MovieChat Forums > The Railway Children (1970) Discussion > Ridiculous PC Editing

Ridiculous PC Editing

posted 18 years ago by Jamesina_Bond_007
32 replies | jump to latest

Yesterday I saw this wonderful film on UK ITV and also on the same channel last Christmas. I have seen this film many times, including when it was first shown in the cinema when I was 9 years old. I find it very nostalgic and is easily the best family film ever made in the UK.
I was very disappointed that ITV chose to edit this film on both occasions to apparently make it politically correct. The following scenes were missing:

1: The children kissing Aunt Emma when she arrives to "help their mother at her time of need."

2: The scene in the kitchen when the children are singing with the cook and using kitchen utensils as musical instruments. And then when Ruth comes in and shows her disapproval at the children and the cook, who is standing on the kitchen table with a bowler hat on her head.

3: The scene in the bathroom when Peter places the bucket of water above the door, so that when Ruth walks in the bucket tilts over and soaks her. She then smacks Peter around the head. The children start yelling and mother walks in and shouts "Ruth!!".

4: The subsequent dismissal of Ruth, when Mother shows her the front door and Ruth sneers at Mother with a "humph!".

5: All the scenes about when Peter steals the coal from the railway station yard.

6: The scene when Perks goes to bed with his wife, Nell, on his birthday and they draw the curtains around the bed. Perks says "Nell?", and Nell replies, "Alright, Bert, as it's your birthday!".

These omissions totally spoilt the film if you've seen it before, and it seems to me that they were deleted by some misguided person who feels that they are "inappropriate".IE:
What is wrong with children kissing adults on the cheek, especially if they are relatives?
What is wrong with the kitchen scene? It was just a bit of fun, not misbehaviour.
As for the bathroom scene, it was apparently deleted because it showed a mischievous prank and an adult hitting a child. Yes, I appreciate that corporal punishment is not acceptable these days, but it was then.Anyway,the Mother sacks Ruth for hitting Peter.
Why did they delete the coal theft scene? It shows that theft is wrong, even though Peter did it for a noble cause (to keep his Mother warm).
As for the bedroom scene with Perks and Nell, well, it wouldn't mean anything to a child unless they already know the facts of life. It is a totally innocent scene.

The unabridged version was classified as U by the censors when it came out (or suitable for children), so how dare ITV spoil this film by taking out these scenes.

[–] RobertaWaterbury 18 years ago

thank you at christmas me and my sister were screaming at the TV because all of that was missed! and the reason at christmas was to shorten it down so they could get the Queens Speach in at 3! i say sod that and leave the railway children to finish when it should, its far more interesting than HRH's speech! No offence mam!lol

[–] david_barnett1 17 years ago

You mean HM's speech, I think. Speech, by the way. Not speach.

[–] icecoldin_alex 17 years ago

off topic: not david 'anyone fancy a chocolate digestive' barnett?

[–] RobertaWaterbury 16 years ago

'You mean HM's speech, I think. Speech, by the way. Not speach. '

what's the point in being cocky! by HRH i meant Her Royal Highness, so no, i didn't mean HM. and as for the spelling of speech thats called a typo and you must be one of the most annoying people in the world if all you do is nit pick about spelling and grammar when you quite obviously knew what was meant by the comment. People don't come on here for English lesssons and to be corrected; they come to discuss films and TV shows. So rather than picking on what other people have said for silly reasons, why not write something interesting and that has a point?

One man's junk is another man's treasure!

[–] little-miss-chocolate 16 years ago

Just FYI, the correct form of address for a ruling monarch is 'Your Majesty', not 'Your Royal Highness', which is for princes, princesses etc. The exception is the Dowager Queen, who is known as Her Majesty still.

I'm anespeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous to have caused you such pericumbobulations...

[–] LeonhardEuler 10 years ago

I know it's 6 years on, but isn't the correct form "Your Grace"? If I'm wrong, I'm blaming The Game of Thrones board!

[–] ebaur 9 years ago

Another year on... Your Grace was used in England until Henry VIII and in Scotland until 1707 (Act of Union), today it's used for non-royal dukes and duchesses (ie not Kate and Wills, they are HRH).

[–] Akureyri 8 years ago

Perhaps we could look to the Americans for brevity and practicality. Recall that when awarding Jim Thorpe his medals and prizes at the 1912 Olympic Games in Stockholm, King Gustav said, "You, Sir, are the greatest athlete in the world," to which Thorpe replied, "Thanks, King." Other Americans may simply address all big-wigs as "Your Worship"!

[–] LawrenceJoseSinclair 13 years ago

OMG - Your royal aristocratic mularkey!
I appreciate British drama and literature, that's why I'm here - Edith Nesbit is a national treasure and y'all are BORING THE WORLD with how to address some dying form of ritualistic monarchy in a world that's moved 500 years past yours, apparently..

Isn't she Queen Elizabeth? isn't that enough?? we like her but fought a war to get rid of all the monarchistic waste of time and public money.. all those castles at public expense?? GIMME A BREAK, it's a bankrupt world, they should be CUT OFF, Finally!! they can make money doing "speaking engagements" like all the worthless ex-Presidents in the U.S. (outside of Carter, who actually builds things)

My only regret in life is that I'm not someone else - Woody Allen

[–] milesahead1 7 years ago

Ah, the danger of making comments about something of which the person is almost entirely ignorant! No public money is spent to fund the UK monarchy. The monies from the Crown Estate (last year more than £200 million) are paid directly to The Exchequer. The Exchequer then funds sovereign's official expenses (upkeep of residences, staff costs, etc). That comes to a lot less than the Crown Estate's revenues.

Oh, and you'll find that the most stable countries in the world have a constitutional monarchy.

One final point, using accurate titles is merely good manners in action.

[–] barneyram 18 years ago

I agree i think tv companies that cut important bits out of films ruin it for the peopel who enjoy them as much as i do.

[–] little-miss-chocolate 17 years ago

That is ridiculous. What I was little I thought that the scene with Perks and Nell was that he was asking her if she minded him having a drink in bed. And I really don't know how they can cut The Railway Children, but play Watership Down in the middle of the afternoon with nothing whatsoever cut.

LMC xxx

When it rains, look for rainbows; when it’s dark, look for stars.

[–] Virginiana 17 years ago

This is conjecture, but how can you be sure that "political correctness" was the reason for these cuts? Could it be that ITV cut it so that they could squeeze it into a shorter time-span?

I know they do this in the United States with older programmes which are being repeated -- because they now devote more minutes per hour to advertising and less to programming than they used to. It seems likely that ITV may do something similar.

If my guess is correct, then they would have to cut scenes which are not integral to the development of the plot. All the scenes you mention are more background- or character-development in nature than plot, so they would be good candidates for the editor's knife.

But I agree with you that the film has certainly lost something, though.

[–] Jamesina_Bond_007 17 years ago

I don't need to bother with seeing hacked version on TV now. I've got the whole film unedited on DVD at last (after much hunting) so I can watch and enjoy it when I like. On again seeing the kitchen scene with Cook, the bathroom scene with Ruth getting soaked, and Peter stealing the coal, I now realise even more how this film was ruined by editing these scenes out. I don't bother watching films on TV these days, with the amount that gets cut. Far better to watch it on DVD (bought, borrowed or rented).

[–] gary_painter 17 years ago

Watching it just now in an afternoon slot on ITV3, and the above scenes are all intact - and all one after the other, which makes me suspect that it was indeed just a case of ITV hacking chunks out for a shorter time slot.

They do it ever more frequently, last few times I've watched Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, it's been missing the "You Two" song whilst Dick van Dyke's contraption makes breakfast.

[–] britmoviejunkie 16 years ago

The version played on ITV at 12:15 GMT on Christmas Eve 2007 is full and uncut.

I think it should be illegal (an infringement of copyright, perhaps?) to edit any film without the director's express written permission.

But them I'm a blodding socialist, aren't I?

[–] Fellwanderer 16 years ago

Why on earth anyone should wish to cut this perfect film is beyond all human understanding.

Looking forward to it again on NYE and NYD!

As the continuity announcer said, "It just gets better."

[–] bevanwthomas 16 years ago

Why the Director's permission? Most often it's not the director who controls the shape of the final edit. This is usually the Editor and/or Producer (many an Editor has expelled a Director from the edit suite).

This is why we get so many "Director's Cuts" of films...

[–] cinesimonj 11 years ago

Weird. No, it isn't. Really it isn't.
The editor is employed by the director. Editors don't get final cut of a film, for goodness sake.

ugh

[–] laurence01 11 years ago

Weird. No, it isn't. Really it isn't.
The editor is employed by the director. Editors don't get final cut of a film, for goodness sake.

ugh

Try thinking about your above post. It is the Producer / production company that has the final say. Otherwise there would be no such thing as a Director's cut DVD.

Let Zygons Be Zygons.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] clive-ihd 14 years ago

Films on tv should be shown in their entirety or not at all.

[–] CitrusWithFuschiaTrim 14 years ago

This is hilarious and/or sad. Sure, it could have been edited to trim the length a little, as suggested, but it does seem more than coincidental that most of the missing footage pertained to vaguely anti-social or rowdy behaviour. Amazing.
_____
I suppose on a clear day you can see the class struggle from here.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] marcchanois 13 years ago

not surprising for the center of political correctness and center of anti-social doctrine..

a country that mostly consists of history revisionists ..full of lies..film editing is just a piece of cake..

[–] Irish_Pete 13 years ago

It was nothing whatsoever to do with political correctness. As has been pointed out elsewhere in the comments, ITV was televising the Queen's speech immediately after showing the film and removed those scenes so the running time would fit the schedule.
There is not a large conspiracy of political correctness in the UK, that is a myth spread about by professional liars at the Daily Mail and Daily Express.