MovieChat Forums > Aloft (2015) Discussion > US theatrical release cut by at least 15...

US theatrical release cut by at least 15 minutes


I saw "Aloft" just this weekend at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati.

Aside from the substantive merits, "Aloft" was listed at the theater and also here on IMDb as having a running time of 112 min. The version that I saw in the theater was at least 15 minutes shorter. When I started looking into it, I read the plot summary as it's posted on Wikipedia, and there I learned of several KEY PLOT points that were missing entirely from the cut that I saw.

As you can imagine, I am completely disgusted with the US theatrical release and, regardless of the ultimate quality of the movie (which is not bad, although certainly not without challenges), I cannot recommend to anyone to see this movie in the theater.

I have no idea whether the subsequent DVD/Blu-ray release will have the original longer version or the US shorter version, or both. Sadly, this is not the first, not the second, nor the third or last time this has happened to foreign movies being released in the US.

Viewer beware!!!!!!!!

reply

Please don't imply, however, that this is somehow the fault of the United States (I can sense us veering toward the universal "HOLLYWOOD: BAD" trope here), or that the longer version was somehow better. It wasn't. The shorter cut simply reflects-- I believe-- Sony's attempt (via one or more brave editors, possibly with the assistance of Ms. Llosa herself) to make something relatively more viewable out of what was a very unwise "sight-unseen" buy at the Berlin International Film Festival.

This isn't a "viewer beware" situation. I saw the original cut of Aloft at its Winnipeg red-carpet screening last year: given the amount of wincing and squirming going on around me, I wasn't the only one in the Centennial Concert Hall that picturesquely snowy night who wanted to make a break for the lovely buffet, the bathrooms, or the well-stocked bars. And most of the people who were there had worked in some capacity on the film. So, while I think it might behoove Sony to release the original cut of the film as an alternate version on the Blu-Ray or DVD (not that I'm planning on purchasing either), the subsequent cutting of the film represents not "us ebil 'Murcains" running amok with scissors but an honest attempt to stitch together something salvageable out of what was a poorly thought-out film.

Trust me: the shorter cut is better. Or the longer cut was worse. Your pick.

reply

Thank you for those insights. I am just a movie fan, not someone "on the inside" as you seem to be.

That said, I'd like to make my own judgment about that, a chance which I was taken away with this shorter version.

Have you seen the shorter version? It completely changes the ending!

And yes, I do imply that "Hollywood" interferes with what we US viewers get to see. This is not the first, or second, time that the US distribution of a foreign movie is "dumbed down". So yes, "HOLLYWOOD: BAD". I am an intelligent movie viewer. Let me see the movie as it was made. I'll make up my own mind whether the movie stinks.

reply

I'm also something of a film history buff: trust me, people have been re-cutting films-- all over the world-- for as long as there have been films. "Hollywood" (and the quotes are deliberate) is not going out of its big bad way deliberately to "dumb down" one poorly thought-through multi-national indie. Aloft was a mess; now it's slightly less of a mess.

For more interesting info on on-the-fly editing, you might want to check out how local "decency groups" (especially in the Bible Belt) impacted the run times of films before 1940-- sometimes from state to state. Or how whizz-kid MGM producer Irving Thalberg would head back to the studio, with his chief cutter in tow, for all-night editing sessions following pemieres (or even random public screenings).

A film, like a written manuscript, is a text; texts are subject to edit. Yes, I've seen the original cut of Aloft and, now, one of its shorter edits. The shorter edit is, in my never-humble opinion, a slightly more cohesive film.

As for plot points that may have gone missing... I actually haven't read the Wikipedia article. What I do know is this: Wikipedia is not a rock-solid information source. At best, the article was likely based on a very early draft of the script. (Remember the film-adaptation "novels" of yore-- and how many things changed or went missing between screen and page...?) Case in point: your claim that the ending drastically changed between the shorter and longer versions of Aloft. It didn't. One element-- Jennifer Connelly's voiceover-- went missing. Other than that, the ending was the same. Whoever wrote the Wikipedia article didn't know that, did they...?

reply

The version I saw was the longer one, and while I had hoped to see the shorter version as well my local theater here in Vermont that was listed as having the film on the Sony website in fact did not have it.

There are some times when cuts are bad two Jennifer Connelly film examples: Once Upon A Time in America, and Phenomena (aka Creepers in the US) both worse after the cuts made for American theaters, but after hearing about what cuts were made to Aloft it sounds to me like they got rid of the most problematic parts of the movie and likely made it better. (Seriously those were some of the worst sex scenes ever plot wise, both were detrimental to the film, especially the Murphy/ Laurent one)

I'm a little more torn about the voiceover being gone, as the ending was weak enough as it was, and the voiceover was kind of a patch, I imagine the new ending feels even more abrupt and incomplete. They really needed more meat, the film could have been salvaged by giving the viewer an actual climax, a showdown, something more than that truncated encounter and an even more truncated version of whatever healing ceremony Nana does.
The whole movie built up tension between Ivan and Nana like the slow and methodical construction of a bomb, and then had the nerve to not light it. They brought in Connelly and Murphy to play the parts and could have with their talents ended up with an amazingly powerful and emotional ending had they let that bomb go off, but instead they just let it sit there and did a voiceover, so now it sounds like they just let it sit there, which I guess is just evidence of how you can only get so far with scissors, at some point you need the actual content to be there in order to get a good edit.


All that said it always cracks me up when sex scenes get cut, because everyone who makes films always seems to go on about how they only do sex scenes that are vital to the story, and not just skin on the screen, and then they end up being so important that they get axed. So glad these ones did though.

reply

All that said it always cracks me up when

Exactly. I have no problem with sex scenes or nudity in films when it's actually essential to the story line and character development, but most of the time it's not. Of the three sex scenes in the original version of this film not a single one of them is needed. If anything they're just awkward and uncomfortable and a little bit desperate.

reply

All that said it always cracks me up when sex scenes get cut,


There is a saying from a famous new Zealand director to the affect of: "Sex belongs in home but not the movies, and violence belongs nt he movies but not in the home."

I am not saying it is as simple as that, but different audiences have different average esthetic sensibilities. The studies don't show Americans have less sex, simply a large enough portion of the audience does not want explicit sex in their popular films.

And American mass produced films are made and marketed for a cosmopolitan world wide audience. So it makes sense that any sexuality is tangential to the plot because in some countries it maybe cut doe to the very varied legal standards on ratings worldwide. In other words it is short and tangential because it is very likely to be cut in someplace.

Yes in this film, which was not a popular film in Europe or the US a case can be made, but the broad generalization in some of the comments are simply shallow.

reply

Well stated. Thank you Taconites. (golf clap)

reply

Interesting thread - I read all comments here and wish to add a thought. "Hollywood" has the same relationship to the U.S. as the Vatican has to Italy. Yes, Hollywood is in LA -but both historically, and especially the last 30 or 40 years, the majority of those making and acting in movies are foreign. The crews, as I read it, are usually, though not always, usually local, coming from the area of whatever country/location is used. But the principle actors (1st and 2nd level), writers and especially directors are often from around the world. And the money backing it all - and this is surprising to even many Americans - is often foreign as well.

That's a good thing! But please don't America-bash when there is something in a movie you don't like. Movies are EVERYBODY. And BTW I lived in Europe for years, and have seen greatness and shlock there too, in the same generous doses as the U.S., so no culture has a monopoly on crap OR gold.

reply

So they cut our nude scenes? Good old MPAA practice lol. Why I'm not surprised.. I don't care whether it was an attempt to make it a better film..

reply

Correct. No nudity in the (shortened) cut that I saw in the theater last month.

reply

Wrong-- and nothing to do with the MPAA: The level of nudity in the Ivan/Alice sex scene is exactly the same as it was in the Winnipeg cut of the film: the scene is simply so murkily lit that you can't make heads or tails out of most of what is going on. Connelly's cut sex scene didn't feature any full nudity (standing-up, waist-up shooting; she was wearing a most practical bra throughout). And the Laurent/Murphy scene was pretty much a three-bounce-and-done lap-ride (in sub-zero temps, in the front seat of a Jeep Cherokee(!))-- with a total lack of HBO-style tit action. So take ye olde hackneyed cries of "CENSORSHIP!!!" elsewhere, kids....

reply

So they cut our nude scenes? Good old MPAA practice lol. Why I'm not surprised.. I don't care whether it was an attempt to make it a better film..


You don't care? Nudity is so important to you that you want it in the film even if it detracts from the narrative? Good to know.

It's always funny how much people reveal about themselves that they would likely deny if accused.



Movies are IQ tests; the IMDB boards are how people broadcast their score.

reply

Thanks for saying that... 

reply

Amazon says the Blu-ray is 97 min, but imdb says 112 min? So can anyone confirm which is the real cut as of this moment?

If I watch the Blu-ray is the movie still worth watching?



http://www.youtube.com/user/alphazoom
https://soundcloud.com/#carjet-penhorn

reply

As reviwed at the Berlin FF, it's 116 min. (1hr-56min)

http://variety.com/2014/film/markets-festivals/berlin-film-review-aloft-1201099510/

I Kill Kids!

reply

I'm voting for 96 minutes being the now-official run-time (that being the number Amazon is currently showing for the DVD-- and interesting, isn't it, that they're currently manufacturing the disc only "to order"...?). Whatever number IMDB landed (back when the film first went into production or whatever-- one-twelve was probably a first guesstimate on the part of the filmmakers [likely based on the length of the original script, one page being roughly equivalent to one minute of film, or something like that]) has since gone the way of the Edsel-- and probably for many of the same reasons. What we're experiencing here, kids, is another danger of da interwebs: we "know" far too much before reality shows up and locks the facts into place. A sort of quantum-physics free-for-all, if you will. But thoughts re: the quantum mess at hand:

(a) Aloft is a picture-perfect example of what happens when a filmmaker treks off into the wilderness (pretty literally, in this case) with a head full of concepts and not much else. "Faith," "healing," "forgiveness," and "living life to its fullest": call me when you have an actual, workable script, Claudia. Note the word "workable" back there, 'kay? It's important... especially when you're utilizing the time, money, and effort of dozens if not hundreds of people.

(b) Run-times have been changing since film (as a whole) began. When such change becomes an issue is when stuff goes missing because of overt, historical government censorship (see: Metropolis), because of the wish to restore and preserve cinema that, largely because of the danger and volatility of traditional film stock, would otherwise be lost (see: the epic efforts to restore Lawrence of Arabia and Spartacus), or because of sheer legend (see: the lost original cut of The Magnificent Ambersons). Tweaking a mess of a movie between its disastrous Berlin premiere and its subsequent public release doesn't fall into any of these categories; in the pre-internet era, Sony (or Claudia Llosa, or Buffalo Gal Films, or any of the other producers) would have re-cut Aloft without our ever knowing.

Been thinking-- BAD IDEA, I KNOW-- also about the idea of "dumbing down" a film. How, exactly, would one do that? Does the MPAA have a team of experts versed in the criteria of all levels of IQ, and, more than that, how IQ directly correlates with elements of film comprehension?

The simple answer: Nope.

Or this: What if my "dumb" is different from someone else's "dumb"? What if I, as a language-arts type, can follow the wordplay of Julie Taymor's The Tempest, but I'm not well-versed enough in auto lingo to know why Dom would tell Lettie not to push her ride past 7500 RPMs in the big drag race in Furious Seven? Wouldn't the MPAA have to "dumb down" Seven, arguably a "dumber" film than The Tempest, for my benefit?

All together, now: Nope.

And which is why (said "which" pointing rather sloppily back at why the idea of intentionally dumbing down a film is a very silly and unworkable idea indeed) the fact that the one thing that would have been the biggest dumb-down for Aloft (that is to say Jennifer Connelly's ending, let-me-spell-out-all-the-big-concepts-for-ya-okay? voiceover) is the biggest thing that got axed from the final cut is pretty darn ironic.

All that said, is it worth seeing? Said answer lands with a good solid thud in the "if you're invested in [insert name of fave performer here]" category. If you're a Jennifer Connelly fan: she puts in some solid work. Some of it flies right over the top and off into the stratosphere, but, in general, she gives it her all, and the "all" is, at times, quite good. If you're a Cillian Murphy fan: When not following Ms. Connelly into the stratosphere, he does about a B-minus version of his "damaged, unapproachable brooder" thing here, and his character is largely a dick, so, unless you're the fiercest of fans, give this a miss and veer straight over to Peaky Blinders, where you can witness his Tommy Shelby in all his damaged, brooding, and also a dick B-plus-game glory. If you're a Melanie Laurent fan: she does her "fragile but fiercely intense" thing very well-- and (bonus!) she largely manages to avoid "over-the-top" in the process. If you're a raptor fan: red-tail Mohave gets some lovely flight footage, and pretty much proves (especially when Murphy insists on stroking his chest feathers: hawks really don't like that!) he's the biggest pro on set. But, if you ask me, you'd be better served looking up raptor organizations in your area and seeing these gorgeous critters in action in the great outdoors. It's just past the peak of this year's North American migration; get out there and see 'em while you can...!

reply

I was wondering why the blu-ray was only 97 minutes... Sometimes IMDB get running-times wrong though

But it appears that someone responded and saw it in theaters did testify to it originally being longer, but perhaps it being shorter on blu ray makes it more bareable, it's not exactly a 'great' movie and maybe it would just get plain boring if it was longer and my bet is that that's why it was re-edited, not all movies can sustain a 2 hour interest in it's viewers

I'm gonna refuse you an offer you can't make

reply