Favorite version?

[deleted]

just watched the 76 version again.

weak.

the thing is, they cut out stuff in the shorter 78 version, of course, but they also add stuff to this 78 version that, after you see it and then watch the original, it bums you out.

like the classic scene showing the lady who owes money, and that doctor guy trying to make the mob guys give him 30 days to pay. that shows how things work and it's a great scene.

also, the scene where the girl from the coffee shop, before she auditions, we see her following cosmo over to the club, it's classic how she walks, like she's a pyscho or something, this too is gone.

also, the hot girl who resembles appolonia from 'the godfather' inside of that one bar, and cosmo gives her a line, and she blows him off, and then he says: "i'm so great", this TOO is cut out.

i think that starting the movie with cosmo at the club is very important. establishes the core of the film.

mind you, if the studios recut the movie, it'd suck. but the fact that john c did it himself proves it's better.

also, in the 76 version seymoor cassel's character meets cosmo at the club, and knows all about the girls and the show, but then at the boat acts as if he doesnt even know him. it's very muddled.

the 78 is much, much, much better.

and it doesnt just flow better. it still has the cassevettes style, it's just more entertaining, and really gives you a feel of things.

I prefer the 1976 version. As said before, the inclusion of the "no rivers here" line in the 78 cut made me laugh, as the mention of it earlier was removed. I felt robbed that they did not include that scene with the cab driver in the beginning of the movie. Learning about Cosmo's faith gives the viewer some insight into an otherwise elusive character, and makes him more sympathetic.

I don't believe that the scenes added in the 78 version were great. All they did was dumb down the story. I didn't need any extra help knowing that the bad guys were mobsters and loan sharks (they make it clear with that scene with the doctor and his wife), along with other lines which cheapen the gorgeous subtlety of the first cut.


I did like that they removed some of the stage show. Those extended sequences can really make even the most fanatical Cassevettes' follower fall asleep. I also like that they gave Cosmo more of a military background, as it doesn't make much sense for mobsters to send a guy with no experience to do a big-time hit. But that's it.

[deleted]

[deleted]

To me, the 1978 cut is a hollow shell of a film. By excising most of the night club scenes (including eliminating or trimming down scenes of him interacting with the workers), the film means nothing. It's just a guy who falls into debt and has to kill a bookie. One and done, unmemorable, moving on. Adding the scene of the mob intimidating another guy into paying was completely unnecessary as well. Sure it adds a couple useful tidbits, like Cosmo's history in the Korean war and explaining why he was at the theater with the girls, but those are hardly enough to make up for what is lost.

The Crazy Horse West is the core of the film. The awkward stage performances are not useless filler material. Cosmo is a jester trying to play the king. He's in over his head but always acting like he's cool and in control. Likewise the stage performances he created aim for glitz and glamor, but are a disaster. You can see when he's watching it, he never looks happy. It's like staring at himself in a mirror. He loves his work and is ashamed of it. You see him telling Seymour "not to exaggerate" when telling his friends Cosmo writes and produces all the acts, but when speaking to the audience, he brags as he tells them of creating these performances and tells the audience if they have a problem with that, he'll "throw them out on their ass". In a joking manner, sure, but there's probably an element of truth to it.

One must also remember the gangsters are an allegory to the studio executives he was constantly fighting for the sake of his art, and what are these performances if not his art? This is what Cosmo is fighting for, something personal and dear to him.

But really the greatest thing lost is the emotional intimacy with the performers themselves. The Crazy Horse West is his art, and the people behind it are his family. His relationship with the various members is integral, and the stage performances convey people working for something, like some zero budget movie that doesn't look good but the people who worked on it feel a connection to the material, that's essentially what Cassavettes is potraying here.

ALL of this coming together and we see the real difference between the two. In the 1976 version, we see a somewhat sleazy but loving man forced to compromise his morals for the people and art that mean everything to him. He has nothing if not this night club and the people within it, and we don't simply understand his motivation, we see the tragedy of it all, the struggle of someone going to such extremes for it. In the 1978 version, we see a sleazy but somewhat charming man who kills someone in order to not lose their business. That's it.

I won't even entertain the argument it's a more coherent film. In the 1978 version, it seems like pure luck Cosmo comes into a mobster owned casino and is picked seemingly at random. The 76 version shows us Seymour introducing himself to Cosmo and inviting him to his club with "everything on him".

Another thing the 78 version loses is it's uniqueness. All the elements that slow the 76 version down add to the mood and feel of the movie. It's almost otherworldly. It turns the movie into a unique experience with little comparison, and the stage scenes are a huge part of that. The 78 version is moody but without that languid pace. One IMDB reviewer compared it to floating on water, and I think that's a good way of putting it.

The only advantage I'll give the 78 version is I like the opening in it better, but not enough.

Whenever I watch The Killing of a Chinese Bookie, these days I stick to the 76 version. There's not much reason to give the 78 version repeated viewings.

"It's just you and me now, sport"-Manhunter

The longer cut is only longer because they keep in scenes that go for a long time, at a time. The shorter version is not a truncated version of the longer cut. In other words, they didn't chop up the long to make the short. The short version, in having less overlong scenes, has more little scenes, and keep particular moments. You get to see the lady who owes the mobsters, which shows how scary they are, in a polite fashion. You also get to see the spooky yet hot waitresses expression following Cosmo. You get to see the pretty girl blowing off Cosmo in the bar, which represents his entire life: He can own strippers, per se, but he can't pick up a hot young chick. This short moment in the "short" version says more than the twenty minute scene with the taxi driver.

John Cassavetes was rushed and hated the first cut. The second cut is so much better in so many ways. Has more of a story. And it's only shorter because it has less time. It doesn't cut the long one apart.

All Movie Reviews www.cultfilmfreaks.com