MovieChat Forums > Tagebuch einer Verlorenen Discussion > KINO DVD versions...why does the newer r...

KINO DVD versions...why does the newer release have a shorter runtime?

posted 8 years ago by Sandoz
1 reply | jump to latest

I just checked out both Kino releases of this from my library--the 2001 edition and the 2012 edition--and was surprised to find that the newer release actually has a shorter running time than the older release. The 2001 runtime is listed as 116 minutes, and the 2012 at 112 mins. And this despite the fact that there is a lengthy introductory scroll that details how much effort and detective work went into both restoring the image and making sure all censored portions were restored to the 2012 print.

I haven't watched the film yet, but I did a brief cursory comparison to check out the image quality between the two and the 2012 wins that battle hands down; it looks noticeably improved over the previous version. I also found the simple piano score provided on the newer version more fitting to the film, too, than the previous piano & synth/orchestra score on the 2001 edition (although ideally, if at all possible I'd much prefer a performance of whatever score was used for when the film first premiered...I wonder if a written score from 1929 exists for this film?).

My comparison makes me lean toward watching the film for the first time from the 2012 release...however, if the 2001 release is a more "complete" version of the film, that makes me also consider it as the better choice.

Anyway, I'm sure there are some experts out there on either Pabst or Louise Brooks who probably know this film intimately backwards and even sideways, so I'd be grateful if any of you can weigh in on whether the earlier Kino release includes extra footage that's not in the later release to result in the runtime discrepancies.

"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered!"

[–] Tin_ear 8 years ago

This is confusing, but I can only guess there is so many versions floating around that there is no "official" copy, as I presume the censors cut it up so much and the original prints was so damaged as to prevent a whole, intact copy ever existing as the director intended. A lot of films have outtakes that were never used, so just because you find footage doesn't mean it was ever included in a release (the Wizard of OZ has an entire song cut out if you can believe it). Also, as you probably know, they didn't care about preservation until the sixties and seventies. So there's that too.

I just saw a version on TCM and noticed the same thing you did. The last ten minutes got cut off when my DVR recorded it, so I looked for it on YouTube (here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNWB6vPA4Xc), and that version (2012) had scenes left out of the TCM-aired version and at least two subplots, one involving a dude at the beach and a weird client that was completely omitted from the later one.

IMDb lists the run-time as an hour and 19 minutes. The 2012 version, I linked to above, has an hour and 52 minute run-time, and the one they showed on TCM was like an hour and 35 minutes run. It's pretty much a Blade Runner situation.