or even that there was any additional material beyond uncut/longer versions of scenes in the final cut. Remember the restored version of Topaz is just twenty-thirty minutes of additional footage added to already existing scenes.

[Jordan Krug]

Found that article I mentioned (towards the end he talks about what was cut), and yes, I 've seen/read that story many times that the first version Eastwood saw was the italian cut, but I believe it was a straight italian cinema print (not the workprint/early cut etc)  because if you remember the story as it's been told many times in print etc, he only first knew of the film's success when Sofia Loren said that Eastwood was Italy's biggest star with the film "fistful of dollars" (this shocked Eastwood because he had made the film under the title "magnificent stranger".) It was at this point that he requested an italian print and was able to see the film with Burt Reynolds & other friends.



another earlier article...

[Jordan Krug]

Let's put some of this debate to rest....

from the book Clint Eastwood: The Man with no name by Iain Johnstone:




From Richard Schickel's biography (quality is the best I could with such a tightly bound book)