Recently I viewed "Liebestraum" on the Sundance Channel, and it seems to be different from the version I watched a couple of years ago on IFC. I recall the dream sequences as being longer with a brothel scene where the nurses were all hookers. For instance Karen Sillas, as I recall, was named "Michelle" in the dream.
This seems to be backed up by the fact that the time for film I just viewed was about 105 minutes while IMDB has the film listed as 112 minutes.
[deleted]
Thanks for your input. I will look for the director's cut.
In most cases the films on Sundance are unedited. An recent exception was the running of the controversial 2001 "Intimacy" with the provocative Kerry Fox sex scenes edited to an R. But, they did run a disclaimer before the film noting that the film had been altered for showing with input and approval of the director.
I have checked through my notes and it seems that I watched the original standard version on IFC in 2002. IFC incessantly laud their policy of not editing films.
I recently watched Water's infamous "Pink Flamingos" for the first time in more than 25 years on Starz (I originally saw it as a midnight movie at an "art theatre" when I actually was a couple of years too young to "legally" get in the theatre). Much to my amazement, the film was shown in its complete graphic "splendor", if you will.
So, I am a bit surprised that Sundance and the Showtime channels have cut down the film. I don't recall it being as graphic as the soft-core they show.
I have both the director's (which was on LD) and theatrical cut, which is available on DVD. There is virtually no difference. Just an extended scene in the brothel, as I recall. I feel this extended scene actually detracts from the continuity of the movie and is nothing more than sensationalism. FWIW, it is included in the extras of the DVD. The theatrical cut is the way to go, in my opinion.
shareI very much agree. Apparently for some of the reviewers here and Figgis himself, the brothel scene gave you necessary information. I think it gave too much..unnecessary information. The movie works better without it. The less you know..the more you have to think about.
shareGreat comment . . . "The less you know, the more you have to think about." That would apply to a great many films. It reminds me of something a great attorney, Gus Bubert of New Orleans, once told me when I questioned his "low key" jury summation in a case we tried together; he said he always left out something, because the jury needed the chance to do some thinking of their own.
shareThank you! I think that is exactly why I enjoyed the film so much.
shareThe Brothel scene was in the 'theatrical' version in the UK. I know because I saw the film twice at the cinema. It was only cut to get an R rating in America. So whatever you think of the scene, it was always meant to be an integral part of the film and the version including it is the definitive version.
shareThe brothel scene is integral to the film.
On one level, all of the prostitutes in the scene also play nurses are in hospital and offer the interpreation that the whole "present day" narrative is a fragment of Kim Novak's morphia enhanced fever dreams. Which would be supported out by the title - literally, "Dreams of Love". And the fact that one of the prostitutes fingers herself and asks Nick to taste and smell her, which links to Kim Novak's reference to "smelling her on him" about Nick's father and his mistress.
Or you can abandon this interpretation (I do think Figgis is intentionally very open on this point) and simply see it as a mirroring scene with the hospital, in which a different kind of care is administered to the needy.
The scene was was always an integral part of the UK cut and is supposed to appear right after the wild drive with Graham Beckel's sherriff and the "remember, only you can prevent forest fires" line.
Just wanted to add that I agree with you 100%, Francoesque-2. The brothel scene is absolutely essential and is absolutely not simple sensationalism. It adds rich meaning to the work and, in my mind, the film is a lesser achievement when it is removed.
shareI have seen all versions. I do not feel the brothel scene adds anything to the understanding of the film. It is interesting, but not essential. I first saw this film in the 105 minutes version, and understood it. I purchased the other cuts, but found that Figgis had provided enough clues all along, that the scene, at least for me, was just as well relegated to deleted scenes.
shareI saw the brothel scene also, and I agree it added nothing. In my view, this film is what it is regardless of what was cut and what was added: a visually arresting, ethereal mood piece that's hollow at the core.
Still, I enjoyed it enough to give it 6/10. It could have — and should have — been so much better.