January 18, 2016

When it comes to horror, I am a student of all its philosophies.

I am equally a gore hound as I am an appreciator of slow-burn storytelling. I’m down with the psychological thriller just as much as I can get behind any franchise sequel. I’m terrified by true crime stories, but just as delighted by the delicate marriage of horror with comedy. That’s the beautiful thing about our beloved genre is there’s so much to it, and there’s something for everyone.

However, I’ve been giving a lot of thought to those specific titles that require the onscreen violence be there to help punctuate the full intentions of the filmmaker. Think about it, the MPAA doesn’t look at something like THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS and say, “you know, this is too psychological. You need to cut some of those psychological bits out.” They don’t look at things like THE HOUSE OF THE DEVIL and say, “despite this being a beautifully orchestrated slow-burn movie, it’s too slow. Speed it up and cut out the slow parts.” When it comes to gore though? That’s got to go. No questions asked. If it’s too gory, well then you are not getting that coveted R rating or playing in any theaters. To me, taking out the gore from certain horror movies is like removing one of those other essential storytelling elements. Losing something you don’t want to lose? It just changes the context of the story you’re trying to tell.

Granted, in the last several years, the MPAA hasn’t been as fierce as they were during the majority of the 80’s and early 90’s where horror was public enemy number one. Major studios that back stuff by Quentin Tarantino manage to pass the ratings board with no problems. Major franchises like SAW got away with more gore & violence than we saw in all of the 90’s, but then again, they’ve got Lionsgate backing them. If you’re an indie like any one of the three HATCHET movies? Good luck.

Why did the first HATCHET suffer so many cuts when a major studio release such as HOSTEL PART 2 has an entire scene where a woman literally baths in someone’s blood, after she’s been hung and slit open?

My brain really started cultivating all this a few months back when I revisited JASON GOES TO HELL, the 9th film in the FRIDAY THE 13TH franchise. Watching the film completely out of context from the rest of the series, I rather enjoyed it as a fun, gory, satirical poke at the previous movies, but despite most FRIDAY fans lambasting the radical direction, it’s arguably one of, if not the most violent and gory of the entire series, thanks of course to the fine fiends over at KNB EFX.

Currently on the Blu-Ray box set, only the truncated theatrical R rated version is available. But after that last JASON GOES TO HELL piece, I was alerted by savvy readers that a high def version of the unrated cut is what you get when you redeem the digital download on VUDU, despite it being mislabeled as the R one. Point being, the R cut completely changes the context of the movie. It alters the tone. It’s like being on the slow incline of a roller coaster only for it to abruptly skip straight ahead to leave you wondering “what the hell just happened?”

In similar regard, FX artist turned director John Carl Buechler often said of his much butchered FRIDAY THE 13TH PART VII: THE NEW BLOOD “it’s like setting up a joke and not telling the punchline.” Overall you disappoint the audience.

The original MY BLOODY VALENTINE is one of the strongest cases for how much a few seconds worth of cuts can affect the overall tone of a film. I’ve always liked George Mihalka’s 1981 Canadian flick which came during the very early days of the “slasher” boom. It set up the campfire legend of Harry Warden, a miner that went crazy and homicidal after a cave in at the mines. He swore revenge on the town if they ever celebrated Valentine’s Day again. It’s got a cool looking unique killer, an awesome town myth, a decent group of relatable kids (well, adults playing kids really) and some cool kills. Why didn’t it get a sequel? Why wasn’t it more popular? Why wasn’t it on par with something like FRIDAY THE 13TH? It’s not all that different from the formula there, is it?

Back in 2009 around the same time that Lionsgate was gearing up to release the 3D remake, a new Blu-Ray release of the original was also commissioned. It had a high def upgrade of the original theatrical/video cut that we’ve seen on video shelves for years. But, they also found trims of the original cut “gore” elements. Despite the quality of these materials, they were still spliced back into the movie to offer fans an official “uncut” version of the original MY BLOODY VALENTINE. Every one of the kills is only a few short seconds longer, but wow, does it pack a punch! Seeing these bits reinstated absolutely puts it on par with the greatness of a FRIDAY THE 13TH sequel, and it finally shows some great hard work from the crew that painstakingly set up these gory bits to make the entire audience squirm in their seats out of fear.

What about LEATHERFACE: TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE III? I will always have a soft spot for this particular sequel because it was the first CHAIN SAW movie I was able to go see on the big screen. I was completely unaware of any issues with the MPAA. I went in as a die-hard 14 year old Leatherface fanatic and walked out satisfied. It wasn’t until much later when I read interviews with the director Jeff Burr and saw graphic photos in the pages of Gorezone magazine that I realized it was a compromised version. The New Beverly hosted a midnight screening of LEATHERFACE a few years back as part of Brian Collins’ “Horror Movie A Day” series and while I enjoyed it, I definitely noticed that it felt very short and very incomplete.

There’s a pretty great DVD release of the film that has both the R rated theatrical cut, as well as an “uncut” version. Over the years, I’ve owned at least 3 different VHS versions of LEATHERFACE. The first was the theatrical one. The second had a few gory bits put back in, yet edited out an OJ Simpson joke (!) because it came out during his much televised trial. And a few years after that, I picked up another one with the OJ joke back in, some gore restored, and some taken out from the last VHS. Not to mention the “work print” I found on the Fangoria Weekend of Horrors convention circuit. That “unrated” version on the DVD incorporates everything there is into what is as close to a complete version of the film as possible. And it’s so much better than that theatrical. It delivers on the gore and viscera you’d expect from a CHAIN SAW movie. Granted, because of the tight schedule to reach their release date, some of those original cuts will never be found again, so a “director’s cut” would be impossible to assemble. But the ”unrated” is pretty darned close. Here’s hoping someone out there puts that version out on a nice Blu-Ray release soon.

A similar sin is losing all the original elements for FRIDAY THE 13TH PART VII: THE NEW BLOOD. On the various special edition DVD and Blu-Ray releases, we can see a reel from old VHS workprints of how all the final gory gags would’ve played and they’re all spectacular. Have a look:

The only one that probably benefited from the cuts was the sleeping bag kill, something that Kane Hodder (Jason Voorhees) has always cited as his favorite franchise kill. In the original version, Jason bashes the girl several times against a tree before tiring out and dropping her bloody corpse out of her bag. But in the final movie, it’s just one swift swing and BAM. She is done, which was often met with enthusiastic cheers from the audience.

With the exception of restoring older horror movies, does this even matter anymore? Most independent and low budget horror films don’t even make it to the cinemas these days. The “direct-to-video” market is not nearly as dirty a term as it was during the height of the VHS boom. And with V.O.D. being the dominant way for horror fans to see the latest genre titles, does that effect the filmmakers vision these days? When you hold up what is seen on shows like HANNIBAL or any CSI show today to some of the gags cut out of LEATHERFACE or FRIDAY 7, it’s amazing how far we’ve come.

If it’s a matter of a filmmaker wanting to restore their vision, then I support it. If it’s a marketing plow to sell a longer version of the film, then maybe that extra “gore” footage isn’t worth it.

A perfect example is Sam Raimi’s underrated 2009 feature DRAG ME TO HELL. The theatrical version which is PG-13 plays better than the home video “unrated” version. One scene in particular, Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) learns that she might be able to buy herself a little more time if she sacrifices an animal. In the theatrical cut, she comes to this revelation, she looks up and sees her cat. We think, “oh no, she’s not going to do it, is she?” It cuts to her sliding on the last pile of dirt on a freshly buried patch in her backyard and we realize she totally killed the cat. This editing choice always brought the audience to laughter, because you can’t believe she went through with it. In the “unrated” cut, she sees the cat, she picks up a knife and she walks over and stabs it repeatedly. It’s mean spirited and immediately takes you out of the fun tone of the rest of the picture. Again, it’s context. Removing bits can change tone, but it obviously depends on what the individual filmmaker is going for.

If you haven’t seen them in a while, I strongly recommend revisiting the uncut versions of MY BLOODY VALENTINE (the one with the cover picture below), LEATHERFACE: TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE III, JASON GOES TO HELL and HATCHET. Stick with the theatrical PG-13 version of DRAG ME TO HELL and you’ll have much more fun seeing all of these titles as the filmmakers intended!