Edited Version?? - The Possession of Joel Delaney (1972) Discussion

[–] reade-1 15 years ago

The unedited version showed much more of the boy in the nude dance. I can understand why they edited that part. When the movie was first filmed high definition DVDs with freeze frame and zoom in had yet to be invented.

When the movie was first released, and later when it was put on VHS, you saw the boy full frontal but you couldn't make hi definition prints of each frame like you can now.

reply

[–] L0GAN5 15 years ago

It's not edited per se - indeed the DVD version will be the exact same version as seen in the cinemas. The thing is it was filmed open matte (4:3 ratio) with its top and bottom blacked out for its cinema ratio, but on TV and VHS it was shown in its 4:3 version. Now, there's a notorious scene where the genitalia of one of the young child actors are exposed but the naughty bits were blacked out for the cinema release just showing upper-half nudity and the subsequent DVD release but his modesty isn't spared in the TV version. You have to remember back when it was filmed there was no VHS and films weren't shown on TV so it was unlikely that it was the director's intent to ever expose the child like this, but for films done in open matte it was simpler than doing a pan and scan to convert them for TV. On many old films done in open matte you can often see booms in the top of the frame because the director knew it would be blacked out but unfortunately this process in this film lead to a child's genitalia being exposed and turned the film into an exploitation classic.

reply

[–] saltsan 14 years ago

The same issue occurred in the film SOME GIRLS where you see Patrick Dempsey's genitals in the open matte VHS but not when it's properly formatted for 1.85 theatrical release or th letterboxed DVD. Makes you wonder why they didn't just let the actors in question wear underwear if they didn't mean to show the below-the-waist stuff.

reply

[–] TheProjector 14 years ago

Probably because the directors knew that the films would, at some point, be released on VHS and/or shown on TV in 4:3 format as, at least up until recently, most people had 4:3 TV sets. The widescreen version would have been sold predominantly to cinemas.

Now if you (the director) have a scene where an actor is meant to be nude but you let them keep their underwear on because you know that it will be blocked out in the widescreen version; as soon as you release the 4:3 version everyone can see that you "cheated" and that the actor is not nude and the scene loses its credibility.

That's not to mention the fact that a director might still request the scene still be shot in the nude simply to get more realistic responses from the actors involved.

reply

[–] L0GAN5 14 years ago

I think it was probably more the case that the director simply didn't know what aspect ratio the film would be released in, so they just shot it in Academy ratio and then the aspect ratio would be decided at a later point. If the studio opted for a 1.85 ratio over 2.35 for instance, they couldn't take the risk of the actor's underwear coming into the frame.

reply

[–] TheProjector 14 years ago

Yes, very probably. But that being the case, you'd have thought the director would have taken more care to make sure boom-mics were out of shot such as the one in one of the first scenes at the beach house!

Also, I would have thought that even when filming open matte it would have been possible to make sure sure David Elliot's groin was out of shot and let the kid keep his underpants on.

reply

[–] haileybaron 13 years ago

yea I agree
I think if the director NEVER intended for the boy's penis to be seen then what would be the point of him being completely nude?
I doubt he was thinking "ok, I could have him wear flesh colored speedos but what if by some chance someday they play my film on television in a different aspect ratio? Or if they invent a format where people can watch films in their home?
Then people will SEE the flesh colored speedos and I can't have that!"
I think he had the boy be nude and he filmed him. He wasn't worried at the time of the filming about preserving the boys modesty

I watched the movie Oh God the other day in full screen
Theres a scene where John Denver meets "God" in his bathroom while he's in the shower. He gets out of the shower and you can clearly see he's wearing a bathing suit or shorts and he's supposed to be nude.
This film was also shot in the 70's before directors ever thought about aspect ratios or home video

reply

[–] ElectricWarlock 12 years ago

That scene must have not only been awkward for David, but for the director himself. Can you imagine having to tell a 12-year-old "OK, for this scene you're going to strip nude and dance on a table"? I sure can't. I'm not sure if it was a good idea to include that scene in the movie. I realize they wanted to put something really outrageous to shock viewers, but they could have thought of something else to do that. I wonder if David was traumatized by that scene in any way or made fun of at school. It must be really embarrassing for millions of people all over the world to see you nude when you are so young. I do like the movie overall, I just don't think that scene was necessary.

Come, fly the teeth of the wind. Share my wings.

reply

[–] jk90us 10 years ago

That scene must have not only been awkward for David, but for the director himself. Can you imagine having to tell a 12-year-old "OK, for this scene you're going to strip nude and dance on a table"? I

I seriously doubt the director just walked up and told the actor "Okay, kid, strip naked, jump on the table and start shaking your a$$." That scene was probably in the script and the actor would have known about it before accepting the role.

Even if they made up that dance on the spot, the director would have talked to the kid and asked if he was willing to do it. He'd also have to get permission from the parents.

jk90

_______
38 of the last 44 Best Actress Oscar winners have been nude in films.
See how that works?

reply

[–] lordofthelake 12 years ago

There is a part cut out at the beginning in which Joel is showering and nude in front of Nora, while they hold a bantering conversation. This part has been removed from the DVD.

reply

[–] InvasionofPALs 11 years ago

I wonder why that was removed? Print damage or some other reason?

Better to stay with the VHS release of this movie!

reply

[–] heyteegs 9 years ago

Is this the scene at about 27 minutes in? It is followed by Nora drying Joel's hair with a towel. When I watch that it has a real incestuous vibe to it. I wonder if that is the reason it is removed?

I'm also curious about the print I have. You can see the boy's ass when he's dancing and his front when he throws the clothes out the patio door but it does not open in my viewer as 4:3; it opens in a widescreen type format although it's hard to tell if the image is stretched. Does that make sense to anyone? I thought I had a copy of the VHS version. Are you able to see any of the boy's privates on the DVD?

http://crewdtees.com/

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DavidZellaby 9 years ago

What is very telling is that Europeans, who have hundreds of films with similar, youthful nude scenes, would not be having this discussion. It's a subject that, in the entire Western World, still concerns (and fascinates) Americans, for the most part. They have yet to lose hangups or avoid judging nudity of any kind. "Joel" was filmed in 1972- applying today's standards to a movie filmed 40+ years ago is pointless.

reply

[–] muzilon 9 years ago

Actually the British censors still have problems with the underage sex scene at the beginning of Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song (1971). That sequence is blacked out in the UK DVD.

reply

[–] DavidZellaby 9 years ago

You make a good point, muzilon. The UK still maintains strict censorship for this kind of thing. I was thinking more of most of the other European countries.

reply