The Paradine Case - 132 minutes version information - The Paradine Case (1948) Discussion

[–] fordraff 16 years ago

Hi.
I'm sorry not to have written sooner but I've been away on business. It looks as if you've made a major, important discovery. If this is, indeed, the 131-minute version of "Case," then it's probably the only copy of the film at this length in existence. The next thing to do is report the existence of this print to responsible authorities who could arrange a screening of this print, determine the quality of the print, and then make arrangements for any restoration work to be done, after which the film should be issued on a DVD.

I'd suggest that you contact the American Film Institute. You could also try to contact Hitchcock's daughter, Patricia. Or you might try to contact Robert A. Harris and James C. Katz, the men who did the restoration of "Vertigo." But you can't let this 131-minute version of "Case" just lie unattended here.

Do you know the address of the place that has this print? Do you have the name of a contact person there? If so, post them. I'd be willing to write them a letter and urge them to seek the necessary help to get this print restored and issued as a DVD.

Send me a reply directly to [email protected] if you wish.

reply

[–] rexshard93 16 years ago

I am also contacting IUCAT about 3 reels version (owned by David Bradley) of The Paradine Case. I think it might be the original cut. David Bradley owned many of the lost films. So its possible that this can be an original cut.

I will contact you through your email soon.

reply

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 16 years ago

. . . again, thanks sony for the great work you're doing . . . is it possible that one day we might just be able to watch the Ethel Barrymore sequence? Is it even conceivable that we can one day? Let's hope . . . and just maybe that extra footage Hitchcock did, that Selznick pruned . . . wouldn't it be all so grand---the full three hours! Though, true, I'll settle for the 2 hours and 12 minute version anytime . . . think of it---a new DVD version, 132-minutes---I'd buy it at once! The Paradine Case is Hitchcock's masterwork---not Vertigo---that one is secondary:

. . . but notice: in Paradine Anthony Keane flips for Madallena; in Vertigo, Scottie Ferguson flips for Madeleine---now, what possible message could the great filmmaker be sending us? I wonder . . . . yes, most intriguing all this . . . most intriguing!
__________________

reply

[–] rexshard93 16 years ago

Its surprising that Maddalena is italian for Madeleine. Vertigo is a great film. But in my opinion, I agree that The Paradine Case is better.

According to the evidences, Critics gave good reviews for 132 minutes version in 1947.

But for 114 minutes version, Some Critics thought the film was flat. So there must be something important in those 18 minutes.

reply

[–] fordraff 16 years ago

Following up on your remarks, I today (Friday, November 9th) sent a letter to Ms. Josie L. Walters-Johnston at the Motion Picture & Television Reading Room of The Library of Congress asking her to confirm that they have a nitrate print of the 132-minute version of "Case." I've asked if I can arrange to have this film screened. Do you think the Library of Congress would do this for an ordinary person? And I told her she must inform the American Film Institute of the 132-minute print they have and move forward to restore that print (if restoration is needed; I suspect it will be) and issue it on DVD. I'll let you know the result of my request as soon as I receive it. Could it be possible that a 132-minute print has existed in the Library of Congress all of these years and been overlooked by Hitchcock scholars?

reply

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 16 years ago

The Paradine Case----Hitchcock's Magnus Opus

. . . Fordraff, this is all so exciting . . . please, do what ever you can . . . maybe we are all getting close to the original . . . I think's it's not only oh so grand . . . but, oh so wonderful. And remember Ford, you're doing it for film history . . . carry on with your special mission!

Sony---Paradine got excellent reviews in 1947---some complaints, but generally favorable---the film was box-office---it had an excellent run here in Chicago (and from the info Fordraff has posted, superb runs in New York and LA), and in outlying areas of Chicago (suburban)--true, it hurts me too that the film only garnered one nomination, but okay, these things happen---and I don't think many people even knew what this movie was really all about. This movie had a healthy run, and admired by many. It is long---Hitchcock's longest---but he chose this work, and for a reason, and Selznick provided him with ample funds (especially when one considers the state of the world's finances in the post-World War II era).

Ford, if you want anyone else to send emails, or petitions, simply give the word, I'll gladly lend my name to any such effort . . .

Yes, isn't it odd how Hitchcock used that name Madeleine (or Maddalena) for two of his most significant works . . . most intriguing . . . could one leap forward to conclude that Vertigo and Paradine are, just possibly---in concept---the same story? Is the mastermind challenging all of us? Most intriguing all of this . . . most . . .!

reply

[–] rexshard93 16 years ago

Vertigo was based on a short story called "D'Entre Les Morts". Anyway, The Paradine Case was miunderstood, because 132 minutes version was never shown after 1947.

Aruond 1970s and 1980s, The Paradine Case broadcasted on Television with only around 90 minutes. So many of the scenes were cut. So many people misunderstood the film.

And I hope 132 minutes version of The Paradine Case will arrive soon on DVD.

fordraff, I am glad that you sent a letter to Library of Congress.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fordraff 16 years ago

On Friday, November 9th, I sent a letter to the Motion Picture and Television Reading Room at the Library of Congress in Washington asking for further information on this 132-minute version of the film that they claim to have. I've also asked if it's possible for me to schedule a screening of that film. I'm willing to drive down to D.C. to see the film and to pay a reasonable fee to have it screened. As soon as I receive a reply, I will make a post here. If there is, indeed, a 132-minute print at the Library of Congress, then they must contact The American Film Institute and get on with a restoration (which I'm sure a nitrate print would need) and issue this full-length version on DVD. Will that take years? Where are the Hitchcock scholars on this matter?

reply

[–] rexshard93 16 years ago

Hitchcock Scholar Bill Krohn is aware of 132 minutes. They are trying to release the film on DVD. So there are chances of this version being released on DVD soon.

reply

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 16 years ago

. . . all of this is oh so wonderful . . . it's hard to believe . . . let's all just hope and pray . . . maybe it can be salvaged . . .

reply

[–] rexshard93 16 years ago

Bill Krohn is one of Hitchcock Historians who like The Paradine Case a lot. So he is now trying to revive The Paradine Case.

reply

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 16 years ago

. . . sony, wonderful news, post anything new on this immediately . . . does Mr. Krohn know anything about any remaining footage from the three-hours of usable film that Hitchcock did? He possibly might know where some of this "lost" footage might be . . .
____________________

reply

[–] rexshard93 16 years ago

Bill Krohn is also trying to find out about 3 hours version too. It may take sometime.

reply

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 16 years ago

. . . thank you, sony . . . you should get a prize for the great work you've done in getting this all out there . . . let's hope for the best . . .

reply

[–] fordraff 16 years ago

I received a reply from Josie Walter-Johnston at the Library of Congress on November 29th.

She writes to me, as she did to Sony, that the Library has two prints of “Case,” one 11,880 feet in length, which she says is 132 minutes and a 16mm print which is 4380, which she says is “approximately 121 minutes.” The word "approximately" is important here because in the next paragraph of my letter she writes, “the footage counts may be slightly off. I have no way of verifying the length of the films or the content.”

She said that the nitrate print cannot be viewed but that the 16mm print can be and that anyone interested should schedule a viewing appointment in the reading room of the Motion Picture, Broadcasting, and Recorded Sound Division of the Library of Congress. You have to make a viewing appointment seven days in advance.

She wrote that The Library of Congress doesn’t have anything to do with film restoration. She writes, “that decision usually falls to the copyright owner. If the American Film Institute decides to become involved in such a project, part of the research involves searching for all existing material,” but I’m not sure exactly what she means by “all existing material.”

One thing is certain: There is NO THREE-HOUR print of “Case” in existence. That three-hour version was simply Hitchcock’s rough-cut, the one he made to satisfy his contract with Selznick. I suspect that the three-hour cut wasn’t even scored, and the dialogue tracks were probably in rough shape. Hitchcock probably wasn’t even serious about the three-hour cut. He knew Selznick would cut it further.

I doubt that any footage from that rough cut remains. I can’t recall any deleted footage turning up from any Selznick movies, including GWTW--and many people have searched for GWTW’s deleted footage.

The 131-minute version of “Case” was a finished film that played its premiere engagement (as I’ve written elsewhere) at the Bruin and Vogue in Los Angeles and at Radio City Music Hall in New York. To the best of my knowledge, it was then cut before the Miami opening. But it certainly seems that that 131-minute version is the nitrate print The Library of Congress has.

I shall next write to The American Film Institute, tell them of this information about “Case” (though I’d be surprised if they didn’t already know about it) and see what they have to tell me. If I get a reply from AFI, I will be in touch with you.

In the meantime, I'd certainly like to hear more about Bill Krohn's progress in getting a 131-minute version out on DVD. Can anyone provide info on this?

reply

[–] rexshard93 16 years ago

Hitchcock's 3 hour version was an interesting version. But David O. Selznick didn't like it. So he trimmed it.

Hitchcock's 3 hour version had another brilliant trial scene. I believe this trial scene was written by James Bridie.

It is possible that this 3 hour version may exist some place. Afterall, it existed till 1980.

And Here is the photo of Missing trial scene.

http://www.hitchcockmania.it/filmografia/the_paradine_case/backstage/09.jpg

reply

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 16 years ago

The Paradine Case

Thanks Ford, for all that info, deeply appreciated . . . well, 2 hours and 12 minutes is okay . . . but three hours would be divine . . . I quess we must be satisfied with what we have . . . keep up the good work . . . I eagerly await a DVD of the 132-minute version---I love that movie!

reply

[–] maisonvivante 16 years ago

Anyone have any updates on the progress of the 132 minute version? I'm beyond fascinated!

reply

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 16 years ago

. . . I am too maison . . . so many years have passed, that 3-hour version should've be sent out to the public decades ago! I'm ordering the DVD, but it must be the 114-minute version (which, of course, is a trucated version) . . . I've heard nothing more . . . we'll all just have to wait . . . and wait . . . and wait . . . (what is this---Casablanca?) . . .

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] edward-miller-1 16 years ago

I am completely dumbfounded to discover that TPC opened at 131 (or 132) minutes. I can't remember reading anywhere that Hitchcock discussed a post-opening cut, the way Cukor frequently did re the 1954 A STAR IS BORN. Of course the logical explanation for Hitchcock remaining mum is that he wasn't fond of the movie, and simply looked at it as his last obligation to DOS. I do have to repeat what other posters have said; forget any 3 hour version. That would indeed be a director's rough cut; all movies go through this same process. Any extraneous footage excised from the rough cut can be considered long lost.
I'll keep an eye out here for further updates, but because TPC is hardly Hitch's most successful or well known movie, I'm not going to hold my breath. Just because many of us love the movie doesn't mean that moneymen are going to release a restoration for a handful of people.

"Don't worry. I'm not on the side of the saints yet."

reply

[–] rexshard93 16 years ago

David O. Selznick did editing out of 3 hours version. There was another brilliant court room scene directed by Hitchcock. Selznick disliked it. So he deleted those scenes.

I always wondered if Joan Fontaine was ever considered for the role of Barrister's wife.

reply

[–] edward-miller-1 16 years ago

I don't blame Selznick. Three hours is way too long for a courtroom drama. As much as I like TPC, it's pretty slow, even in its current state. I don't think I'd need another hour of it.

"Don't worry. I'm not on the side of the saints yet."

reply

[–] rexshard93 16 years ago

Selznick did a terrible editing. Many of the thrilling moments were taken out by Selznick. Hitchcock Historian saw some of missing scenes with no sound. They were blown away by Hitchcock's direction. Some of the finest scenes they ever saw. But Selznick deleted them. That's why many audience feel that the film's pace is slow. I don't think Hitchcock's final cut would have been 3 hours. I think it would have been between 140 minutes and 150 minutes.

reply

[–] edward-miller-1 16 years ago

It's easy to say how fine these scenes are, since we can't see them. I'll say again that I enjot TPC, but it's far from top-notch Hitchcock, and I doubt if the excised scenes would help. It's long and sluggish now, so how could making it longer (by an hour!) help the pace? And Hichcock rarely cut a movie to over two hours. REBECCA was an early exception, and he didn't go over two hours again until the mid-50s.

"Don't worry. I'm not on the side of the saints yet."

reply

[–] rexshard93 16 years ago

In Missing Scenes, Ethel Barrymore is terrifying just like Robert Walker in Strangers on a Train and Anthony Perkins in Psycho.

Actually, North by Northwest runs for more than 2 hours. Topaz runs for more than 2 hours. Vertigo is more than 2 hours.

reply

[–] edward-miller-1 16 years ago

I said that he didn't go to more than two hours UNTIL the mid-50s, with the exception of REBECCA; see my post again.

"Don't worry. I'm not on the side of the saints yet."

reply

[–] rexshard93 16 years ago

I am sure the film will be much better when it is released in 132 minutes version. Its really hard to judge a "hitchcock" film. And this is a drama. Not a thriller.

Hitchcock put many thrilling moments in it. But only few can be seen in 114 minutes version. 114 minutes also contains Selznick's retakes. Unlike Rebecca, Selznick's retakes for The Paradine Case weren't directed by Hitchcock. Many of Ethel Barrymore's scenes and Some Scenes with Alida Valli directed by Hitchcock were deleted by Selznick and replaced with his retakes for final release. Final release was only 114 minutes.

But in 132 minutes version, all of the scenes were directed by Hitchcock. When 132 minutes was released for preview audience, the audience and critics praised the film. But Selznick trimmed the film and inserted his retakes into the film. The film run was only 114 minutes. And the result was a box office failure and Critics ignored it.

As for Original Hitchcock Script, it is available at IUCAT Library.

reply

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 16 years ago

Sony---

. . . I agree with you completely . . . we can only hope that the 3-hour version still remains . . . that's what I really want to watch . . . the most important film Hitchcock ever did----The Paradine Case!

reply

[–] muzilon 15 years ago

The R4 DVD I just watched ran 109 mins and I didn't care much for it.

Forgetting the 3-hour rough cut for the moment, has anyone compiled a list of exactly what additional scenes are in the 125/132 min versions? Ethel Barrymore got an Oscar nod but she was barely in the version I just watched. I've read elsewhere that one of the missing scenes involved her meeting Gregory Peck in an art gallery. I also got the feeling there must have been more dialog between Peck and Valli early in the film, since his announcement that he's in love with her seemed to come very abruptly.

reply

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 15 years ago

Flicker---

I'm not a leading authority in this matter, in fact, I'm always asking about these missing scenes, however, yes, the Ethel Barymore sequence with Peck in the art gallery was apparently cut, and is not available in all editions---it's difficult to say when the cut occurred (I myself have never seen it) . . . if Hitchcock did 3-hours of usable footage, well, a great deal is gone, or disappeared---sadly . . .

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hisgrandmogulhighness 11 years ago

We then must assume that the New York critics were denied the full motion picture? So sad, I eagerly await whatever footage is found . . . we must have the entire opus . . . his greatest film, incomplete . . . outrageous . . .

reply