MovieChat Forums > Behemoth the Sea Monster (1959) Discussion > R1 (US) vs. R2 (UK) differences in this ...

R1 (US) vs. R2 (UK) differences in this film: many! PART I:

posted 14 years ago by hobnob53
21 replies | jump to latest

Note: This post proved to be too long, so I have had to divide it and add the conclusion as a reply to this OP, below, labeled Part II. Please post any replies to Part II. Thank you.

On a trip to England in December 2009 I ran across an R2 DVD of Behemoth the Sea Monster (hereafter BTSM), bought it and watched it at my fiancee's house. I was hoping that, despite a shorter running time for the British version, I might find some footage missing from the American film, The Giant Behemoth (TGB). With two small and inconsiderable exceptions, no such luck: and in fact I was amazed at the deep and often strange cuts in the British version compared to the American. Normally, in movies of that era, whenever there was a difference in a film's running time between the British and American prints, it was the American version that was edited. Yet a few of the changes in the British version actually added to the enjoyment of certain scenes in the film. Herewith, a scene-by-scene synopsis, in order, of the differences between these two cuts of the movie.

Running time. Despite the IMDb and other data that put the running time for BTSM at about 72 minutes, I clocked it (twice) at 68 1/2 mins., as opposed to 79 mins. for TGB.

Cover art. I mention this for a curious difference in the movie's tag line. In the US, this goes: The Biggest Thing Since Creation!. In the UK, it's The Biggest Thing Since Time Began, no exclamation point. I had to wonder whether this subtle change was made to accommodate some Americans' belief in creationism -- the kind of ignoramuses who visit the Creationist Museum in Kentucky, think the Earth is 6000 years old, that people rode brontosauruses like the Flintstones, and who in fact assume the term "ignoramus" refers to just another species of dinosaur.

Opening credits. Obviously, the title. But many other differences, one or two quite astounding. The releasing studio in Britain was Eros Films Ltd., not Allied Artists. I was hoping the UK film would list additional cast members, as usually occurred in contrast to American prints. Not only was this not the case, the British version actually has one name less than the American. Now, BTSM lists just Gene Evans and Andre Morell as the two stars on their credit page, while the US film adds John Turner, who played John, the fisherman who burns his hand, as though he were an equal co-star of the two actual leads. This makes sense, but since Turner's name is then placed on the second credit page, it forces them to delete the name of actor Leonard Sachs on that page, where, unlike in the US film, all the actors are listed in the same-sized print. The British version lists dual director credits: "Directed by Douglas Hickox and Eugene Lourie". Whatever Hickox's actual contributions may or may not have been, Lourie has usually been given sole, or at least, main credit for directing the story he helped write, and is of course the lone credited director in the US version, where Hickox's name does not appear at all. (Lourie is the only credited screenwriter in both films.) But the most astonishing difference is that the British version lists NO special effects credits at all! Not Willis O'Brien or Pete Peterson, or Jack Rabin, Irving Block or Louis De Witt, all listed in the American credits. For a special effects-driven movie, this is nothing short of incomprehensible, especially given the presence of the legendary O'Brien. (Of course, in the credits for TGB, Peterson's name is misspelled "Petterson".)

Trevethan's funeral. The vicar's sermon is heavily edited, mainly leaving just part (not all) of the behemoth passage, with the scene cut very short.

London street scene. In the US film, the shot of Piccadilly dissolves to a shot of Karnes (Gene Evans) walking across the street into his hotel, then cuts to him entering the lobby. In the UK, the shot of him crossing the street is missing.

Laboratory. After discovering the contaminated fish, Karnes asks Bickford (Andre Morell) for a boat. A reaction shot of Karnes waiting for Bickford's answer is cut -- seemingly a small thing, but it really affects the tension in this brief exchange.

The boat. The scene of Karnes hunting the behemoth in the trawler is heavily cut in the British film. All the initial conversation between Karnes and the skipper -- including their exchange about spending a night in the jungle while something prowls beyond their camp fire -- is gone; the scene starts with the radio report on the missing steamship Valkyria. Later, when the geiger counter alerts Karnes to the presence of the behemoth, most of the chase scene is cut. There's no request to get more speed, or the skipper's order to the engine room; the monster shows up and disappears within a few seconds. Even weirder, the geiger counter is completely different. In the American film, it's the single-dial instrument we see in the full cabin shot, a small, portable device. In the British version, it's a huge piece of equipment (not otherwise seen outside its close-ups), with two gauges and rows of tiny lights flashing on and off in progression, back and forth. The sound effects are the same, but it's a completely different and illogical machine from what's seen in the American print. Bizarre -- I mean, why go to the time and expense to film this item, of anything in the movie, differently? Especially since it's clearly not seen on the instrument panel in the brief cabin shots. Anyway, the severe cuts rob this normally tense scene of most of its tension -- there's no build-up, before or during the sequence, and almost no thrill of the chase, since it's all over so quickly, almost perfunctorially. A very bad place to cut, and badly done.

The farm. This is one of the two spots with a shot not seen in the US version. In TGB, this scene opens with a shot of the dog barking. In BTSM, it opens with a long shot of the farm, seen in the distance on a gentle hillside, with the coastline off in the background. This is really an excellent establishing shot and looks good. (The dog is heard barking over the shot.) The rest of the sequence appears to be the same, though it struck me the first scene of the family at dinner was very slightly shortened.

The Admiral's office; the radar scene. This is their second visit to the Admiral, after getting the footprint photo and interviewing Dr. Sampson, who told them the beast is electric. The two scientists explain the nature of the monster to the Admiral, but the key phrase in the US film, where Karnes states that "Its tremendous electric charge is what projects the radiation", is entirely missing from the British film. This seemingly critical information, imparted by Sampson, and which is left intact in the scientists' scene with him, is inexplicably cut in the exchange with the Admiral in BTSM...and the issue never mentioned again. Huh? Subsequently, when Karnes and Bickford go to the radar installation and see the blip for the helicopter that Bickford says is the one carrying Dr. Sampson, the rest of the men's exchange -- Karnes's "I wonder if he'll get his pictures?" and the rest -- is cut out. (The helicopter sequence is intact.)

The ferry. This is where the British film really begins to be altered significantly from the American. First, there's some brief opening music in the scene, absent from TGB: just a long, dire-sounding note that fades away quickly. The shot of the model ferry coming into dock is cut from the British film, with a piece of footage of actual ferries inserted in its stead. The shots of people and vehicles boarding the ferry are slightly cut. The sound of the ferry's smokestack whistle is different, higher. When the monster surfaces, the same music plays as in the American cut, but abruptly ends when the ferry starts to be tipped, and most of the scene in the British version is shown without music -- leaving only the sharp sounds of people and things tumbling around the decks. This is actually quite effective, even though I like the music that overwhelms the American film. But there are other, odder changes. The monster's roar is different! Not just here -- all through the film. It's a lighter, not as "tearing" a roar as in the American. This was quite unexpected and strange. (More on this subject later.) The sinking itself is somewhat edited, once again cutting an otherwise tense and exciting scene to no purpose; the most memorable sequence missing is the shot of the car falling off the ferry into the water. The music resumes after the behemoth capsizes the ferry, but is reedited somewhat from what's heard in the American version.

Radio reports; evacuation; cut to PLA office. The last portion of the radio report of the ferry incident in TGB is cut from BTSM -- the part showing the family sitting at dinner, where the grandmother turns and spits, "Oh, fiddlesticks!" at the TV. The subsequent evacuation sequence (which I always found the one boring scene in the movie) is cut after the shots of people boarding the lorry: all the shots of motorcycle cops, soldiers and others assuming their positions, and the shots of empty streets, are absent -- which are actually the best part of this portion of the movie, and so, of course, cut from the British film, leaving the dull portions intact. Finally, the quick cut in the American film, from the last shot of a deserted street to the inside of the PLA office and the official asking to be informed by telephone, is missing from the UK version; following the abbreviated evacuation sequence, the action cuts directly to the official walking up to the door of the room where the scientists and military men are holding their conference. As to which....

The "monster" conference. More astonishing cuts in the UK version: this crucial sequence, wherein the scientists and military people discuss the creature, its vulnerabilities, and means of destruction, is heavily edited, omitting many critical bits of information. The Admiral's suggestion that the behemoth be bombed is edited, though not eliminated entirely. The entire discussion, beginning where Karnes states that "This animal we know is carrying such a huge concentration of radioactive particles that it cannot possibly survive. It's burning itself out by the minute. Right now it's dying of its own radioactivity", is cut. This is critical in that it gives the men the idea of speeding up the process by firing a radioactive element into the monster to kill it. But all of this is excised in its entirety -- the scene suddenly cuts to Karnes saying that a torpedo would be the answer -- but all the important stuff about why they have to kill the creature in this way, why they chose this weapon, is missing. And of course, this renders the subsequent scene of forging a radium warhead on the torpedo utterly incomprehensible.

The behemoth's rampage through London. So much of the behemoth's attack on the city is edited or cut altogether in the UK version that it's hard to describe in minute detail. (It's remarkable enough that this climactic sequence is so edited to begin with.) Well: there's a shot in the American film, after they show a cop and a military man by the Thames, of the (fake) river where suddenly you glimpse what appears to be a couple of prongs on the monster's neck, surfacing right alongside the wharf. This is before he surfaces farther out in the river. I've never been too sure if that first shot is inded the behemoth, but in any event it's missing from the UK film. When the behemoth does surface in mid-river, he makes no noise, in contrast to his alarming snorting in the US. (This issue will also come up a lot very shortly.) The scenes from then till he comes ashore seem to be very slightly edited (barely), and the music is edited a bit differently. But when he does come ashore things change rapidly.

First, the music abruptly stops after the monster tears down the first crane: most of the ensuing scenes through London are done with no background music at all, just the raw sounds of the street and fleeing people. As with the ferry sequence, this absence of any music is actually quite effective, putting you right into the scene, making the action much more realistic and even frightening...even though the music in the US version is effective in its own way. Now, one of the weakest parts of the US TGB is the behemoth's walk down that first street -- where the scene is really drawn out, to the point where the monster crushes the same car three times. In the UK's BTSM, this scene is shortened to a more realistic length, commensurate with the length of the street. The car is stomped just once -- but instead of the crashing thud in the US film, the sound effect is that of someone crushing a beer can -- really, I think that's the sound they used, an aluminum crumple. (Sorry, this is the British version: aluminium crumple.) In fact, all the repeated shots used in this scene in the American version are shown just once in the British. (Although the shots of the guy driving up in his car, getting out and running away, then a few moments later getting out of his car and running away a second time, are still there.)

However, after this street scene, several shots of the monster walking through other streets are cut entirely, and the action jumps abruptly to the scene of the behemoth projecting his radiation onto the group of people huddled by the doorway right beneath him (the shots of people running around this area just before that scene are cut out). The film then shifts to the scenes of people running away in the vacant lot while the behemoth comes up from behind; this sequence, too, is edited. One piece of rather disgusting sound in the US film is not in the UK: the sound of the guy walking along amid the fleeing crowd, his face burned from the monster's radiation, finally collapsing and making those awful gagging sounds; nothing is heard in the British film.

Throughout all this there is either no music, or some occasional bits, but nothing continuous. But the oddest aspect is once again the behemoth's roar: it's completely different -- when it's heard. In the majority of shots of the monster opening his mouth, nothing comes out -- no roar, no sound of any kind. But in a strange way this is kind of unnerving, even if as shown it doesn't always make much sense. The sight of this huge creature, silently marauding around the city, is actually pretty scary. Add to this the reliance on natural, "street" sounds, of people running and screaming, without the intrusion of music, all of which, as in the ferry sequence, adds a feel of immediacy and reality.

But onto further edits: there is only one shot of the radium being forged, not two as in the US version (of course, as we mentioned, this makes no sense since the entire reasoning behind doing this has been cut out). But the shot of the behemoth walking through some trees and knocking them over, inserted between the radium sequences in the American film, is missing from the British. Later, when he rises over an embankment and moves to the camera, his "hooting" sound in TGB is gone, and once again, he's a silent beast. Finally, when he gets to Westminster Bridge, by Big Ben, there are some tiny edits. The command "Switch on!" by an officer for the searchlights is unheard. The monster's approach to the bridge and environs has no music. Weirdest of all is when he picks up the car with the two men in it -- there's no sound when he picks it up, the yelling of the men is different, the sequence is shortened and made less frightening and intense, and, in the most bizarre cut, when he tosses the car into the river, we see only the splash after the car has sunk under the water; the actual shot of the car hitting the water is edited out. Again -- huh?

The search and the sub. The helicopter search for the behemoth under the Thames seems very slightly cut. When they give the map reference after sighting him, one of the shots of the radioman at the PLA repeating the location -- "L8R-17" -- is cut. But the submarine sequence is considerably changed from the American. This is the second place where there is actually some footage not seen in the US film, and unlike the farm sequence, they're not scenes substituted over the same soundtrack. When Bickford and the police deliver the torpedo, Bickford says to the sub's captain, "Here it is, Commander", and he replies, "Well, we'll try to get it fixed up." Shortly after, a klaxon sounds to signal the sub is casting off -- not heard in the US version. And in another bit not in TGB, Karnes and the sub's skipper exchange some small talk as they settle into the sub. All these add not more than 30 seconds or so to the film, but are the only substantive scenes not in the US film. Now, one goof in the US version has been axed from the UK's: the shots of the sub submerging, with a pastoral hillside behind it -- not, as it should be, the cityscape of London on the other side. This at least makes this portion of the movie a bit more realistic. In BTSM we cut to the sub underwater, and as with much of the British version, and in contrast to the US, all the underwater scenes are without music, until after they fire the torpedo -- which again adds to the reality and tension of this sequence. However, the sub's stalking and attack scenes are slightly edited, including a bit of the aftermath of the behemoth's nudging the sub, where the pilot looks up at the water shooting onto him from the broken pipe to his right. Interestingly, when the behemoth emits radioactive waves underwater (events accompanied by suitable music in the American film), we hear instead high-pitched down-whistling sounds -- not the usual sounds of the monster's radioactive projections, which are otherwise the same in both versions of the movie. The launching of the torpedo and its hitting the monster are the same, but in keeping with the omission of the sub submerging, the shot of it surfacing is also cut, as in the American version it's still in front of that same incongruous hillside in what's supposed to be metropolitan London. (In the submerging sequence, you can see the end of land on the right, which also should not be the case, so these are probably good edits.)

IMDb says I've overrun my allotted space. Please see the conclusion in the reply labeled Part II, below on this same thread, and add any replies there. Thanks.

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

Note: This post is the continuation and conclusion of the original post on this thread, labeled Part I. IMDb had advised that I had overrun my allotted space in the OP. Part II, here, completes that initial post on this topic. Please add any replies to this post only. Thank you.

Radio report in the car; end credits. When Karnes and Bickford get in their car and turn on the engine, the radio comes on. In The Giant Behemoth, we hear a calm, detached announcer reading the following item: "We interrupt this program for a special bulletin. We have just received a report from America that mountains of dead fish are washing ashore along the coast from Maine to Florida. We now return you to our normal programme." [Note: I used the British spelling of "program" to accentuate the reality. My fellow Americans, it is not pronounced "programmy".] The two men look grimly ahead, and the end credits read "The End", with the Allied Artists logo. But in Behemoth the Sea Monster, the radio report is very different. Instead of the calm voice in the American film, we hear an excited, younger, almost hyperventilating person eagerly making an announcement. The radio picks him up in mid-sentence: "...the final destruction of the monster in the Thames is now officially confirmed. Disturbing reports are being received from the Atlantic Seaboard of America that mountains of dead fish are being washed ashore! Can this mean the beginning of further attacks by these ocean monsters?" Gee, ya think? (The end credits simply read "The End", no Eros Studio logo.) That last breathless declaration robs the scene of the US film's sense of impending but understated terror, of the sudden realization that catastrophe is lurking just beneath the surface, waiting to strike, which the two scientists now know will soon be upon them yet again. There's no real mystery -- it's all too blatant. The near-hysteria of the announcer in the British film, and his rather dopey, over-the-top dialogue, simply makes the conclusion of the film sound silly instead of foreboding. And where did that plural -- "these ocean monsters" -- come from?

Well. That, at great length and two posts, is that. Overall, the absence of some ten minutes of film harms the UK version compared to the essentially complete American picture, robbing many scenes of their dramatic build-up and tension, and in some cases, even some necessary plot exposition. True, certain aspects of the British edition, notably the absence of music in many places and the reliance instead on raw, natural sounds, add considerable realism and even fright to those scenes that works very well, even though Edwin Astley's score in the corresponding American sequences is quite effective in its different way, too. Had the British version retained most or all of the footage found in the American film, it might well have been superior. But with so much footage gone, leaving too many badly truncated scenes that lose much of their drama or leave inexplicable gaps in the narrative, the UK version really must be rated inferior to the American, despite some interesting points. Even so, I'm glad to own both The Giant Behemoth (its redundant title notwithstanding) as well as, now, Behemoth the Sea Monster. If anyone on either side of the divide can get hold of the "opposite" version of the film and watch it, it's well worth the effort. Just mind the dead fish washing ashore.

The behemoth reports. You decide. (Eat me, Fox "News".)

THE END.

[–] Balibari 14 years ago

Now that's a hardcore post!

Just wanted to offer an explanation for the running time inconsistency. Theatrical releases run at 24 frames per second, PAL (the UK's TV and home video format) runs at 25fps. The effect of this is that you shorten the running time by one minute in every 25, so a film that lasts 100 minutes in the cinema will last 96 minutes on DVD. To add to the confusion I think the American NTSC system is 30fps!

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

Yeah, you're right -- that was pretty hard core. Well, I guess after waiting all my life to see the "other" version, I got carried away by the excitement!

You make a good point about the possible reason behind the running time discrepancies. I'd wondered whether the different systems might have such an effect, though you'd think seeing a PAL DVD on an R2 player wouldn't affect a film's length. I've never seen a film on an NTSC disc, played on an R1 player, run less than its theatrical running time. (Using an R0 or converted R1 to show an R2 might more likely have such an effect, no? This stuff gets too confusing for me sometimes.)

But I'm glad you enjoyed the post, Balibari.

[–] 35541m 14 years ago

Hobnob

Excellent post. The UK DVD is the same version as released in UK cinemas in December 1959. The print runs at a Pal speed so should be about 72m when converted to NTSC. It definitely does as I have done by own comparison of the films side by side.

One difference you did miss was Gene Evans' opening spiel in which the UK version omits about 15s of his speech in which he refers to the dumping of radioactive cannisters at sea.

I agree that a lot of these cuts/changes are pretty incomprehensible.

I would guess that the music disappears in the Behemoth attack scenes in the UK print because the editing meant that they couldn't fit the music score to the footage anymore.

I have no idea who did this either. Eugene Lourie doesn't mention it in his autobiography. It must have been done in late 1958 just after the film was finished because it was this cut version which was submitted to the BBFC (UK censors) in January 1959. Presumably, it was done by someone in the UK acting on orders from somebody. Possibly Eros, But I don't see that the Hyams brothers would have cared about this sort of detail.

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

Thank you, 35541m -- I'm glad you enjoyed reading such a long post.

I think you're right, Karnes's opening speech is a bit cut in the UK version. I have to check it out again when I'm back in the UK in a couple of months and can re-view my R2 DVD, still at my fiancee's house over there. It didn't hit me when I was watching it but something did seem amiss with his speech. After I check I'll amend the OP to make a more complete accounting!

As we've both said, these cuts are all a bit mystifying, the more so because ordinarily you'd expect the US version to be the one with deleted footage, not the original UK version. Your information on the film's debut in Britain and possible culprits behind demanding the cuts is very interesting. I wonder whether the British censors might have asked for certain cuts on the basis that some scenes were too horrifying or distressing to anyone under 35. The American censors' attitude was always: no cursing, no nudity -- but death and destruction and gruesome killings? Why, that's just peachy. Bring the kids!

[–] tbrittreid 14 years ago

I owe you thanks, hobnob53. I launched a thread "Douglas Hickox?" on this board, asking why the IMDb included him along with Lourie in the directing credit. Having found this, I now know, but there should be--and I am about to submit--acknowledgement of his absence from the US prints among this site's data on this film. However, your answer begs another question: Why was his name left off US prints? Since your comparison implies that US distributor Allied Artists completely refilmed the opening titles, it may have been an accident. Surely the Directors Guild of America could not enforce its "no multiple directors" rule on a 100% foreign production, if that mandate existed at all in the 1950s. Furthermore, British author Neil Pettigrew, in his book The Stop-Motion Filmography (MacFarland and Co., 1999), includes Hickox in his credit list for this picture, but the closest he comes to mentioning him in his textual discussion of it (six pages) is initially identifying Lourie as "Co-director." Pettigrew gives no further hint whatsoever that anybody but Lourie directed the non-effects squences. I repeat with emphasis, British author. Therefore, it would seem that a lack of general acknowledgement to Hickox is not simply the result of his name missing from the American prints. Any ideas here?

The GREEN HORNET Strikes Again!

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

Hi, tbrittreid. Hickox's situation is just one of the odd things about the differences between the credits on the two versions of this film. As I pointed out, there are many differences between the two films' credits -- the most astounding one to me being the complete absence of the entire special effects team, including Willis O'Brien, in the British film. (Plus one actor's name being dropped in the UK version.) So something far more involved than simply the director's credit was going on here, and quite definitely, none of this was an "accident".

Perhaps the effects team wasn't credited in the UK version because none of them was a member of the appropriate British film guild. If so, a similar problem could have happened regarding Lourie. It might be that Hickox's name was added as co-director because Lourie wasn't a member of the British directors' guild, and someone who was needed to be listed on what was, after all, a British film. At this time, Hickox was a second unit director but had not yet directed a film himself, and in fact it wouldn't be until 1963 that he unequivocally directed a theatrical film.

In almost everything I've ever read about Behemoth, Lourie is termed the film's director. It seems almost certain that, initially at least, he was to be the film's sole director. It's possible Hickox directed just enough to get a legitimate credit; or, he might not have directed any of it; or, he only worked on it as what he was, a second-unit director -- and was credited either for the guild-related reasons I've speculated about, or perhaps at the insistence of the British producers. Such a circumstance would help explain why his name wasn't shown on the American film: because he didn't really direct much or any of it.

To pick up on that point, I've read that Lourie complained that he had agreed to write the script the producers wanted (basically, a variation of The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms) only as a way to get the film funded, with the promise that he would be able to rewrite it and make it better later on, a promise that was broken. There was no mention made of Hickox or who directed the movie in what I read, but it wouldn't surprise me if Lourie had become disenchanted with the film and either "let", or was forced to accede to having, Hickox direct some of it. But for the US release, Allied Artists, and/or the Directors' Guild of America, credited Lourie alone, as he seems clearly to have been the actual director.

Whatever the truth, and we can employ no more than educated speculation, I think it's fair to say that Eugene Lourie was the real, or at least principle, director of The Giant Behemoth/Behemoth the Sea Monster, with Hickox helming little if any of it. The other lapses in the UK film's credits make their accuracy highly suspect, to say the least.

[–] tbrittreid 14 years ago

You made me think of something: Given the people responsible, isn't it likely that all the effects work (other than opticals and such that would have been part of the film processing lab's job) was done in the USA? And would that be a reason for the British company to not credit it?

The GREEN HORNET Strikes Again!

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

No, I've read that O'Brien and Pete Peterson did go to London to do their work. Both men were in bad physical shape at the time, afflicted by arthritis and other ailments (plus, O'Brien was an alcoholic), and did their animation work while sitting at a tabletop where the "action" was being created. (I once saw a photo of the two at work.) The movie was filmed at a British studio, Borehamwood I think. Block, Adler and DeWitt also had to have gone to England, as they created many of the non-animation effects in the film (such as the exploding gas tank sequence, and other model work) in conjunction with O'Brien's and Peterson's animation. This was a British-made movie, filmed entirely in England, in studio and out. AA probably helped finance the film and had the US distribution rights, but it was made in the UK and released there by Eros Films.

[–] tbrittreid 14 years ago

The aforementioned Pettigrew book:

"Despite O'Brien's track record, [producer David] Diamond did not believe that he [Obie] had the resources to produce all the effects the film required and consequently hired Jack Rabin's Studio Film Service...to do all the non-animation effects sequences. Rabin in turn hired O'Brien on a sub-contract." (p. 78)

Poorly phrased, as it implies that Diamond himself hired somebody to do effects that were animation as well as Rabin & company for the other shots, while in context the point actually seems to be that the producer hired Jack, et.al., to accomplish all the effects without stop-motion. That aside, it's pretty clear that Diamond did not know OBie and Pete were working on the film. No doubt he was surprised when some of the footage Rabin delivered included animation, and he might not have realized even then that his team wasn't responsible for it; note that Rabin and DeWitt apparently are responsible for the stop-motion work in The Beast From Hollow Mountain (1956) (Pettigrew, pp. 68-74). The health issues you describe--and Pettigrew describes Peterson's much as you did--work against Obie and Pete travelling halfway around the world to London; damned near prohibits it, given 1950s transportation technology. Another Pettigrew quote: "...O'Brien did not have the resources to design any elaborate sequences....: (p. 79). It may have been due to a lack of communication with the producer and/or the principal photography team as much as that. Is there anything in the photo you mention that indicates where in the world (California vs. England) it was taken? That Dennis Muren's current possession of the Behemoth animation puppet stems from it being found among Peterson's belongings after his death doesn't jibe with it having been animated overseas. I'm certainly aware, as I believe my first post here makes clear, that this was indeed a completely British production (though I merely said "a 100% foreign production" and did not specify the UK as the country of origin), but Superman (1978) was thoroughly a Warner Bros./Hollywood/USA film, even though not only effects sequences but most interior scenes were filmed on a British sound stage and the "Kansas" exteriors were filmed in Alberta, Canada. For Behemoth, Eros hired an American firm that sub-contracted to another American team of effects technicians. Sorry, but your unsupported assertion that the effects work (at least Obie and Pete's) was done in England fails to convince in the light of the evidence and logical interpretation thereof submitted. On the other hand, if you can back it up, I'll be more than happy to say so.

The GREEN HORNET Strikes Again!

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

I only know that everything I've read about the film indicates that all of it, including the animation, was done in England -- that nothing was done in the US. The photo I saw implied -- but no, did not state -- that the work was being perfomed in Britain. Obviously, any of this could be wrong.

I believe the entire effects budget was $20,000, out of which both O'Brien and Peterson were paid as subcontractors, as you say, and supposed to accomplish their work, separate from whatever Block et al were doing.

Some of what I've read comes from the Bill Warren book Keep Watching the Skies. Although I've found a great many errors in this book, he quotes from an article about the movie in Fantastic Films #15 by Paul Mandell, who interviewed Lourie and Phil Kellison, who helped build some of the miniatures and the behemoth head seen in water shots. It confirms much of the information we've both already talked about. However, the excerpted quotes don't say anything about where the animation (or other FX work) was done; nor do they say that Diamond had or did not have any idea the animation was farmed out to Obie and Peterson.

I don't know why your tone seems a bit negative about my assertion being "unsupported". (I'm not sure I'd even term it an "assertion", as it's only based on what I've read, not something I definitvely, independently know.) Anyway, it may be an unsupported belief, but then so is yours. As you admit, your opinion that the effects work, or at least the animation, was done in the US is based on "evidence" (what evidence? -- nothing about the locale of the work) and "logical interpretation thereof". You may be right, but simply interpreting some ancillary facts isn't proof of anything. Nor is there anything concrete to warrant your assumption that Diamond had no knowledge of O'Brien's and Peterson's involvement, or that he was "surprised" when he saw the animated footage. That is all supposition on your part, not established fact. Certainly the fact that the behemoth's head was found among Peterson's effects after his death proves nothing about where the animation took place. And both men could have traveled to the UK in 1958/1959, by jet or boat, though you're correct in saying it would have been hard on them, given their physical conditions. This last factor is indeed probably the strongest argument for believing the animation was done in California, but again, it's not proof.

All that said, I have been making no "assertions" about anything, just stating some things I've read. Of course, some or all of it may be inaccurate. Even participants in events sometimes forget or make mistakes in their recollections. It may well be that the animation was done in the US. Until someone can find a definitive answer, we can only guess.

Either way, this is no big deal, to me at any rate, and not very important, so I don't see a reason to make so much of it.

By the way, in checking Warren's book I found in its index a reference to Hickox's alleged participation. Warren posits the same thing I thought -- that Hickox, then only an a.d., did not direct any of the film, but was credited in the UK print because of British union rules. Looking at it from the other angle, it seems unlikely Hickox would not have been credited in the US version if he had indeed directed a substantial portion of the movie, unless Lourie had filed a complaint with the DGA, of which there is no mention or inference anywhere I know of.

[–] tbrittreid 13 years ago

First, I should have said, "...in light of the known facts and logical interpretation thereof....." and not used the word "evidence," on which you place far too much emphasis (at one point literally). And you did indeed say that you "read" that the animators did their part of the picture in London, not merely asserted it. My apologies. To the specifics:

Sorry, but that is what "sub-contract" means. An entity hires someone to do a particular job for a certain amount of money, and that person turns around and hires someone else to do it for less money, usually without informing the original employer. In this case, Pettigrew's words are not reasonably (you might be able to read it some other way, but you'd have to work at it, and it wouldn't be nearly as plausible) open to any other interpretation but that Diamond considered and rejected the idea of hiring O'Brien. Obviously, Rabin would not have told him he hired Obie under those circumstances. While ostensibly disagreeing with me, you actually concede my point that O'Brien and Peterson's health issues make it very unlikely that they would travel across the USA and the Atlantic Ocean to perform work they could easily do in their own California facility, especially given Pettigrew's strong implication that the producer was unaware of their involvement in his film.

How many places have I read that one of the actresses who played Catwoman in the campy Batman TV series of the 1960s was "Lee Ann Meriwether." This is doubly wrong. While Ann is indeed her legal middle name, the IMDb indicates it was part of her billing as a professional actress only once, a 1954 episode of The Philco-Goodyear Television Playhouse, her earliest acting role cited here. And she played the villainess in only a big screen spin-off between the first two seasons, not on the TV series itself. This has been very widely reported. So if what one is reading is not restricted to a very limited topic, a big grain of salt is recommended. I wonder if the issue of Fantastic Films you mention is one of the very few I retain. I do have one with an overview of Lourie's career, so I'll check. And thank you for mentioning Kellison. The IMDb lists him as "uncredited" and I'd like to ask if that's true of both versions, your comparison of which started this thread. Is it?

"Certainly the fact that the behemoth's head was found among his effects after his death proves nothing about where the animation took place." Again, you're talking about proof while I'm dealing in logic and probabilities. It is not plausible that the unhealthy Peterson would add the whole animation puppet (not just the head, BTW) to his baggage to be carried across the Atlantic and North America, especially given the already established probability that producer Diamond did not know he and Obie were working on the film.

Add it all up:

1. Pettigrew indicates (without coming right out and flatly saying it, I admit) that O'Brien and Peterson were hired by Rabin behind Diamond's back.
2. The health issues of both men make a transcontinental/transoceanic round trip problematic.
3. The nature of the work--all miniature--makes doing it in their own facility half a world away from principal photography not unfeasible; it has been done.
4. Peterson keeping the animation puppet afterwards is more plausible if the work was done in California rather than in England.

The combination is compellingly reasonable. Pick minor cavils with each one of those if you want to, but it won't take away from the cumulative effect.

The GREEN HORNET Strikes Again!

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

Look, I think this is getting needlessly testy. Essentially, all I've ever seen or read indicates that the film was made in its entirety in England. I have never seen anything that flatly stated that the animation, or anything else, was done in the US. This certainly doesn't mean that couldn't have been the case. I only state that I have never read such a thing.

Quite plainly, I conceded your theory that their health issues are the most compelling reason to posit that Obie and Peterson did their work in CA. Again, I never said this couldn't have been the case -- only that I had never read such a thing, and that it did contradict the general information I'd seen about the film's being made in the UK, as I said above.

Now c'mon, I know what subcontracting is and entails, and another bit of speculation (apparently not definite fact) I read is that not only Lourie but possibly Ray Harryhausen (then in London) recommended O'Brien to Diamond, who said no. (Lourie apparently had been originally intended to direct O'Brien's The Black Scorpion but was replaced after a falling out with the producers; but he remained friends with the animator.) Again, you may well be right that Diamond knew nothing of O&P's being subbed by Block, it wouldn't be surprising, but it's still speculation. However, here's another bit of speculation that may reenforce your belief: maybe the reason there are no effects credits on the UK print is because Diamond was upset about O'Brien being hired on and retaliated against the whole bunch by denying them credit. I don't think this happened, and it doesn't explain why they would be listed in the US film. As I've said, their utter absence from the British version is to me absolutely astounding. However, a better theory might go back to our union issue: perhaps the whole lot weren't credited in Britain because they either did their work in the US, or weren't members of the British guild -- kind of the reverse of our Hickox speculation. (I think I mentioned this earlier.) That makes much more sense to me, though the angry producer theory is more fun.

Re Kellison: My copy of the UK DVD is at this moment at my wife's home in England, so I don't have it at hand to reference, but I'm virtually certain Kellison is not credited. Apart from the absence of all the effects people in the credits, the UK film has fewer credits overall than the American version, which is the reverse of the usual practice of the time.

Anyway, you may be glad to know that as we've had these exchanges I am drifting more and more over to your view that O&P did indeed do their work in CA. It is more logical, as you say, even though I've never read any definitive assertion that this was the case, or that any work was done outside the UK. But would that mean that Block & crew's work was also done in the US? It certainly makes less sense that each team would do their work in different countries, at least in that era, given the need to match effects shots -- in fact, to make sure that O&P's work matched everything in the film, unless all their work was done after the rest of the filming had been completed, which is possible. Either way, doing work in separate countries 8000 miles apart would be difficult and allow for no mistakes on either end. Again, I've never heard that such was the case, and you'd think Diamond would have insisted that the people working on his film would be on location under his supervision. So this in turn might have upset him if O&P were really hired without his knowledge and did their work in CA. But would he have been upset at the results? All interesting speculation. But whatever the case, it'd be nice to somewhere discover the truth.

[–] tbrittreid 13 years ago

What you implicitly dismiss on the grounds that it is "speculation" would more accurately be called deduction. And frankly, I doubt that anything you've read is genuinely open to being firmly interpreted as including the miniature effects work as being done in England. No more so than my interpretation of Pettigrew's "sub-contract" quote, anyway.

Thanks about Kellison. I checked my Fantastic Films issue and it turned out to be #17. The article on Lourie is identified on the contents page as the last of four parts and its splash page bears the word "Conclusion." Surprisingly, it doesn't read as one. It opens with Lourie's arrival in New York, his early film work in various studio art departments, etc.. Very little discussion of Behemoth, with no mention of Hickox or the effects work (or the UK title!). Nothing about Scorpion, since you bring that one up, but there was talk of a couple of projects he wanted to film yet as of then hadn't, and in fact never did. For whatever that's worth to you.

The GREEN HORNET Strikes Again!

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

I didn't mean to offend by using the word "speculation". I don't think that word implies that I'm being "dismissive", which I certainly didn't intend to appear. On the contrary, I think your information is very good and offers many other possibilities. In this particular instance, I see little substantive difference between "speculation" and "deduction", but I'm happy enough to use the latter. And again, I don't think I said that anything I've read must be "firmly interpreted" as indicating anything. All I've ever said is, this is what I've read.

Let's face it, neither of us seems to know a great deal for certain. Much of it doesn't come from the people involved, and the answers to the main issues we've been discussing -- where the effects work was done, and why the credits discrepancies -- seem not to have been directly addressed in anything either of us has read. Much of what we've both been saying is only speculation...or deduction. So, let there be peace.

Is Fantastic Films available on line somewhere -- that is, its back issues? It would be interesting to read the entire article about Lourie, which, yes, does sound interesting. The reference I made to Black Scorpion came from Warren's book -- I never read that elsewhere. But it sounds credible, given Lourie's track record, and the fact that the director they did get for that film, Edward Ludwig, was anything but a sci-fi specialist.

[–] tbrittreid 13 years ago

I don't think I said that anything I've read must be "firmly interpreted" as indicating anything. All I've ever said is, this is what I've read.

Yes, and my point--poorly phrased I now realize--was that I believe that nothing you read was as specific as you claim here. I believe you've read more into a rather general statement (say, "The film was shot entirely in England") than is genuinely there. Someone knowing that the picture was made by a British company, for UK pounds, with principal photography shot entirely in England by an almost (but only almost, of course) entirely Brit cast and crew, could have written that.

I don't know if the FF material is online anywhere. If that this was true of Black Belt had not been demonstrated in a Wikipedia encyclopedia talk page discussion concerning Bruce Lee's citizenship (several people were densely insisting he held only American), I'd have no suspicion whatsoever that it might be so. A search engine failed to include that in its "Black Belt magazine" search results, so I had to go back to that page and the link posted by one of the participants to re-access it later. Therefore, similar negative results for any other magazine are less than conclusive. Sorry.

The GREEN HORNET Strikes Again!

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

Okay, we'll have to see what further hard information either of us can come up with about these various Behemoth questions. The thread will always be here if we find anything. Take it easy, tbrittreid, see you around.

[–] Laserdome-AMH 13 years ago

Sorry to interfere your interesting discussions, you probably heard of the German R2 DVD release of the film as well?

It includes 3 different versions of the film:

1) The Giant Behemoth (US theatrical edit) (16:9)
2) Behemoth, the Sea Monster (GB theatrical edit) (4:3, more picture actually)
3) Das Ungeheuer von Loch Ness (German theatrical edit) (4:3)

You can see all 3 of them in full length and top quality (english friendly as well).

A LOT of work was done to restore the German version, yet another version of the film, of which only two 35mm prints survived (in bad shape) and which basically remained unseen since their initial release in 1961. The German version puts a Loch Ness angle to the story by including text explanations that Behemoth actually is Nessie. Otherwise it is based on the US edit but some scenes were not present in both (heavily damaged) surviving prints, making it difficult for the restauration team to find out how the film looked in theatres back in 1961.

Anyway it's a great set and I'd say a must-buy for those interested in the film.
It also has lots of Bonus materials, trailers, audio commentaries etc.

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

You're not interfering at all, Laserdome, in fact your information is very interesting. It's kind of curious (and fun) that the German version dragged in the Loch Ness Monster legend and even made the behemoth Nessie. Of course, nothing like that is in the original film(s). There seems to be no real point to it, which in a way makes the whole thing more enjoyable. It sounds similar to some of the changes that were made to Japanese monster films in their US releases.

It's interesting the way many films are subtly altered for foreign release. I assume you're in Germany, but anyway a telling example of this practice is in the Cary Grant film To Catch a Thief, which I assume you're familiar with. In the scene where Grant is having lunch at his villa with the insurance agent (John Williams), his housekeeper is serving lunch. Williams compliments her quiche lorraine, and Grant -- in the original version -- replies that she has strong hands "and an exceedingly light touch", then adds, "She strangled a German general once -- without a sound." When the film was being prepared for the German market, that line was thrown out, and instead Grant (in German) said something like, "She was once a lion tamer." Maybe she should have tamed the behemoth.

Anyway, thanks for your post.

[–] TrevorAclea 9 years ago

I wonder whether the British censors might have asked for certain cuts on the basis that some scenes were too horrifying or distressing to anyone under 35.

The film was originally given an X certificate (at that time no-one under 16 admitted) on 9th January 1959 by the BBFC, but was subsequently re-edited and shorn of two minutes to get an A certificate (in most areas all ages admitted, but some local councils insisted that anyone under 16 had to be accompanied by an adult) on the 13th January. Assuming the UK DVD is not a standards conversion from an NTSC master, the PAL speedup would mean it was taken from the X-rated version.

http://bbfc.co.uk/releases/behemoth-sea-monster-1959#relatedWorks

"Security - release the badgers."

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

Interesting, thank you, Trevor.

The running time of the film in the UK is given as 72 minutes, vs. 79 in the US. The US version is indeed longer, but the R2 DVD runs just 69 minutes, which of course is due to the PAL "speed-up" effect. But that still leaves about 7 minutes real difference from the British version. Most of this is due to cuts in the British print, but the American film is also padded by repeating some sequences seen only once in the British film.

Whether the R2 version is taken from the X- or A-rated version I cannot say. Either way, the film on the UK DVD is indeed different from that on the US DVD.

Unfortunately IMDb long ago deleted my thread labeled "Part I" which contained most of the information regarding run times as well as most of the differences between the two versions -- including differences in the credits, music tracks absent in many scenes, and other edits. (Including, for one example, the inexplicable cutting of two scenes of cars splashing into the Thames after being hurled there by the monster -- you see the immediate aftermath of the splash, but not the car itself actually hitting the water! Would showing the car hitting the Thames have been cause for an X rating?)

There are even two brief shots in the British version that are different in the American, though the soundtrack overlaid on them is the same. These are: first, on the boat where Gene Evans is first chasing the monster, the close-ups of the Geiger counter are of completely different machines; and second, the establishing shot for the sequence where the monster attacks the farm in Essex: in the UK version we see a shot of the landscape, including the sea in the distance, with the sound of the barking dog, whereas the US version opens immediately on the dog, with no landscape shown. Yet both sequences, boat and farm, are the same length and not cut in any way.

The differences in the British and American versions of many older films -- films from both sides of the Atlantic -- run the gamut from fascinating to baffling. Quite a study in the mindset and cultural differences of their eras.