>One of the supplements was a side-by-side analysis of the much
>shorter original ending and the one that currently exists. In
>the original ending sequence, for some reason they cut the
>crucial conversation between Octave and the maid that gives
>him second thoughts about leaving with Christine. In the
>original, he just hands his coat to the aviator with no
>explanation, making it seem like he sort of actively (and,
>possibly, maliciously) contributed to the tragedy. The
>inclusion of that conversation totally clarifies and changes
>the understanding of Octave's motives, adding another layer of
>complexity to the story.

That literally changes the landscape of the entire film.
I put that up there as worst cutting of a finished movie, even worse than BLADE RUNNER.
More to the point, it doesn't even make sense in the truncated version ("truncated" the word of the day, by the way). In the truncated version, it happens so quickly, so haphazardly, you're not even given enough time to discern what it means, if anything. It comes off as a horrible "Where's B?" scene (An old film axiom, if you show someone doing something in A, and show someone finishing that something in C, you don't need B. The phrase is attributed to the kind of dunce who sees A and C, but still needs B). It took repeated viewings for me to even pick up on the malicious intent idea, and even then it didn't work for me.

>The current, "definitive" version is actually 15-20 minutes
>longer than the original theatrical version.

That's right, that's what it is, they no longer have a print of the original and this is the "as close as we'll ever get to that" version.

>On top of that, the original theatrical version had over 10 minutes >shaved off after only being out a week (which got it to the 80+ >minute range), because the public/press hated it so much and Renoir
>was grasping at straws.

One of the things I try to remember about critics.

>The "restored" one apparently includes a lot more of Octave, who >originally appeared a lot less sympathetic as a character. (Underrated: Solid acting
>here by Renoir.)

I read that he cut as much of himself out of the original cut of the movie as possible, lest he appear vain. Which is madness when you see just how great of a job he did, on top of his importance to the story. Sheeeeit, I've directed myself before, and if I could get a performance like THAT, in MY film, from ME - cousin, I'd make the whole movie about me!

>Great shit.

The film historian on they got on the DVD is very good. I can't remember his name, but he did an excellent job on the commentaries.


"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams