Originally Posted by
Hal...
I agree, but only to an extent. The first time I saw the movie, that scene wasn't in it. But (a) I saw that he had a child-like innocence when throwing daisies in the water, so the intent to sympathize wasn't lost, and (b) I don't think it completely changed the meaning of the scene. No, we don't see his confusion over what just happened nor do we see his remorse/panic. We do, however, fill in the missing piece. That is, that he killed her. In the censored version, the reason is a mystery. And yes, that changes the narrative a bit, but only a bit. And in one respect it also strengthens our understanding that he's an abomination, moreso than the uncensored version. Whether he kills accidentally or on purpose is, ultimately, immaterial.
When I did see the restored version, a few years after, I didn't really have any epiphany or anything. The movie does work much better with it intact – sorta. But I don't think the censored version is horrible. Indeed, if you look closely, you can tell James Whale edited the movie, a form of self-censorship one could say. I'd wager large sums that he filmed the girl thrashing about in the water just before she drowns. If true, I'd argue the scene is more impactful with that included. The fact that it isn't makes me feel the Hays censoring isn't all that bad. And as I said, in subsequent viewings I found that scene humorous... and still do; it never fails to make me laugh (it has to do with how the girl flips over, falling face first, spread eagle). So, in that respect, it doesn't work. It's a perfect example of an unintentional laugh. Of course, I'm viewing it from the perspective of late 20th/early 21st century standards. Had I seen the intact version in 1931, I might have a different opinion.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks