Support NeoGAF

[ComputerMKII]

Chaos reigns if old

Von Trier Surrenders Control Of NYMPHOMANIAC, Ninety Minutes Removed From Final Cut

Is there a new controversy brewing over Lars Von Trier's Nymphomaniac? There could well be. The Nymphomaniac conversation has thus far revolved around the film's extreme sexual content but the real drama seems to be occurring behind the camera rather than in front of it with word that - for the very first time in his entire career - Von Trier has ceded final cut of the film with the result being a full hour and a half of material being removed from his preferred version.

Stories about multiple versions of Nymphomaniac have existed since the film was still little more than an idea, with Von Trier initially saying that he intended to release both a sexually explicit version and something a little more toned down. Over time the idea of two versions was shelved, only to reappear when word hit that the Von Trier cut was coming in long. Very long. With reports ranging anywhere from five and a half to seven hours, with speculation rising that the film would be released in theatrical and an extended TV miniseries version. That's not happening, either.

What is? Well according to a report in Denmark's Ekko magazine - seen early by The Hollywood Reporter - Von Trier got the film down to a five and a half hour version and has now given over control of final cut to producer Peter Albaek Jensen who intends to cut it down to four hours for release in a pair of two hour installments. Which all sounds very civilized until Jensen acknowledges that "the short version is against Lars' own will." Jensen goes on to say that Von Trier has accepted the changes "because he understands market mechanisms" but Von Trier has never particularly cared about the market so it seems safe to assume that's Peter talking and not Lars.

As for Von Trier's own thoughts on the matter, the director placed himself under a voluntary gag order after the Cannes press conference fiasco with Melancholia and he's generally stuck to it. We'll see if that holds in the face of this latest news.

http://twitchfilm.com/2013/11/von-t...ac-ninety-minutes-removed-from-final-cut.html

 

[NathanMcMahon]

too much fucking

 

[Aiii]

Porn is better in small portions. Watch, get off, leave.

Why anyone would make a five hour porn is beyond me, what are you gonna do the other 4 hours and 55 minutes?

 

[shira]

cut from 5.5 to 4 hours. .

 

[Juicy Bob]

Finally, a film about sex.

 

[neorej]

I heard they cut it because one of the actresses sucks.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

I heard they cut it because one of the actresses sucks.

1/10

 

[dreamcastmaster]

I heard they cut it because one of the actresses sucks.

I'd expect most actresses suck in a porn film.

 

[J2d]

with speculation rising that the film would be released in theatrical and an extended TV miniseries version. That's not happening, either.

Booooooo!

 

[CheesecakeRecipe]

That is a lot less Charlotte Gainsbourg, and that ain't alright with me.

 

[Ratrat]

Is this really a big deal? Seems pretty common. I think the original cut of Love Exposure was six hours which is rediculous. Who wants five hours of a Lars Von Trier movie anyway.

 

[ComputerMKII]

That is a lot less Charlotte Gainsbourg, and that ain't alright with me.

But that's less Shia LaBeouf, too

 

[SteveWD40]

So, there is unstimulated sex between actors yes? Do they not become porn stars at that point?

I know Chloe Sevigny blew Gallo on film but he was her bf at the time iirc. There was that 9 Songs film, which was essentially porn.

So odd they don't end up labelled as now doing porn.

 

[ComputerMKII]

So, there is unstimulated sex between actors yes? Do they not become porn stars at that point?

I know Chloe Sevigny blew Gallo on film but he was her bf at the time iirc. There was that 9 Songs film, which was essentially porn.

So odd they don't end up labelled as now doing porn.

They used sex doubles if I'm not mistaken

 

[Jake.]

So, there is unstimulated sex between actors yes? Do they not become porn stars at that point?

I know Chloe Sevigny blew Gallo on film but he was her bf at the time iirc. There was that 9 Songs film, which was essentially porn.

So odd they don't end up labelled as now doing porn.

just because there's footage involving unsimulated sex doesn't automatically make it a pornographic film.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

They used sex doubles if I'm not mistaken

You are not mistaken. They used sex doubles for the explicit shit.

 

[SteveWD40]

You are not mistaken. They used sex doubles for the explicit shit.

Ah right, fair enough.

 

[ComputerMKII]

You are not mistaken. They used sex doubles for the explicit shit.

Well, so much for Lars von Trier being an EXTREME rebel filmmaker.

 

[Jedeye Sniv]

Well, so much for Lars von Trier being an EXTREME rebel filmmaker.

Yeah I know, I think it's a cop out.

As for the length of the cut- wtf is he doing making a five hour movie anyway? It just isn't the medium for that kind of length. If an artist wants to make something long form then they need to be working in TV or books or something. 5 hour movies do not work.

 

[KingofGourds]

They used sex doubles if I'm not mistaken

Willem Dafoe refused and did all his own, citing the fact that they'd never find a sex double with a big enough cock.

Spoiler

I made that up.

 

[Polari]

You are not mistaken. They used sex doubles for the explicit shit.

People should have to use spoiler tags for this shit. So disappoint.

 

[voodoopanda]

Is this really a big deal? Seems pretty common. I think the original cut of Love Exposure was six hours which is rediculous. Who wants five hours of a Lars Von Trier movie anyway.

I kinda wanna watch a 6 hour Love Exposure. I really liked that movie.

 

[Andrew.]

Why anyone would make a five hour porn is beyond me, what are you gonna do the other 4 hours and 55 minutes?

Sleep. You'll be passed out by then anyway.