Greed (1924) on TCM

[TylerDurden182]

That's right, Erich von Stroheim's Greed is coming on TCM this month. They are showing the 4 hour version of this silent classic. July 15 at 12:15 (Eastern time). Check your local listings if you are interested. I highly recommend.

[Le_Big_Mac]

I already have this ready to record. I'm looking forward to seeing it but I do have some apprehension about it. A 4-hour silent film...

[Dave3087]

I have TCM but don't watch it too often because i don't really know what most of the stuff is cause i'm not to up on really old movies and i never even heard of Greed before but ill definitely give it a watch when it comes on so thanks for letting us know when sweet movie is coming on cause I'm always looking out for classics i have never seen and to expand my knowledge of older movies.:D

[Pulp_Joker]

Saw this on the schedule a couple of months ago and have been eagerly anticipating the showing.

[dman476]

Originally posted by Pulp_Joker
Saw this on the schedule a couple of months ago and have been eagerly anticipating the showing.

[Danger^Cart]

There is no way in hell I'm watching a 4 hour silent film, Tyler.

[TylerDurden182]

Originally posted by Danger^Cart
There is no way in hell I'm watching a 4 hour silent film, Tyler.

I take it you haven't seen Birth of Nation then, which is fine because it is a chore to sit through. I had to force myself to watch Birth, and even though it is an important film, every twenty minutes or so I had to touch my penis to stay awake. Yeah... it was a fuckin' weird viewing experience.

[LordSimen]

I have serious trouble sitting through silent films in general.

[Digifruitella]

Originally posted by Le_Big_Mac
I already have this ready to record. I'm looking forward to seeing it but I do have some apprehension about it. A 4-hour silent film...

get your ipod or whatever you use, and some headphones...

[Le_Big_Mac]

Originally posted by Digifruitella
get your ipod or whatever you use, and some headphones...

Yes, iTunes would really make a lot of money off of a black-and-white, grainy, and silent film:p...

[Danger^Cart]

Originally posted by TylerDurden182
I take it you haven't seen Birth of Nation then, which is fine because it is a chore to sit through. I had to force myself to watch Birth, and even though it is an important film, every twenty minutes or so I had to touch my penis to stay awake. Yeah... it was a fuckin' weird viewing experience.

I've stayed far away from that on purpose, given it's infamous nature. I just don't like silent films in general. A good film should engage more than just the once sense, and while I appreciate artistic merit, a film is still supposed to entertain me, first and foremost.

[Le_Big_Mac]

Originally posted by Danger^Cart
I've stayed far away from that on purpose, given it's infamous nature. I just don't like silent films in general. A good film should engage more than just the once sense, and while I appreciate artistic merit, a film is still supposed to entertain me, first and foremost.

That's an understandable viewpoint for a silent film these days, but you have to appreciate them as you do sound movies because they didn't have access to sound until The Jazz Singer came out in 1927. And one sense (discounting the added-in soundtracks) is better than none.

It still doesn't mean you have to watch them, of course.

[Digifruitella]

Originally posted by Le_Big_Mac
Yes, iTunes would really make a lot of money off of a black-and-white, grainy, and silent film:p...

who says anything about iTunes

[dman476]

Originally posted by Digifruitella
who says anything about iTunes

Yeah, I'm pretty :confused: as well :D

[The Postmaster General]

Digifruitella was suggesting to listen to music while watching it if you don't dig silent films. Le Big Mac thought he was suggesting to watch it on your iPod.

Now if only they'd let me sort out this whole Peter Jackson/New Line thing....

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by TylerDurden182
I take it you haven't seen Birth of Nation then, which is fine because it is a chore to sit through. I had to force myself to watch Birth, and even though it is an important film, every twenty minutes or so I had to touch my penis to stay awake. Yeah... it was a fuckin' weird viewing experience.

Works every time.

I think headphones destroy the authenticity of the film. I mean, all you're doing then is just listening to music while images pop up on the screen. It's not the same without the old piano music in the background.

Just do what Durden182 and I do to stay awake. That is, if you feel the film is really worth the watch.

[Jon Lyrik]

<===

Originally posted by Danger^Cart
I've stayed far away from that on purpose, given it's infamous nature. I just don't like silent films in general. A good film should engage more than just the once sense, and while I appreciate artistic merit, a film is still supposed to entertain me, first and foremost.

Yeah, let's totally disregard the fact that maybe there were technological limits at the time...:rolleyes:

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
<===



Yeah, let's totally disregard the fact that maybe there were technological limits at the time...:rolleyes:

I agree with Danger Cart on this. I respect silent films for what they set out to do and what they did accomplish given the technological limits of the time, but to me, a film is more than simply a visual and sound experience, although a film that intentionally does itself silently (like a film that intentionally wants to be black and white) should be respected for it's attempts.

[Jon Lyrik]

That's not what I meant though. I don't care if you can't get into silent films, but he doesn't even acknowledge that it was simply a ridiculously impractical hurdle. It's like trying to round up 200,000 extras for ROTK in this day and age, or closer still, more like bashing the special effects of 2001 compared to today.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
That's not what I meant though. I don't care if you can't get into silent films, but he doesn't even acknowledge that it was simply a ridiculously impractical hurdle. It's like trying to round up 200,000 extras for ROTK in this day and age, or closer still, more like bashing the special effects of 2001 compared to today.

He's right. It's really pointless to criticize old silent movies for being...well...silent.

What I'm hearing is that they're bad movies because they didn't pleasure one sense. Moving picture was a huge accomplishment because it did something that visual art could not do. The people back then didn't even notice the lack of sound. When shown a moving image of a train coming towards the camera, people would scream in agony. When A.F.I. showed their 100 Years 100 Movies recently, they showed Jack Lemmon talking about City Lights and he nearly broke down in the middle because it was so moving and powerful for him. An artist can express his emotions through a painting, and filmmakers like Chaplin can show his through cinema. Cinema is all about the visual image. I don't think sound means shit in the long run (not to say it doesn't help).

Plus, how is it better for a film to be intentionally silent? You don't like movies that weren't able to have sound in them but it's fine if they don't even put sound in there? It really just sounds like a disliking of older films in general, regardless of their quality.

Do you all criticize cavemen for only creating the wheel and not the rest of the car? Do you criticize Mozart for not coming out with an LP?

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
He's right. It's really pointless to criticize old silent movies for being...well...silent.

What I'm hearing is that they're bad movies because they didn't pleasure one sense. Moving picture was a huge accomplishment because it did something that visual art could not do. The people back then didn't even notice the lack of sound. When shown a moving image of a train coming towards the camera, people would scream in agony. When A.F.I. showed their 100 Years 100 Movies recently, they showed Jack Lemmon talking about City Lights and he nearly broke down in the middle because it was so moving and powerful for him. An artist can express his emotions through a painting, and filmmakers like Chaplin can show his through cinema. Cinema is all about the visual image. I don't think sound means shit in the long run (not to say it doesn't help).

Plus, how is it better for a film to be intentionally silent? You don't like movies that weren't able to have sound in them but it's fine if they don't even put sound in there? It really just sounds like a disliking of older films in general, regardless of their quality.

Do you all criticize cavemen for only creating the wheel and not the rest of the car? Do you criticize Mozart for not coming out with an LP?

I'm not criticizing, I'm saying it's not something I enjoy watching. Criticizing would be saying "These films are bad because they are silent." No. That's not the case. They are probably quite good and I respect them. I just don't like to watch them. Silent movies arn't my thing.

A movie that tries to be intentionally silent in the age of modern sound systems is a movie that should be respected more than silent films of the past because it's trying to break convention, that's why it's better.

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by LordSimen
A movie that tries to be intentionally silent in the age of modern sound systems is a movie that should be respected more than silent films of the past because it's trying to break convention, that's why it's better.

Uh, what?

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by LordSimen
A movie that tries to be intentionally silent in the age of modern sound systems is a movie that should be respected more than silent films of the past because it's trying to break convention, that's why it's better.


What would the alternative to no sound be? Sound? Seeing how it's impossible to defy standard conventions in that sense, that criticism creates a paradox.

[Danger^Cart]

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
That's not what I meant though. I don't care if you can't get into silent films, but he doesn't even acknowledge that it was simply a ridiculously impractical hurdle. It's like trying to round up 200,000 extras for ROTK in this day and age, or closer still, more like bashing the special effects of 2001 compared to today.

Why should I have to acknowledge that? I never said anything in that regard, either way. All I said was that silent films aren't my cup of tea. I didn't bash shit.

I prefer sound in my films. I find it far more engaging. It's a personal preference. Jerk off to all the silent films you want, that's your prerogative, but don't make me out to be some naive, under-cultured twat because I dig films of a different era, and don't twist my words around to secure some half-assed argument.

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by Danger^Cart
Why should I have to acknowledge that?

To avoid this kind of confusion that leads to the rest of your post, which is far more assumptive than anything I wrote, frankly.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Danger^Cart
Why should I have to acknowledge that? I never said anything in that regard, either way. All I said was that silent films aren't my cup of tea. I didn't bash shit.

I prefer sound in my films. I find it far more engaging. It's a personal preference. Jerk off to all the silent films you want, that's your prerogative, but don't make me out to be some naive, under-cultured twat because I dig films of a different era, and don't twist my words around to secure some half-assed argument.

A good film should engage more than just the once sense, and while I appreciate artistic merit, a film is still supposed to entertain me, first and foremost.

It seemed like you were saying that they were bad by default because they had no sound, because they are only capable of appealing to the one sense. It's one thing to prefer films with sound over films without sound, but to say that a movie is bad because it doesn't have sound is a slap in the face to every filmmaker of that era, and especially the ones who were influenced by those filmmakers. Back in those days it was all about doing what had never been done before. Some filmmakers risked their lives but they were able to do some amazing things, and because of their accomplishments we have the cinema that we do today.

[pablo_super1!]

Originally posted by Danger^Cart
There is no way in hell I'm watching a 4 hour silent film, Tyler.

same with me I'm not against classic movies but fuck 4 hours and its silent maybe I'll watch it but I don't think I'll make it

[Danger^Cart]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
but to say that a movie is bad because it doesn't have sound is a slap in the face to every filmmaker of that era,

For the last fucking time, when did I say anything even REMOTELY resembling that?

Do you two actually converse with people on a regular basis? It seems an infinitely frustrating process, which I refuse to partake in any longer. Godamn.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
Uh, what?

What would the alternative to no sound be? Sound? Seeing how it's impossible to defy standard conventions in that sense, that criticism creates a paradox.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this Brando, but basically what I'm saying is that a film that basically does something that no films do these days, and basically breaks the modern rules and breaks the modern convention I am more likly to show respect for. There's no paradox there what so ever. It's a pretty cut and dry assessment.


No one has stated that a film is bad because it's silent. You assumed that it's bad simply because it's not my or Danger's cup of tea, which is not what we were saying... At all.

[Jon Lyrik]

EDIT: Fuck it, I'm not getting into a pissing contest online anymore.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Danger^Cart
For the last fucking time, when did I say anything even REMOTELY resembling that?


A good film should engage more than just the once sense, and while I appreciate artistic merit, a film is still supposed to entertain me, first and foremost.


Yeah, you did say something like that. I don't understand why people make statements like that and when someone types a response they immediately deny saying anything of the sort. You said that a good film should engage more than one sense, thus implying that silent movies weren't good because they didn't engage more than one sense. I'm not putting words in your mouth.

Yeah, and I do talk with people on a regular basis, but we don't talk about movies. That's why I come here. A really lame argument though, if you just want to resort to personal attacks. Are you just afraid of engaging in a mature debate? Because every time we say something you act like we're just slamming you from all angles. Come on, man.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by LordSimen
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this Brando, but basically what I'm saying is that a film that basically does something that no films do these days, and basically breaks the modern rules and breaks the modern convention I am more likly to show respect for. There's no paradox there what so ever. It's a pretty cut and dry assessment.

You said that films that were silent nowadays are better than those back then because they defy standard conventions. But seeing how there was no other alternative to no sound it makes no sense to criticize a silent movie in this way. It's not really cut and dry, it's confusing.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Danger^Cart
Do you two actually converse with people on a regular basis? It seems an infinitely frustrating process, which I refuse to partake in any longer. Godamn.

I'm sorry, I know I'll get banned for this but this statement is just so fucking unbelieveable that I have to address it. You basically implied that I'm some friendless loser who doesn't have a life so he picks on other people. That's fucking bullshit, and it's a really fucking cheap (and actually, quite wrong) shot. Grow the fuck up. All you had to say is that you didn't want to argue anymore but you had to take the dickish way out.

I really try not to come across as condescending. My defending silent movies doesn't mean I like them more than sound movies. I'm sorry if that seems intimidating but when someone makes statements like that "good movies engage more than one sense" then I feel the need to address them. It seems like the basic expectations of everybody here is to ignore whatever comments you don't agree with. I don't see why we can't engage in a debate without making shots that are so fucking below the belt like that. I never tried to imply you were some uncultured idiot but you had to take it in that way. I don't apologize if you're just intimidated by people who want to know why you hold a certain opinion.

Besides, it's not like we talk with people on message boards the way we do in real life.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
You said that films that were silent nowadays are better than those back then because they defy standard conventions. But seeing how there was no other alternative to no sound it makes no sense to criticize a silent movie in this way. It's not really cut and dry, it's confusing.

I'M NOT CRITICIZING SILENT MOVIES FOR BEING SILENT. I'M SAYING THEY ARN'T MY CUP OF TEA BECAUSE THEY ARE SILENT.

With that out of the way, I'm saying movies back then were silent because that's all there ways. If a movie were made today calling back to the silent film era of yesteryear then I would have more respect for it mainly because it did something that's not normally done anymore in a time where most people would frown upon it. That's cut and dry. That's my statement. Your statement is more confusing than mine, because I never criticized silent movies.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by LordSimen
I'M NOT CRITICIZING SILENT MOVIES FOR BEING SILENT. I'M SAYING THEY ARN'T MY CUP OF TEA BECAUSE THEY ARE SILENT.

With that out of the way, I'm saying movies back then were silent because that's all there ways. If a movie were made today calling back to the silent film era of yesteryear then I would have more respect for it mainly because it did something that's not normally done anymore in a time where most people would frown upon it. That's cut and dry. That's my statement. Your statement is more confusing than mine, because I never criticized silent movies.

Ugh. I never said you criticized them for anything other than the fact that they have no sound, which apparently you weren't, you were just saying that they're not your cup of tea. That's fine if you like sound more, so do I. I don't know a lot of people who like it the other way. Don't let what I've said upset you because you far you've managed to debate me without resorting to cheap shots concerning my character.

I thought what you were saying earlier is that silent films were more conventional because they all had no sound and silent modern day films aren't conventional. I wasn't arguing with you I just didn't understand what you were getting at, if you were criticizing them for all being alike in that respect or in general.

[Danger^Cart]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
I'm sorry, I know I'll get banned for this but this statement is just so fucking unbelieveable that I have to address it. You basically implied that I'm some friendless loser who doesn't have a life so he picks on other people. That's fucking bullshit, and it's a really fucking cheap (and actually, quite wrong) shot. Grow the fuck up. All you had to say is that you didn't want to argue anymore but you had to take the dickish way out.

I really try not to come across as condescending. My defending silent movies doesn't mean I like them more than sound movies. I'm sorry if that seems intimidating but when someone makes statements like that "good movies engage more than one sense" then I feel the need to address them. It seems like the basic expectations of everybody here is to ignore whatever comments you don't agree with. I don't see why we can't engage in a debate without making shots that are so fucking below the belt like that. I never tried to imply you were some uncultured idiot but you had to take it in that way. I don't apologize if you're just intimidated by people who want to know why you hold a certain opinion.


No one is going to get banned, nor should anyone get banned for this. It may have been taken a bit far, yes, especially with your last post, but no one is going to banned on account of me, and I'm certainly not going to report your post or anything of that sort. What amazes me is how blatantly you're seeming to misinterpret everything I say.

I think you need to exercise a little more ambiguity when reading other peoples opinions. In no way was I saying silent films are bad, but rather saying that to me (as in my SUBJECTIVE OPINION) an enjoyable film encompasses the full spectrum of escapism. I simply don't find silent films as engaging as those with sound. Considering I am not deaf, I think this makes perfect sense, as sound itself acts as a mechanism to help relate the story being told. Obviously, as I don't live a world without sound, a silent film simply isn't going to be as relatable.

From here you go on to make comments like, "I'm slapping the filmmakers from that era in the face," which is not only completely inane but insanely inappropriate.

Furthermore, you accuse me of saying that, "You're some friendless loser who picks on people because you have no life," from a remark I made about how frustrating you and Lyriks borderline incoherent tag-team was. Yes, you are correct, the above comment would have been far too personal and wrong on my part, so it's a good thing I didn't say anything even remotely similar. My comment pertained strictly to the context of the board, in which you're highly assumptive, completely off-mark posts were entirely too frustrating for me to articulate a response.

The reason we can't engage in a debate is, besides all of the above, you're complete inability to objectify an argument, and your overly-sensitive approach to menial text. I refuse to type, "IMO" at the end of every paragraph I write, because it should be obvious enough that it's my opinion.

I admit I am at fault in this little debacle, as I probably should have wrote a more intelligent response early on and, upon reflection, I probably would have had it not been for Lyriks post, which took my opinion regarding silent films entertainment value and turned it into some debate about technological progression and deserved credibility. Combine this with your post, and it was far more than I felt like dealing with at the time. Is that so hard to understand?

And yes, you do come off as condescending, but in that regard I suppose I can too, although I don't think I take myself nearly as serious as you do (in the context of the board, of course). You seem very intelligent, and I would love to engage in an insightful argument with you one of these days, but what is typed should be the only thing taken into account, and foundless conjecture cast aside.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Danger^Cart
No one is going to get banned, nor should anyone get banned for this. It may have been taken a bit far, yes, especially with your last post, but no one is going to banned on account of me, and I'm certainly not going to report your post or anything of that sort. What amazes me is how blatantly you're seeming to misinterpret everything I say.

I think you need to exercise a little more ambiguity when reading other peoples opinions. In no way was I saying silent films are bad, but rather saying that to me (as in my SUBJECTIVE OPINION) an enjoyable film encompasses the full spectrum of escapism. I simply don't find silent films as engaging as those with sound. Considering I am not deaf, I think this makes perfect sense, as sound itself acts as a mechanism to help relate the story being told. Obviously, as I don't live a world without sound, a silent film simply isn't going to be as relatable.

From here you go on to make comments like, "I'm slapping the filmmakers from that era in the face," which is not only completely inane but insanely inappropriate.

Furthermore, you accuse me of saying that, "You're some friendless loser who picks on people because you have no life," from a remark I made about how frustrating you and Lyriks borderline incoherent tag-team was. Yes, you are correct, the above comment would have been far too personal and wrong on my part, so it's a good thing I didn't say anything even remotely similar. My comment pertained strictly to the context of the board, in which you're highly assumptive, completely off-mark posts were entirely too frustrating for me to articulate a response.

The reason we can't engage in a debate is, besides all of the above, you're complete inability to objectify an argument, and your overly-sensitive approach to menial text. I refuse to type, "IMO" at the end of every paragraph I write, because it should be obvious enough that it's my opinion.

I admit I am at fault in this little debacle, as I probably should have wrote a more intelligent response early on and, upon reflection, I probably would have had it not been for Lyriks post, which took my opinion regarding silent films entertainment value and turned it into some debate about technological progression and deserved credibility. Combine this with your post, and it was far more than I felt like dealing with at the time. Is that so hard to understand?

And yes, you do come off as condescending, but in that regard I suppose I can too, although I don't think I take myself nearly as serious as you do (in the context of the board, of course). You seem very intelligent, and I would love to engage in an insightful argument with you one of these days, but what is typed should be the only thing taken into account, and foundless conjecture cast aside.

1. I have no problem with people not wanting to watch silent movies, most people I know feel that way. I simply have to argue when someone says that all silent movies are bad....something which I thought you implied in your earlier post. I guess I was wrong, but it definitely sounded like you were going that way with it. If you said you weren't then I have no reason not to believe you. That's the problem with message boards, it's so hard to tell what people mean sometimes. Usually when I post here I'm also working on the computer, and I suck ass at multitasking so that makes it a lot easier to jump to conclusions rather than read into anyone's posts.

2. As for my personality, I'm a completely different person on these boards. In reality, I rarely get in any kind of debate with anybody I know no matter how innocent or meaningless.

[Le_Big_Mac]

Originally posted by LordSimen
With that out of the way, I'm saying movies back then were silent because that's all there ways. If a movie were made today calling back to the silent film era of yesteryear then I would have more respect for it mainly because it did something that's not normally done anymore in a time where most people would frown upon it. That's cut and dry. That's my statement. Your statement is more confusing than mine, because I never criticized silent movies.


The way I see your post, I'd have to retort. Back in the time of silent films, there were ways to defy the norm that didn't involve magically obtaining sound in movies from the future. For example, nonlinear storytelling, using random images to get audience reactions, putting several related stories into a film, abstractly presented themes, and even making an extremely long film in fact are all ways to defy the norm that could be done today and back then, granted that very few filmmakers back in the silent era, and for many years to come, dared to exercise such techniques.

That said, it's incredibly short-sighted to say that a modern film without sound deserves more respect than a silent film because "silent films couldn't defy the norm." And even if, for some reason, they couldn't, they'd still all deserve as much respect as a modern film that did because it wasn't within their power in the first place.

Again, I'm not trying to assume what you're saying, only questioning. There's been enough conflict in this thread over controversy concerning misinterpretations.

[Le_Big_Mac]

*double-post*

[The Postmaster General]

Oh god. Has anyone seen Man of the Century? You can't watch that movie and argue using outmoded conventions warrants more respect for a film.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by Le_Big_Mac
The way I see your post, I'd have to retort. Back in the time of silent films, there were ways to defy the norm that didn't involve magically obtaining sound in movies from the future. For example, nonlinear storytelling, using random images to get audience reactions, putting several related stories into a film, abstractly presented themes, and even making an extremely long film in fact are all ways to defy the norm that could be done today and back then, granted that very few filmmakers back in the silent era, and for many years to come, dared to exercise such techniques.

Did I say a silent film didn't deserve respect because it didn't have sound? No. I stated that a film (if made today) that chose to be silent rather than forced to be, and basically defies all conventions and pushes the limits and tries something new, would grant more respect from my part for the use of silent film than a film that was simply forced to use it because it's all there was. I wasn't saying that a silent film shouldn't be respected. All the ways you mentioned a film could defy convention are true, and thus are living proof that you can respect as silent film as well as a sound film. I never said that a silent film couldn't be respected. In fact I have great respect for silent films. I just can't watch them because, quite frankly, they bore me.

Originally posted by Le_Big_Mac
That said, it's incredibly short-sighted to say that a modern film without sound deserves more respect than a silent film because "silent films couldn't defy the norm." And even if, for some reason, they couldn't, they'd still all deserve as much respect as a modern film that did because it wasn't within their power in the first place.


I never meant that a silent film doesn't deserve as much respect because it "couldn't defy the norm." That is not what I'm speaking of. What I meant, and I hope this is much clearer, is that the fact that the film is silent is merely a product of the option they had at the time and that a film that made afterward, which had the choice between sound and no sound, that chooses to be silent when silent films arn't of the norm, will grant more respect for me than normal.

This isn't to say a silent film cannot defy the norm, because there are countless ways they can. I'm just saying their silence isn't one of them. And I'm not going to respect a film for the soul reason that it's silent. I do have great respect for films like Greed who have done a lot for film as an artform, I simply cannot watch them.

[Jon Lyrik]

So, uh, did anyone watch it?

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
So, uh, did anyone watch it?


I wanted to but once I remembered it was on it was already 12:45, and I can't watch a movie once it's already started.

[Pulp_Joker]

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
So, uh, did anyone watch it?

I recorded it. Going to watch it this weekend.

[Le_Big_Mac]

I finished it today. I liked it and it was definitely a unique film today and for its time. However, it was a bit too long, even it being the proper version.

8/10