Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom - uncut in UK for 1st time

[oki9Sedo]

Coming from the UK, I only saw the uncut version a couple of years ago when I imported the Indy boxset from the US.

Having grown up only knowing Temple Of Doom in its cut form, watching the uncut version was bizarre - to see something I'd watched literally dozens of times and knew off by heart (no pun intended) in a different way... very odd!

...And to be honest, a little disappointing - the actual heart plucking looks ridiculously fake and almost as if it's been spliced in from a different film - the lighting and framing is totally different to the rest of the scene, and the lack of background makes it clear it was not shot on the temple soundstage.

Plus I hate the way Mola Ram's fingers fumble their way into the victim's chest... it looks like he's trying pluck a slippery pickle from a jar!

I'd have preferred something a little subtler and maybe halfway between the cut and uncut version, where the plucking is less visually explicit yet you can still clearly understand happening - what's left to the imagination is far more powerful than what's seen.

The more annoying cuts, IMHO, are those of the victim descending into the lava and Mola Ram holding the flaming heart - it's a little overlong but it conveys a genuine sense of terror.

Overall, then, the uncut version is definitely the superior one - and if nothing else, it *is* Spielberg and Lucas' original vision for the scene - but I think the cut version actually indicates some ways it could've been made better.

Hearing the Thuggee Guard making noises as he carries Indy to the mine cart and gets kicked and punched by indy when he's climbing in was bizarre to me. I was used to the cut version where's he's completely silent.

 

[BadDates]

Coming from the UK, I only saw the uncut version a couple of years ago when I imported the Indy boxset from the US.

Having grown up only knowing Temple Of Doom in its cut form, watching the uncut version was bizarre - to see something I'd watched literally dozens of times and knew off by heart (no pun intended) in a different way... very odd!

...And to be honest, a little disappointing - the actual heart plucking looks ridiculously fake and almost as if it's been spliced in from a different film - the lighting and framing is totally different to the rest of the scene, and the lack of background makes it clear it was not shot on the temple soundstage.

Plus I hate the way Mola Ram's fingers fumble their way into the victim's chest... it looks like he's trying pluck a slippery pickle from a jar!

I'd have preferred something a little subtler and maybe halfway between the cut and uncut version, where the plucking is less visually explicit yet you can still clearly understand happening - what's left to the imagination is far more powerful than what's seen.

The more annoying cuts, IMHO, are those of the victim descending into the lava and Mola Ram holding the flaming heart - it's a little overlong but it conveys a genuine sense of terror.

Overall, then, the uncut version is definitely the superior one - and if nothing else, it *is* Spielberg and Lucas' original vision for the scene - but I think the cut version actually indicates some ways it could've been made better.

Congrats on a most excellent analysis of the cuts - I entirely agree with all of your points! By chance I saw the uncut version for the first time a few days ago via a recording of an Italian TV broadcast.

It's strange to think that only 20-odd years ago such things were considered beyond the pale by the UK censors of the day. I wonder what they would have made of such unspeakable ghoulish vileness as the woodchipper scene in "Fargo".

 

[oki9Sedo]

It's strange to think that only 20-odd years ago such things were considered beyond the pale by the UK censors of the day. I wonder what they would have made of such unspeakable ghoulish vileness as the woodchipper scene in "Fargo".

They didn't consider it beyond the pale, they just considered it beyond the pale for a PG film.

 

[ResidentAlien]

They didn't consider it beyond the pale, they just considered it beyond the pale for a PG film.

I suggest watching the video I posted on page 1. This was in the height of the Video Nasty "scandal" and they considered practically anything "beyond the pale." One film, for example, had a conversation with Satan (via primitive 1980s instant messaging) edited. Just a conversation because it was WITH Satan. Glad I don't live in the UK. Mary Whitehouse, Ferman and the likes were moralist scum who tried to enforce their own personal Christian values on an entire country.

 

[oki9Sedo]

Glad I don't live in the UK. Mary Whitehouse, Ferman and the likes were moralist scum who tried to enforce their own personal Christian values on an entire country.

Oh I know. They were excessive with those video nasties like The Exorcist, I Spit On Your Grave etc.

That said, they were LENIENT with Temple of Doom. Even with the heart removal shots gone, the film is still too violent and too scary to be a "PG".

 

[ResidentAlien]

Oh I know.

That said, a shot of a hand tearing into someone's chest is too disturbing for a PG, surely you must agree? You wouldn't let a 6-year old see that would you?

I saw it at 6. I saw Last Crusade when I was 4 or 5...

I turned out alright, eh?

 

[oki9Sedo]

I saw it at 6. I saw Last Crusade when I was 4 or 5...

I turned out alright, eh?

You're the exception. Most 6-year olds would find the film too scary.

I saw Last Crusade when I was 4 or 5...

Last Crusade has absolutely nothing in it whatsoever.

 

[ResidentAlien]

You're the exception. Most 6-year olds would find the film too scary.



Last Crusade has absolutely nothing in it whatsoever.

I don't know, man... Donovan's death used to scare me...

But really, I think proper parenting is in order, not censoring films. I remember my father watching ToD with me and talking with me about it afterward.

...then again I had also become addicted to Rambo and Bruce Lee by the age of 7...

 

[oki9Sedo]

But really, I think proper parenting is in order, not censoring films.

As do I.

Violent films don't create psychopaths, they just inspire them or give them a little nudge perhaphs. If someone shoots 10 people because of a film, then they were very f ucked up before they saw the film.

I forgot about Donovan's death in Last Crusade by the way....that was the scariest scene in the whole trilogy for me. Aside from that there's nothing though.

 

[BadDates]

They didn't consider it beyond the pale, they just considered it beyond the pale for a PG film.

I was trying to make the same point made by several others (though in hindsight I didn't make it very clearly) about censorship across all certification categories being tougher back then. For example, it's hard to imagine (IMO) LotR:tFotR getting a PG rating back in '85. (And as for the "Saw" or "Hostel" movies getting released at all... .)

 

[oki9Sedo]

I was trying to make the same point made by several others (though in hindsight I didn't make it very clearly) about censorship across all certification categories being tougher back then. For example, it's hard to imagine (IMO) LotR:tFotR getting a PG rating back in '85. (And as for the "Saw" or "Hostel" movies getting released at all... .)

Overall they're more lenient now than they were then.

 

[ResidentAlien]

As do I.

Violent films don't create psychopaths, they just inspire them or give them a little nudge perhaphs. If someone shoots 10 people because of a film, then they were very f ucked up before they saw the film.

I forgot about Donovan's death in Last Crusade by the way....that was the scariest scene in the whole trilogy for me. Aside from that there's nothing though.

One of the films mentioned in the documentary I shared was Guinea Pig. Specifically the second film, Flowers of Flesh and Blood. Before I continue, I should stress that I am a HUGE fan of the so-called "video nasties" and I love the Guinea Pig series. The first two films in the series are nothing but simulated snuff films. No plot, no credits, just a simulation of a murder. Well to play devil's advocate, there was a serial killer in Japan in the 80s who based one of his killings cut-for-cut off of Flowers of Flesh and Blood.


Still, he was plenty deranged, violent movies or no. I don't think they prompted him to kill (as the moralists tried to suggest) but rather that, as you said, they fueled his fantasies and his methods.

 

[oki9Sedo]

Still, he was plenty deranged, violent movies or no. I don't think they prompted him to kill (as the moralists tried to suggest) but rather that, as you said, they fueled his fantasies and his methods.

I totally agree. That said, I hate films like Saw. They're violence for the sake of it, there's no artistic merit there to justify it.

 

[ResidentAlien]

I totally agree. That said, I hate films like Saw. They're violence for the sake of it, there's no artistic merit there to justify it.

I despise Saw. And I don't think it's all that violent. I think it's just a watered-down mainstream version of films like Guinea Pig and August Underground (which is just an awful American version of Guinea Pig anyway). Still, I think Guinea Pig is artful for its prosthetics which is my main draw to it. The latter films though (after Tsutomu Miyazaki's murders) are much more artful, employing rather surreal plots in addition to all the brutal murders.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea_Pig_(film_series)

 

[BadDates]

Updated link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea_Pig_(film_series)

Crikey...those films sound pretty extreme! Don't think that I could bear to watch them... .

 

[ResidentAlien]

Updated link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea_Pig_(film_series)

Crikey...those films sound pretty extreme! Don't think that I could bear to watch them... .

Ooops, nice catch.

Yeah, but that's the point. They're endurance tests more-so than anything else.


Maybe I'll post the essay I wrote last semester... it focused mainly on the film, Cannibal Holocaust but delved a bit into BBFC ratings and other forms of censorship. This is a passion of mine, really. I'm totally fascinated with cinematic censorship and ultra-violence.

 

[ReggieSnake]

I was trying to make the same point made by several others (though in hindsight I didn't make it very clearly) about censorship across all certification categories being tougher back then. For example, it's hard to imagine (IMO) LotR:tFotR getting a PG rating back in '85. (And as for the "Saw" or "Hostel" movies getting released at all... .)

Very good point, I also agree with Resident Alien that it is really the job of parents to know if something is appropriate for their children, not for someone else to make an executive decision and tamper with the way a film was meant to be presented. If a movie is really so bad that there are parts that need to be edited (that couldn't just be fast-forwarded) then the film probably shouldn't be shown at all, depending on the content and ages and maturities involved.

 

[AnImaginaryBoy]

I watched the uncut version of Temple of Doom last night...

...it was at a friend's house, who had setup his projector, and we watched the region 1 version of Temple of Doom, and my god! I can finally see why so many people complained about it being too violent. The whole stuff in the Thuggee sacrifice scene was just unbelievable - I'm so glad I didn't see it as a kid, as it would have probably scarred me for life! One little cut I don't understand is during the fight with Pat Roach, as in the region 2 version, Short Round goes up to help, Willie holds him back, Shorty says, "I gotta safe Indy!" then we see Pat Roach put Indy into the mine car, and Willie says, "Okay, save him!" where as in the region 1 version, that scene goes on for longer before Willie finally lets Shorty rescue Indy. Anybody know why that was cut? I mean, I suppose it's a tiny bit more violent, as we see Pat punch Indy right in the heart, but it's no worse than the edited version of the Thuggee sacrifice, so what was the problem with it? Anyhow, I am very glad I got see the uncut version of Temple of Doom! I feel like I'm finally grown up, or something.

 

[NileQT87]

funny. i live in the u.s., so it's the only version i know. and temple was my favorite as a kid because it was the only one that DIDN'T scare me (toht and donovan's demises, namely). the heart-ripping never even phased me as a kid.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Wow. Special, aren'tcha?



http://raven.theraider.net/showthread.php?t=12237&



Search and you shall be rewarded.





And Raiders features more acts of violence than Temple. It's an absurd and unfounded argument to suggest that Temple is more violent. Just a bunch of PC hogwash that sunk the film in 1984.