MovieChat Forums > Fantasia (1941) Discussion > Rite of Spring edit: very disturbing!

Rite of Spring edit: very disturbing!

posted 13 years ago by telerian
57 replies | jump to latest

I've been enamored of this film since a kid in the 1960s. Long before home video, a friend owned it on 16mm film reels. We watched it literally hundreds of times (in many states, and not only the 50). Anyway, a few years ago I rented it on vhs and discovered something that came as a real shock. One of my favorite segments in the evolution scenario of 'Rite..' is the emergence of Polypterus (fish) onto dry land: a huge event and beautifully done. It is GONE! He/she now makes it to the waters surface and then a fade-out is applied. Why would they (who?) do this? I've viewed many, many dubs since (dvd, other vhs, even a special Disney release) and all are corrupted in this manner. Yet nowhere on the entire www have I found this acknowledged. To me this is as disturbing as the Pastoral edits, perhaps more so. I fear some right-wing religious purge, anti-evolution... but that doesn't make sense because the entire premise of 'Rite of Spring' in Fantasia is the narrative of evolution on this planet. So why object to this single aspect? I don't know. Does anyone have any input about this... anyone out there? Not only is this a very bad thing but I'm truly surprised that it seems to have slipped right by... no mention anywhere. I want my beloved Fantasia intact... and I know that Walt and all involved would feel the same. gracias.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] flyer333555 13 years ago

If the company edited one character out because of the way she was portrayed, the black Centaurette Sunflower, they could have edited the mudskipper out because of evolution.

Although I would doubt it overall. I think that Disney personnel would censor out mention of Christ and a God, not evolution. They kept the Ave Maria...

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ebright99 13 years ago

The OP just rented this on VHS! Wow! I didn't know you could still rent VHS anywhere. Congratulations.

There is nothing missing from your VHS version. That's the way the film has always been. You are simply miss-remembering.

[–] Falconeer 10 years ago

You should read more carefully; he said he rented it on VHS "a few years ago.." and you could rent VHS tapes a few years ago..it hasn't been THAT long..

"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'

[–] sean_pak215 13 years ago

The Disney artists orginally planned on showing an image of the Virgin Mary with baby Jesus during the Ave Maria scene, but decided not too cause they figured it would've been too religiose.

I've always thought this tidbit was amusing. I don't think Disney had to worry about making the movie seem too religious. I mean for gods sake, the Rite of Spring segment is all about evolution, and the Pastoral Symphony segment depicts Greek polytheism. The Bald Mountain scene had elements of Satanism if you ask some people. Nobody was going to accuse Fantasia of a Catholic point of view if the Virgin Mary was shown during Ave Maria. :D

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SteveM-1 13 years ago

I have the most recent DVD release and I've watched the film with Commentary. I find it Odd that the Commentary would bring up the Edit about the removal of the Sunflower Character from the Pastoral sequence, but doesn't mention any additional edits during Rite of Spring. He goes into great detail about various cuts and alternate versions of Fantasia from the past, so if there were an Additional Edit to Rite of Spring, I think he would have mentioned it. In fact, I'm almost certain of it.

As for the Fish, you see it "evolving" as it's swimming towards the shore, so I don't see where an extra minute or two of it crawling onto the rock would make any difference. The bulk of the sequence is clear that Simple Organisms evolved into more complex organisms and then into Dinosaurs. Even if there were an Edit, it didn't destroy that concept or message in any way.

I'm a little concerned about the OP's desire to turn this into some Right-Wing Religious Fundamentalist Conspiracy that's just happened recently. That's not the case at all.

In fact, if you listen to the Commentary, trying to make concessions to both Religious groups and Non-Religious groups is not a New Thing. In fact, the Concession towards Religious Groups was already made into "Rite of Spring" long before the Completed Product hit Theaters back in 1940. Originally, Rite of Spring was going to go farther to show not only the Dinosaurs, but further evolution of Mammals into Primates and then into Primative Man. However, in order NOT TO OFFEND RELIGIOUS GROUPS, the sequence stopped just with the Dinosaurs and their demise.

Same goes with the Ave Maria segment but in reverse. In order NOT TO OFFEND NON-RELIGIOUS GROUPS, the Ave Maria segment was seriously toned down. There was going to be an Image of the Madonna, but instead they went with just a simple Sunrise with no Religious Symbols whatsoever. Also, Walt himself made the comment that if this film were played where any Christian Symbolism might Offend, then it's just the last 4 minutes of the film, so it can just be cut out.

Which is remarkable in that there would actually be groups who would prefer the film end in the Chaos of "Night on Bald Mountain" with lots of Demons rather than the Peaceful Melody of "Ave Maria".

So let's please put away the Religious Conspiracy Theories.

[–] telerian 13 years ago

It was not my intention to put forward any such conspiracy theory or incite religious debate, I'm afraid the last poster misunderstood. It was simply a passing remark, only came to mind because of very valid real occurrences... actions by right (such as Texas school book threat, etc, etc)... so the possibility is unfortunately real. But I don't think so in this case. Wow, just a brief comment. I didn't care to read all that post, I got the gist, can only say the poster "doth protest too much" and leave it lay.

But yes to me the change does matter, only because of my history with the film and love for it. Otherwise I don't feel it takes away from the beauty and impact of the film, of course not... I admit it's extreme on my part because it's an extreme love I have for it. Saw it in theatre at early age, friend owned it on 16mm film & have watched it literally hundreds of times.. it was a teenage (well allage) ritual. So I did notice it and simply wonder... why? So I don't think I'll be looking over my shoulder for creationist gunmen. I just would like to know why it was done. dats all. sda

[–] ebright99 13 years ago

You don't have the time to read the whole post?! What the heck?!

You come in here and ask a question and we tell you that you are miss-remembering, and that the scene has not been changed and you don't even have the courtesy to read the answers. You probably aren't even reading this.

Here it is real short, since that seems to be all you can handle:

You are wrong, there have been no changes to the Right of Spring.

[–] telerian 13 years ago

Again, there is real misunderstanding here. What I felt wasn't necessary to read all of was the entire political content of his message; as I wrote, I read enough to get the gist of his point. But it's true I should have clarified that. Let me now set things straight if I may... apologies for not being more clear from start. I should have left out the comment about possible right-wing influence... it has simply muddied the waters, so to speak, but I think I covered that in 2nd post. Now, if possible let us focus on what is relevant.

Yes I had courtesy to read all answers and I think enough facility to discern if my question is being addressed or not... in that case it was not so I moved on. I read them all, including the post "telling me I am miss-remembering". I appreciate all responses, of course, but in that you were simply incorrect.

No, I am not miss-remembering. With total certainty I am correct... it has been edited! You don't know me or my history so of course you wouldn't know that, in this, I know of what I speak. I have been and will be wrong about many things and in many other things I would not be so emphatic but in this I am indeed 100% correct. This segment and at least one other has been altered. My memory is crystal clear on it but I have more than that for confirmation and other corroboration for this particular scene and an entire site devoted to restoring another alteration (in the Pastoral segment). What I don't have, and was looking for here, is a reason why it was done... that's all. But this is becoming absurd. Good god, why are you so caustic... again I say, I only meant to ask if anyone knew why this was edited... and there ARE edits, I just wonder why.

For anything that I wrote that was misunderstood, I apologize. sda

[–] telerian 13 years ago

P.S. just want to add to my post of a few moments ago. In retrospect I do see that my comment about not reading all of SteveM-1's post could be interpreted badly. I truly did not express myself well on that one point. His post was informative and I appreciate it, it was only the political comments that I was referring to... and I didn't intend it to come out as it did even then. So to SteveM-1 specifically I apologize for the misunderstanding and thank you for taking the time to post. Has been a crazy week all round. No matter what... Fantasia lives! sda 'it comes on anyhow'

[–] ebright99 13 years ago

I'm sorry. You are miss-remembering. There have been no changes to the Right of Spring. There were changes to Beethoven's Pastoral, but not to the Right of Spring. If there were changes to Right of Spring they would be documented in books, on the internet, on the DVD, etc. The changes to the Pastoral are widely cited and discussed, even by Disney themselves. There is no documentation of any changes to the Right of Spring.

So either you've got yourself a topic for an explosive new chapter in the history of Fantasia and Disney (because you apparently are in possession of the only evidence of these changes) or you are missremembering.

Sorry, there is no evidence of a change. And you've provided none.

[–] GhostRiver 13 years ago

Ebright, your self-assurance is a little arrogant. We used to have a VHS copy of Fantasia from when I was a kid that was taped in the UK. I distinctly remember this scene in question because I recall being proud to explain to my pops that "this is evolution." Hey, I was a kid.

So anyway, even though you likely won't accept this as any more factual than the OP's assertion, here's at least another Fantasia fan that is disappointed by these new censors.

Sorry, friend, he's not "mis-remembering." Get over it.

[–] ebright99 13 years ago

Wait, I'm arrogant because I don't believe you when you say something that contradicts all the available studies on Fantasia and your evidence is a VHS you no longer own but remember watching when you were a kid? Instead of being arrogant how exactly should I react? Should I just throw up my arms and declare you “right” because of your irrefutable evidence?

I will happily concede that you are right if you can direct me to any actual evidence. In fact I would be most grateful to you, because I am always interested in learning something new about this film. But I don't believe there is any. But like I said, if you find any evidence please post a link here.

[–] Frumious_Bandersnatch_46 13 years ago

My own memory agrees with GhostRiver's, not with yours. Therefore I'm sure you'll reject it as readily as you rejected his (or hers).

Theatrical re-release, early 1956. (Had to be early '56, my baby sister hadn't been born yet.)

The fish broke the surface and began to walk on land.

Disagreeable aren't I?
I tend to get that way with people obviously prepared to reject anything you offer them as being "insufficient evidence". What you're really saying is, "I've made up my mind, don't confuse the issue with any other evidence!"

Do try to remember this:
Anyone who has a copy of the film with this piece included still would not be able to post it anywhere — without violating any number of copyright laws.

***
Sic transit gloria mundi, sometimes Tuesday is worse.
***

[–] Blunic3 11 years ago

Ebright you antagonistic retard. *beep* OFF!

[–] telerian 13 years ago

Thank you GhostRiver! I haven't been back to this site (or online much at all) until just now (family crisis, etc.) so am just catching up a bit everywhere. Yeah, I don't understand some of the animosity over this. I did try to resolve a misunderstanding about one of my posts (it appeared I was saying I didn't read someone's reply, and it did read like that, but it wasn't the case & I clarified it).

Anyway... I really appreciate your post and I've heard from several other folks that remember the original scene well; my original post was not 'if' there is an edit but if anyone knows 'why' it was done. Well, at this point the why doesn't matter so much, rather I'm much more interested in having the original version. The edit doesn't detract from the beauty and wonder of the film or any such thing... I suppose it's just a personal thing for me, you know.

As for my memory & experience with Fantasia: I'm a composer/musician and when we had the 16mm film we used to show it at a local park, but had no sound system, so I would play live accompaniment (only on Rite of Spring segment). Well, it was experimental and, even so, I would never never had done so if Stravinsky score had been possible, as the music & visual are inseparable (and I somewhat shudder even to think of it now, although it was hugely inspirational to do), but it was what it was (blame it on my youth). Anyway, point being, I composed motifs for certain sections, although most were improv, and the water to land motion was one that I had a definite part for (a sound cluster of sorts). So, no I'm not mis-remembering. Anyway... thank again GhostRiver and all who have commented. S

[–] ejewett1 10 years ago

**Very** minor nit:

"Rite of Spring" as in celebration not "right of spring"...

[–] Frumious_Bandersnatch_46 13 years ago

Item: 1 I have to agree that SteveM-1 appears to be in love with his own rhetoric. He appears to be reading into your post a great deal more than you may have put there.

Item: 2 Your "mis-remembering" (as some have oh-so-politely put it) must be contagious. Recalling the "Rite of Spring" segment from the 1956 theatrical re-release, I, too, remember the fish breaking the surface to begin walking on land. (Had to be early 1956, my baby sister wasn't born yet.)

BTW: Have you read the thread titled "Would it be heresy to ask for a new soundtrack recording?"?
Shortcut: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032455/board/nest/178030663
The OP is proposing a Blu-ray release with a number of user-selectable audio options:
• Original (1939) "Fantasound" audio (cleaned up)
• 1982 re-recorded digital audio.
• All of Deems Taylor's narration restored.
• etc.
What think you?

We don't see things as they are; we see things as we are.
— Anaïs Nin

[–] stephaniej_finch 13 years ago

I would say given you watched a 16mm film reel, that there is a possibility you are right. A lot of movies are cut and edited over the years and valuable material can get lost. Would you happen to still be close to your friend who owns it? A great many people would love to see it..maybe they could donate it to The Disney Family Museum. Anything that was removed would be boldly displayed now, for the whole world to see. Even the non-believers! ; )
"I do believe in fairies!" Miraculously, Tinkerbell heard me and her light came back.

[–] telerian 13 years ago

Thank you Stephanie. Yeah, I have finally connected with my friend that owned it (and the person he later sold it to). The chances of actually getting that original 16mm film are very good... I'm amazed, but don't know for sure yet. Good news is that he didn't sell it, but it is stored at a relatives' house. So I'm very excited about the possibility... mostly just to have the actual film that brought countless hours of bliss to me & my friends. I will certainly keep you posted on results. Thanks for your post. S

[–] ebright99 13 years ago

Like I said, if you have the evidence I would love to see it. Until then I'll take the words of the experts, and Disney themselves, when they say that nothing has ever been cut from the Rite of Spring. Are you aware that if you do have this evidence it would be extremely valuable? Are you aware that you would have uncovered something that to this day has NEVER, NOT ONCE, NOT EVER in the history of this film been documented one single time by anyone whatsoever? If you really think you have something this rare, please share it with the world.

[–] frederik olsen 13 years ago

One thing I'm curious about is how exactly the audio has been edited to accomodate this supposed case of censorship. What you're describing seems to be around a minute or so, but the music in the current, alledgedly censored, version fits with the fade-out. There are no sync problems later in the segment, nor are there any audible edits in the music.

I want to believe that there is more of Fantasia out there, but that would also mean there's an edit in the soundtrack that not even the most ardent audiophiles have been able to detect. And that just doesn't add up.

[–] jmarkoff2 13 years ago

There was no edit. Our minds simply imagined that the fish would then proceed onto land.

[–] MEZahra1031 12 years ago

So, I really have no idea whether there was a scene or not and whether anything was cut or no. But My GOD Ebright your arrogance is unbelievable! Seriously, ever occur to you these people might be right? I'm not saying they are, I'm just saying if you're going to argue try to be a LITTLE bit more open-minded. I just started reading the thread and I was going crazy that I just HAD to say something. Besides, why would all these people who obviously have nothing to do with each other remember the exact same scene if it didn't really exist? -.-

[–] joe_538 10 years ago

People swear up and down that things were said on The Johnny Carson Show and You Bet Your Life that never happened.

Zsa Zsa: Would you like to pet my pussy?
Johnny: Sure, if you'll get that damn cat off your lap.

Groucho: Why so many (children)?
Contestant: I love children.
Groucho: Well, I love my cigar, but I take it out of my mouth once in awhile.

Neither of these were said on either show, yet people insisted they remembered hearing them.

[–] just1Hitch 13 years ago

telerian, it seems there are those who think you are wrong about the rite!

I don't think I want to go to the pictures. Oh?Why not? I've seen everything worth seeing.

[–] craigd_05 13 years ago

The only two versions of Fantasia I've seen are the 1990 release and the DVD re-release in the 2000s. I was certain I saw the fish evolve and crawl out onto land, so much so that I just put on the 1990 VHS that I had watched as a child, in order to take a picture and prove that it had taken place... Only to see that the fish didn't crawl out at all, I guess I must have just imagined it, or my memory mixed that scene and the following scene with the aquatic creature swimming and getting out of the water.

Just proves the tricks that the memory can play on you!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ebright99 13 years ago

Well congratulations! You are in possession of one of the most valuable film finds of all time. An uncut piece of a famous Disney film, the cutting of which has heretofore never been documented in any way shape or form by anyone ever in the history of disney, fantasia, or film history in general.

How are you going to spend your new fortune? Why are you forward enough to come on the internet and admit you have it, yet private enough not to make your finding public? It would be worth a fortune. I'll believe it when I see your on Good Morning America with your "lost film treasure of the ages".

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] garybatmanbusey 13 years ago

dont forget the hookers!!!

'All for one and one for all! You go first, I've got a bad leg.'

[–] GhostRiver 13 years ago

Hahaha, yeah, "arrogant" as this post confirms. Or maybe just a jerk...

Maybe you're right, Ebright--maybe you are! Maybe we're all wrong--crazier things have happened and I'll admit I could very easily be wrong about this scene in this movie.

But what is certain is that you're sort of a jerk...

Cheers! (And for real, RELAX)

[–] ebright99 13 years ago

You tell us you have what would amount to the find of the century, but you have no proof...and I'm the jerk?

[–] GhostRiver 11 years ago

...the find of the century? In Fantasia? Yeah, you're a jerk.

[–] GuyNCognito 10 years ago

and you reply over a year later... to prove what?

[–] starbond8 13 years ago

One thing to note, at point where the clip fades and we see the lake with the shore, there IS a creature coming out of the water, In the lower left of the screen. (looks like a turtle or something?) However it is NOT the same small fish looking creature from the pre-fadeout.

Maybe youre thinking of that?

[–] vnisanian2001 13 years ago

I'm more interested in finding out if the 16mm print that the OPs friend is said to own is the original 1940 roadshow print. In fact, I'm wondering if the original 1940 roadshow print does indeed circulate among collectors in the form of a 16mm print.

[–] gemtea-2 13 years ago

From Filmsite.org: "The fins of Polypterus change to legs, and he walks up a submerged rock to the surface of the ocean."

Isn't that the scene? Full description: http://www.filmsite.org/fant2.html I can't find a description of it like the OP explained it but I believe it. Why make up something? Another reason I find this thread fascinating as I saw this in a theater in 50s re-release and the scene does seem familiar. Anyway, I love the film because I saw it as a little kid and was overwhelmed by by the whole thing. At 5 years old I was easily impressed.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Pyromania 12 years ago

There probably aren't a whole lot of people who have the 16mm and the following would all probably need to occur:
1) them being aware that the roadshow edition is different, and not just an "antique" they found in granny's attic
2) the desire to share it online
3) the ability to somehow convert it to a digital format
4) the knowledge to upload it to a torrent or something similar
5) a lack of care/fear/ethics with regards to piracy laws

It's not likely these things would all line up. If I possessed the 16mm, number 3 would be my biggest issue and I consider myself fairly tech-savvy.

...Don't look now, but I think the monotremes are out to get me...

[–] joe_538 10 years ago

Some screencaps would suffice, I don't think those put anyone into an uproar. I don't get all the tech required for digital conversion, either, but have seen plenty of YouTube videos of TV screens and computer monitors.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] skinny_school_girl 12 years ago

How can it be disturbing when you can already see it evolving as it makes its way towards the surface? (I guess I could see it be a bit troubling if they removed the ENTIRE sequence but they didn't). Also, as others have mentioned, a LOT of heavily religious material was removed from "Ave Maria": Originally, the monks (or whatever you want to call them) were going to enter the ruins of a church and an image of the Virgin Mary would be shown but that was cut out in order to not piss off religious groups. But still, even without all of that symbolism, it's still pretty obvious, isn't it?

[–] mbautista86 11 years ago

I finally have the answer to this: you're not remembering Fantasia the movie. There was a TV special that DID use a section of the dinosaur part of Fantasia and also went on to a part that randomly talks about life that may be on mars from a different Disney short. It said something along the lines of "We don't know if it could hold unknown animal... vegetable... or mineral beyond our imaginations". One of the possible lifeforms it depicted was some kind of circular fish getting onto land, and then getting attacked by a ray of light. I can see why you saw the connection between the dinosaur part and the alien hypothesis.