MovieChat Forums > Frankenhooker (1990) Discussion > Odd 'censorship' in DVD

Odd 'censorship' in DVD

posted 19 years ago by Erich-13
22 replies | jump to latest

I recently rented the Simitar DVD, and I noticed a couple of little differences between that and the old VHS edition. During the "audition" party, there was a shot of Jeffrey measuring one hooker's breasts with a pair of calipers; in the VHS version, it was a full-body shot, but on the DVD, it was a close-up that was cropped at the shoulders. Since we couldn't see what he was doing, the gag was pretty much gone. I also could have sworn that, when he measures another hooker's leg, the VHS version showed her lying on the bed with a bemused reaction; the DVD only shows him holding and measuring the leg. There may have been other little differences that I've overlooked.

It just seems a little odd, considering how much nudity, gore, and all-around bad taste remains in the movie, that these two relatively insignificant topless shots were removed from the DVD.

---
"Little do they know how little I know about the little there is to know." - Neddy Seagoon

[–] ducksoup35 19 years ago

isn't there supposed to be a special edition dvd coming out this spring?

[–] chronoluke 19 years ago

"You can show someone cutting off someone's arm but you CAN'T SHOW BREASTS!"

I can picture that board meeting right now.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] brodiebruce_405 18 years ago

A shot of a guy smoking crack was cut out of that version as well.

Not so in the new Unearthed Films dvd.

[–] stamklum 16 years ago

there was a shot of Jeffrey measuring one hooker's breasts with a pair of calipers; in the VHS version, it was a full-body shot, but on the DVD, it was a close-up that was cropped at the shoulders.

I don't think that's really cendorship, it's probably because the VHS version was full screen, and the DVD is widescreen. In the transfer from full screen to widescreen, some bits are cut from the top and bottom of the picture. But actually you do get a chance to see what he's doing before the frame focuses on her face, so no big deal.
By the way, for the same reason, in the full screen version you see a full frontal nudity shot of the hooker that explodes second, and in the widescreen version you only see her breasts.

A shot of a guy smoking crack was cut out of that version as well.

Where is that supposed to be?

[–] tcw214 16 years ago

this is wrong info.. nothing cut from the top and bottom of the screen.. the SIDES are cut from widescreen to fit your tv format from moviescreen format.
ergo wide screen had more in the picture not less..

[–] Nutsferatu 16 years ago

It may be wrong in this particular case, tcw214, but widescreen versions do sometimes omit the top and bottom of the picture. A recent special edition of The Shining did this. Stanley Kubrick apparently meant for it to be shown in 4:3 format. The thinking behind cases of "false widescreen" seems to be that the movie somehow becomes more prestigious or some nonsense like that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_matte

[–] lanative 15 years ago

I watched an old laserdisc of this the other night, it was marked as "unrated" and of course 1:33 ratio. Nothing mentioned in this thread was cut.

[–] Nuclear_Exorcist 10 years ago

It may be wrong in this particular case, tcw214, but widescreen versions do sometimes omit the top and bottom of the picture. A recent special edition of The Shining did this. Stanley Kubrick apparently meant for it to be shown in 4:3 format. The thinking behind cases of "false widescreen" seems to be that the movie somehow becomes more prestigious or some nonsense like that.

Kubrick never intended for any of his films to be shown in full-frame, but he decided that filming spherical and then matting for projection would at least allow them to be released on video without losing any image. Watch any Kubrick film in 1.33:1 and you'll notice there's too much space above and below the image, but when the top and bottom are gone the image is perfectly composed.

[–] LuciaJoyce 15 years ago

I haven't seen this movie in years, nor haven't seen the various versions, so my comment is pretty meaningless; but the frame is usually matted from full-frame to widescreen, cutting off information from the top and bottom of the frame. This is why sometimes you'll see such things as lighting instruments and boom mics at the top of the video frame, since the matte would mask these things during projection. Only saying.

--
I should warn you -- he's a Fourierist.

[–] BijouBob8mm 15 years ago

How the film is matted/cropped depends upon which ratio the film was actually shot. Stanley Kubrick, not realizing that one day we would have widescreen TVs, started shooting his films with a full screen in mind because he figured over the years his work would be seen on TV more than it was in theaters. His films would be matted widescreen (cutting off top and bottom) for the theater, so you were actually seeing more picture elements on the fullscreen TV showing than you were in the cinema. (There was debate, when PYSHCO first came out letterboxed, about whether it was better that way or in full screen as it was shot using the same equipment done for his weekly TV show and then masked off for widescreen theatrical showing.) Other filmmakers will actually shoot widescreen (anamorphic), rather than masking off a full screen image.

[–] Sic Coyote 14 years ago

Just to confirm as I have done millions of times it seems

Movies after 1954 shown at the cinema were mostly shot in two ways
Flat: Which is where they just shoot it flat onto a 1.37:1 piece of film but intend it to be cropped at the top and bottom to make it between 1.66:1 & 1.85:1

Anamorphic(not the same as anamorphic dvd): Where they have a lens on the camera so it fills the whole film frame with a 2.35:1 image squashed to fit, which is they stretched out with another lens in the projector.

My impression of what Kubrick intended is that he has been misunderstood. He used to shoot in Anamorphic which meant that when the films were shown on tv they were usually cropped on both sides resulting in horrible framing. So instead he started to shoot in Flat but not because he intended people to watch them in open-matte 1.33:1 but because he prefered that people saw that than the horrible Pan&Scan aternative. But always meaning the Theatrical version to be preferable. So really you should be watching all his post 1954-work in an aspect ratio of at least 1.66:1.

1.66:1 - 1.85:1 = cropped from 1.37:1 picture, but that's how it's supposed to be.

2.35:1 = adds picture to the sides when compared to a 4:3 version(usually, don't mention super35)
----

Even if you hate Uwe Boll, give Postal a try, be offended or entertained.

[–] gumbussy 14 years ago

No comment on this particular subject. I just have to say I love IMDB! Only on IMDB could the discussion for scenes possibly removed from a film like "Frankenhooker" could it eventually become a discussion of how Kubrick envisioned transfer to video would work. That is an AMAZING leap...Love Frankenhooker though...always will. Now continue the discussion!!!

[–] BijouBob8mm 14 years ago

"So really you should be watching all his post 1954-work in an aspect ratio of at least 1.66:1."

Wouldn't 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY be an exception to that, given he actually shot widescreen instead of cropping a flat image?

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] handoverfist38 11 years ago

What I always heard about Kubrick was that he shot widescreen but composed the frame with the subjects in the center which is not usually a preferable composition, because he didn't want parts of people cropped on the sides when the movies were shown on TV. Center composition is considered static and too balanced as opposed to the classic "golden square" or 1 to 3 composition which draws your eye to the main subject but allows it to flow around to the subordinate subjects.

[–] tawdry_hepburn 8 years ago

I love everything about this post.

A: You did your search
B: You explained clearly
C: You cited relevant sources
D: You're discussing Kubrick on the board for FRANKENHOOKER
E: You're namedropping Postal.

If you're in los angeles, I would like to buy you a beer. We apparently have all of the same interests.

,Said the Shotgun to the Head--
Saul Williams

[–] Prismark10 8 years ago

Kubrick was a big fan of Frankenhooker.

It's that man again!!

[–] brodiebruce_405 13 years ago

In the bathroom where Jefferey first meets zorro.

[–] Mathias001 9 years ago

By the way, for the same reason, in the full screen version you see a full frontal nudity shot of the hooker that explodes second, and in the widescreen version you only see her breasts.

I hate that about widescreen releases of older movies. I had this on VHS and I do remember seeing a brief full frontal shot of the prostitute before she explodes. Same thing in XTro with Maryam D'abo. There's a scene where she's lying on the floor and she gets up which gives us a nice view of her breasts and pubic area but the widescreen release crops everything below her belly button.

I'm so sorry I god rid of my rather vast collection of VHS tapes and VCR. The quality may not be up to par with BR's but at least I could have watched movies the way they were meant to be seen.
---------------------
Long live the 70s!

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ADz-83 8 years ago

Link to differences in versions..
http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=873813