With all due respect I believe that Daniel Windsor does not prefer a different version per se but rather is attempting to make a point that censorship might have had something to do with the released in the US cut. Yet, in your original reply to his post you went on to assume what his preference was and fabricated a few ridiculous claims. Looking at your post above I am still unsure whether or not you actually follow the discussion.

Ciao,
Pro-B

I would still like the international version, but the fact that Lynch personally supervised the MGM transfer settles it for me. One question lingers, however: did he HAVE to choose the U.S. theatrical release, or did MGM give him the choice of using the unaltered version? If he indeed could choose and chose the altered version, well, there you have it. It's interesting to me that Lynch supposedly didn't like the international releases' color; from screenshots, the MGM version, to me, has too much red, but if Lynch has given it his blessing, he wants it that way.

Cannes is a festival. It is not the film's actual release. Many films are rushed to screen at festivals before they are complete. Last year The Brown Bunny caused an uproar with its screening at Cannes from an unfinished workprint, and the director cut 20 minutes from the film for its actual release.

That isn't censorship. That's "My movie isn't done yet but this is what I've got ready to show you so far".

LOL

Your arguments are becoming more ridiculous with every post. Next, you'll be saying it was a full moon when the film was released so that's why it's cut in the USA.

You've lost sight of the main point:

The US distributor insisted Lynch provide a film that was 'R rated' ie he was forced to cut the film in his contract. That's a cut due to censorship. If you want to call that the 'director cut' that's up to you.

The film was released in Cannes then only 2 weeks later in the USA. The rating for the film would have been required many weeks before for the US censor and for him to meet his contract. So, the Cannes cut was the finished uncut cut.

I think the distributor may say the 'international cut' (uncut Cannes Palme D'Or) and the USA 'R Rating' (cut due to his contract and US censorship).

I'l let you describe that anyway you like.


As for The Brown Bunny, that was entered as a rough cut and this was confirmed by Gallo. Lynch's Wild at Heart was a completed film and it won the Palme D'Or.

Big difference.

Not only that, but that the uncut, unobscured version was the one widely distributed theatrically across Europe.

I watched Wild at Heart the day it opened in Spain, in September 1990 (BTW, a couple seats away from Pedro Almodóvar, who paid the quinientas pesetas like anybody else). And the offending shotgun scene was there, in all its gory glory.

I have the Universal R2 disc, and the scene is exactly as I saw it in theaters.

Now, if Lynch preferred the blast blurring, why didn't he request that it be applied to all versions worldwide, as he has done, e.g., for Mulholland Drive?

[Geroge A. Romero talking about Land of The Dead (IGN.com)]
Definitely not censors, then.

International release prints have to be shipped further in advance than domestic release prints, and are sometimes taken from unfinished versions of the movie if the director is tweaking the editing up to the last minute. The international release prints (and subsequent DVDs) for the first Austin Powers movie contain a number of lame jokes that the director cut for the US release. He wasn't censored or forced to cut them. The jokes weren't working so he made last-minute changes.

Wild at Heart is distributed by different studios in different countries. Mulholland Drive is distributed exclusively by Universal. Laura Harring's contract with Universal specified that no genital nudity can be visible.

So Lynch was forced to cut/obscure the scene due to a contract? Yes.

Just like he was forced to supply a 'R rated' version of his Wild at Heart due to his contract.

I'm glad you now accept what I say.

Daniel, you clearly don't know what you're talking about in any regard on this topic. Please stop spreading misinformation. You are wrong. Learn to deal with it.

Fixed.

In any case I'm getting the R4 Aussie Wild at Heart DVD, thanks to a friend who is visiting home. Less than 10 USD. It would have cost only 5 AUD to ship to the Czech Republic, F@#k you Western European e-tailers!!

About this censorship thing: "censor" means "an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter" and as a verb "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable"; Mulholland Drive perhaps falls under those definitions but an "official" didn't examine it and more importantly Lynch could have used a different actress, and in the case of Wild at Heart, well, again, I think it's open to interpretation but it was a condition of getting the film released; I suppose Lynch could have taken it to another distributor who could have released it unrated. To me this is arguing semantics, as the U.S. effectively has no official governing censorship body.

Well, he could have if he owned the film, which of course he does not. The studio paid for and owns the film.