Modern Times - Original vs re-edited versions.

[The_Iceflash]

So, as you probably know, in the 1950s Charlie Chaplin re-edited his film and made cuts to them. The Chaplin Estate however is only licencing versions re-edited by him in the 50s. As a result, the new BD releases are the edited versions. What do you think of this?

EDIT: Though it appears they may show up as bonus features:

Two segments removed from the film

http://www.criterion.com/films/27526-modern-times

[littlefuzzy]

Do you know if the original version has ever been on DVD? If not, then all I am familiar with is the edited version. I haven't had much luck in finding out what the edits were (other than another verse in the nonsense song, and maybe a scene where he tries to cross a busy street.

Modern Times has always been one of my favorite films, so (assuming I've only seen the edited version), the edits didn't detract from the film (or possibly they helped it.)

I would wish that the original version was available (although the deleted scenes may help), but since Chaplin edited it himself, and his estate will only authorize the edited version, I'm not going to throw a fit and demand the original version or nothing. I'd be stuck with nothing, and wouldn't get to see this great film again!!

[yamiiguy]

I think that I don't care. It was the director's intent. No matter what you say about, for example, George Lucas, Star Wars is his work, it is his right to do what he wants with it and he is releasing it the way that he would have released it back in the 70s if the technology permitted it.

[johns]

Wow, this is the first time I've heard about this and Modern Times is one of my favorite movies. The '50s version must be the only one I've seen. For the sake of preservationism I'd like to have the original version as a viewing option on any release, but I suppose providing the cut scenes seperately works. The Criterion release is great news. I'm preordering this right now.

[milojthatch]

I say have as many versions out as can be put out. I never bought into this "director's intend" crap, which is what it is: crap. In the old days of story telling, people would sit around a camp fire and the original story teller would tell his story, and then have it altered over, and over, and over again. That's how it was done for the strong majority of human history. But now, in modern times (no pun intended), we have no more imagination, and hold maybe a little much films as sacred works. I have news for everyone, they are nothing of the sort. I say release however many versions of any films that can be sold, someone some where will want it, and Hollywood is after all first and foremost, about making money. They are a business, it is time we start treating them like one.

I wonder how much money they loose buy forcing the viewing audiences hand into what version of any film they will watch in any different time period? "Director's intend" is pure and simple arrogance and pride. No person is bigger then an idea or story.

[jpanimation]

I love Modern Times. I never knew there was missing footage. All I knew was Chaplin went back to a few of his silent films, added brand new scores written by himself, and cut out the title cards only to replace them with a narration by himself. To be honest, they're my preferred versions of the films and his too. Having the originals is always a good thing, though.

[yamiiguy]

So, for example, you author a novel. Want to change it a bit, to fit your vision more (like how Tolkien edited The Hobbit due to the release of the Lord of the Rings), you then have to have both versions in publication? I don't think so.

[KubrickFan]

I think that I don't care. It was the director's intent. No matter what you say about, for example, George Lucas, Star Wars is his work, it is his right to do what he wants with it and he is releasing it the way that he would have released it back in the 70s if the technology permitted it.

I'm sorry, But Lucas couldn't have made Greedo shoot first in 1976? The Jabba scene was written out of the movie by Lucas himself because it didn't work, and Greedo's scene told the same information. All of the other things were Lucas simply changing his mind about them as well. That's okay, those things happen, but to treat those altered versions as the 'final versions', and the originals as 'workprints' is just wrong. Nobody should do that, it doesn't matter if you're Charlie Chaplin, George Lucas or anybody else.

So, for example, you author a novel. Want to change it a bit, to fit your vision more (like how Tolkien edited The Hobbit due to the release of the Lord of the Rings), you then have to have both versions in publication? I don't think so.

No, instead you shouldn't consider the fans of the original and do whatever the hell you want to just because you made it. So if Tolkien turned every dwarf into a clown, turned Gandalf into a cross-dressing man, and made Bilbo kill everybody with a machete, you would be all right with that, just because he made it? I hope not. People like George Lucas don't know when to stop. He claims the Special Editions are final, but were changed once again for the DVDs, and will probably be changed again for the Blu-ray release as well.

[yamiiguy]

Well of course I wouldn't like it. But since he is the creator I wouldn't protest. They should be free to go back and alter their creations however they like, whether we like it or not, it is their right.