deadhead | 18 Nov 2014 7:11 a.m. PST |
I suspect the answer is very little. Knowing Sergei Bondarachuk, there may have been lots of clouds and aerial views of the battle, grossly speeded up views of cavalry charges and close ups of Rod Steiger perspiring………and yet…….. We must accept that Mosfilm destroyed anything unused and the most we can hope for in 2015 is a BluRay version. There is however some limited evidence for what was lost. The brochure for the premier shows DoW meeting Blucher at La Belle Alliance and an unused image of Plummer viewing the aftermath of the battle. The theatrical trailer shows a 2-3 second aerial view of the Hougoumont wall. I recently found a strange but intriguing little book; Waterloo (Frederick E Smith) "Based on the screenplay" with some tantalising suggestions. O'Connor (the pig stealer) meets a character from the Imperial Guard, who appears in later scenes. The cast list link link link does include folk like McDonnell, Ewart, Le Gros etc. You can still find the Prince of Orange and the D of Brunswick in the film. But their demeanor suggests they never had a speaking role. Hard to imagine Waterloo never showed the closing of the gate or the taking of the Eagles. Mind you, any film that allows a cuirassier to climb the roof of LHS……..
Just a few clues as to what might have been lost to us. Would you not love to ask Christopher Plummer while we still can? |
Chalfant | 18 Nov 2014 7:20 a.m. PST |
Still a fun film to watch. And some nice atmospheric scenes. Chalfant |
Clays Russians | 18 Nov 2014 7:28 a.m. PST |
I've heard this rumor again and again. To little to no resolution. |
NappyBuff | 18 Nov 2014 7:57 a.m. PST |
I can confirm to you that there was indeed a longer version of the movie than the commonly known DVD version. I have seen it a very long time ago, and not only was it an hour or more longer, but included some of the battle of Ligney and other stuff. I have looked for it, but have come to the conclusion it is lost to the ages. Just like what almost happened to Star Wars E.IV, but it was saved just in time before being lost forever. The longer versions of Waterloo were not so lucky I suspect. Sad, so sad. |
Trajanus | 18 Nov 2014 9:12 a.m. PST |
I've always thought that Waterloo would make the ultimate drinking game. Get the gang round with plenty of booze and sink a shot every time someone spots a genuine inaccuracy. First rule is everyone takes a drink on the basis of how inaccurate the terrain really is! OK its the only film half worth seeing on the subject but boy are there a lot of drinks to be had! |
bobspruster | 18 Nov 2014 9:32 a.m. PST |
I've often wondered why someone hasn't done something with the subject using computer imaging, like a video game. Could make for a real spectacular flick! Bob |
Doug em4miniatures | 18 Nov 2014 3:38 p.m. PST |
Still got my brochure/book that was sold at the cinema when the film was shown. Falling apart but there are some nice illustrations in there. Doug |
teper1961 | 18 Nov 2014 3:49 p.m. PST |
I use Waterloo to paint by. I set the painting station up, start the film and paint for as long as the film runs, then stop. It makes painting endless figures a lot more enjoyable and the time passes so quickly. PS I know the script word for word now……..LOL PPS I do use other films, Cromwell, Lawrence of Arabia, Elizabth 1, the US series about Easy company WW2 (name escapes me) etc etc anyone else do this, and if so what films do you watch |
Chris Wimbrow | 18 Nov 2014 4:18 p.m. PST |
"Band of Brothers" for the WWII series, teper1961. |
Ragbones | 18 Nov 2014 4:33 p.m. PST |
Yes, I enjoyed painting to John Wayne's, 'The Alamo,' John Lee Hancock's, 'Alamo,' 'Khartoum' and '55 Days at Peking' with Charlton Heston, 'Spartacus,' 'The 300 Spartans,' Alexander Korda's 'The Four Feathers,' and numerous other films starring The Duke, especially the cavalry trilogy by John Ford ('Fort Apache,' 'She Wore a Yellow Ribbon,' and 'Rio Grande'), Rio Bravo, El Dorado and Chisum. |
vagamer63 | 19 Nov 2014 12:46 a.m. PST |
Years ago I watched an interview Rod Steiger did for A&E in which he stated that he knew of a number of filmed parts of the movie that were misplaced prior to it's initial release. At the time film makers had a habit of using rolls of partially exposed movie film, from another movie to finish off the roll, as it cost the studio just as much to process a partial roll as a fully exposed one. He stated he was aware of at least two rather lengthy speeches by "Napoleon", one with Grouchy prior to Ligny, and another with Soult after Napoleon's dressing down of Ney where he explains to Soult how to change his original battle plan to engage Wellington in order to correct the mistake Napoleon felt Ney was responsible for committing. Steiger stated these two speeches had been cut from their respective rolls of developed film, stuck in film cans, and left on a shelf in the studio rather then being forwarded to the editors for inclusion in the original film. They were discovered only years later, with at least one of them so deteriorated it could not be saved. I remember having the pleasure of seeing the "Russian" cut of the movie in a theater in Chicago. My History Teacher my Freshman year of high school took a small group of us to see it as a class project. I remember seeing parts like Blucher being pulled from under his horse after some of the fighting scenes at Ligny, and the British Cavalry charge at Quatre Bras. Along with some other scenes, which disappointingly have never made it into either the VHS or DVD versions long since released. It was the best 4 hours, at the time, I had ever spent in a movie theater! The topper was I was the only one in the group who got an "A" out of the class!! It would be really great if the long versions of many of the old classic films were made available now on home video. For instance, as mentioned above, John Wayne's original cut of "The Alamo", which is about 25 minutes longer then any current version available on DVD. Sadly, some parts of those great films were lost forever, but some bits have been found, rescued, and restored yet have never been spliced back into their original places for reasons of cost, or no one wanting to put in the time or effort. It would be great if the original Russian version of "Waterloo" were to be re-released in time for the anniversary though! If for no other reason then to let a new generation know what it took to make a grand and great film without any computers at all!!! |
deadhead | 19 Nov 2014 4:05 a.m. PST |
Clays Russians is right. Even in this forum the "Original" version has been mentioned many times, but, all too often, it seems likely that respondents are confusing Waterloo with Sergei B's War and Peace. vagamer63's response is fascinating…just what I was hoping to pick up. Even hearing of the two speeches is totally new. Even more tantalising….the evidence has always been that the uncut film never really did leave the Studios, let alone Russia/USSR! Folk have had vague recollections of a 4 hour version, but always very vague. Now you have seen Blucher pulled from beneath his horse….that is very good evidence indeed for this making it to the USA. So, where do old film rolls end up? Surely a 70mm film is too valuable to be just burnt or discarded. I guess it rots… We got the extra couple of minutes added, with the blond lad leaving the square, we lost a few seconds when PC insisted crulety to horses meant drop a sequence of canister on cavalry. What would a DVD/BluRay be worth in 2015 if anything more could be found? I know. We have been saying that since 1970….. I finally got the extended version of Tora Tora Tora and was so disappointed. Only two added scenes. Yamamoto in the Imperial Palace added something. A scene between two cooks on the Akagi was one of the weirdest bits of cinema I have come across. Mind you, look what a difference the full version made to LOTR 1-3! |
Paul from PMW | 19 Nov 2014 6:36 a.m. PST |
Watched it again on Sunday with my boy (14, his first time) and he loved it. Still one of my favourites. There's something to be said about the spectacle of REAL people doing all the battlescenes rather than CGI – apart from most of the LoTR stuff, nearly all CGI battle scenes in modern films look a bit rubbish to my eyes. I also have the booklet (in great condition thanks to my late father being clever enough to cover it in clear adhesive plastic :-)that was available at the cinema, it has some stills not included in the DVD/VHS/film release…. the shot of Wellington meeting Blucher at LBA puzzled me for years when I was younger (didn't know nowt about movie making) I watched the film dozens of times trying to find that scene – even playing it on slo-mo when I had a vhs player. Doh! |
Dynaman8789 | 19 Nov 2014 6:41 a.m. PST |
Most battle scenes, CGI or not, look rubbish. We just tend to remember the good ones! What is worse, a bad CGI rendering of an explosion or a badly done "live" explosion? They both stink! CGI does allow films to get sillier and that is a bad thing – the latest Dracula film being a case in point, the battle scenes in that are horrible. |
Murvihill | 19 Nov 2014 10:40 a.m. PST |
"I finally got the extended version of Tora Tora Tora and was so disappointed. Only two added scenes. Yamamoto in the Imperial Palace added something. A scene between two cooks on the Akagi was one of the weirdest bits of cinema I have come across. Mind you, look what a difference the full version made to LOTR 1-3!" I often wonder at the difference between Japanese and US films. I just watched a(nother) Zatoichi movie and at the end they interspersed the final confrontation scenes with a big dance number featuring all the good guys. I'd love to sit down to a movie with a Japanese person and go over the scenes asking about the cultural significance of various details. |
deadhead | 19 Nov 2014 1:30 p.m. PST |
A very good point. The cooks' sequence is played for laughs and the Japanese audience loved it. It is bizarre. Totally out of context for me Shakespeare does it. The porter at the gate immediately after Macbeth murders Duncan has had many folk baffled for centuries. The suggestion is that he needed to lighten it for a live audience but……….. CGI can get insane. Troy. Half a million Greeks charge the walls in the first assault. Mount Doom in the opening sequence of Fellowship of the R is as massive, but this is fantasy and those Elves with the swords are just incredible. CGI can look too much like attack of the ant army though. Great responses. Thanks to all. Realistically, I know we will never see what is lost now, but imagine the sequences with tens of thousands of soldiers, in something approaching realistic uniforms. Deleted sequences from Battle of Britain have been shown on TV and are brilliant. Even Bridge Too Far once had a scene of US paras fighting SS in a cellar in Nijmegen. Always wondered about Great Escape…imagine finding a 30 second sequence never shown. We are sad……… |
Dynaman8789 | 19 Nov 2014 5:40 p.m. PST |
CGI look bad but it can look great. It was used to great effect in Band of Brothers (all the parachutes in the Market Garden segment) and "The Pacific" (where almost everything needed CGI work to make the locations match what they were supposed to be) |
deadhead | 20 Nov 2014 6:47 a.m. PST |
True. Even as long ago as Gettysburg filming, CGI on the battlefield was essential to remove all the monuments! Shame almost every Pearl Harbour (Harbor?) movie shows the Arizona memorial even before the attack |
seneffe | 20 Nov 2014 3:43 p.m. PST |
There a short scene of some Scots Greys hacking at French infantrymen and gunners which is clearly from the original filming, but which ended up in a 1970s euro mini series- maybe 'Scarlet and Black' by Stendhal. Its inclusion in the main film would have made the Greys' charge scene make much more sense! |
deadhead | 21 Nov 2014 3:34 a.m. PST |
Absolutely. They charge into empty space and, other than attacking the guns, seem to achieve nothing. Even an extra few seconds would be fascinating to those of us who watch the film every few months……….and that for decades! |
Jefthing | 22 Nov 2014 4:57 a.m. PST |
teper1961 Every Christmas (actually, Christmas Eve and the day before) I settle down to watch Lawrence of Arabia over two nights and paint up something for the desert campaign. This is because I first saw Lawrence at the same time in 1975 whilst building the Airfix Multipose 8th army. It's now recognised by the family as 'my time' and I get left alone for a few hours! |
deadhead | 22 Nov 2014 6:11 a.m. PST |
I hope you have the Blu Ray extended version….it is even longer…….but brilliant. Pinch of salt needed as with anything to do with L of Ar….but brilliant. |
Jefthing | 22 Nov 2014 5:25 p.m. PST |
Deadhead Of course! And I already have Britannia figures and Armourfast Crusaders and Valentines primed and ready…. |
Double G | 22 Nov 2014 6:02 p.m. PST |
Steve from Belle and Blade told me there is a longer version of Waterloo out there, he said it's just a matter of time before it pops up somewhere. Keep looking, it's out there………….. |
deadhead | 23 Nov 2014 4:43 a.m. PST |
I met a bloke in the pub last week who knew someone who was sure he could get his hands on it, next time he is Moscow. He is part of a company based in the Bahamas, going through the Mosfilm archives he told me. They just need to raise the funding and are seeking finance………. |
christot | 23 Nov 2014 6:21 a.m. PST |
Does he have a Nigerian registered bank account I can send my life savings to in order to help out? |
deadhead | 23 Nov 2014 7:02 a.m. PST |
|
MichaelCollinsHimself | 23 Nov 2014 7:28 a.m. PST |
I watched the film on "The Beeb" the other Sunday – did they cut the bit where the British heavies deal with d`Erlon`s infantry? Also, in the edit I watched they seem to be rehearsing for the charge of the Light Brigade… this may have confused some re. the effectiveness of cavalry charges on massed batteries? |
deadhead | 23 Nov 2014 8:13 a.m. PST |
No version I have ever seen shows Hougoumont gate, LHS defence, Union Brigade actually doing anything useful…..indeed, there is no explanation at of what happened to those thousands of French under d'Erlon. Picton "plugs the gap" with just the Gordons in a column. They seem to fire not a shot and the Scots Greys (solo) charge across a sandy, dusty, plain and into some cannon….but never meet an infantryman. No eagles captured here! |
Mike the Analyst | 23 Nov 2014 3:56 p.m. PST |
The rumour about D'Erlon infantry that I believe is mentioned in an earlier post here on TMP is that there were lanes taped off between blocks of infantry down which the Scots Greys were to charge and this was to be filmed from the side so it would appear that the cavalry was in a melee with the infantry. But… The Russian infantry ran too early as they did not wish to face the charging cavalry, fearing that they would be ridden down in any case. |
deadhead | 23 Nov 2014 4:14 p.m. PST |
Same thing happened with LOTR and the charge of the Rohirram (or however you spell it). They also say that the brilliant sequence of the French cavalry charge on the squares also suffered the same. That scene where they crest the ridge and we see the squares (I had it as a poster on my bedroom wall in 1970s) shows how the "Russian" troops could not maintain formation. Told that they were safe, told that the worst thing they could do was to break up and run in front of these horses, with not a soul shooting at them…..these disciplined, trained, Soviet soldiers broke and ran every time. You see the smaller squares totally disintegrating in the film. But yet, in 1815, they held, they stood. I have never been charged by a police line of horses ( I left Grosvenor Square just in time, as I could see how it was panning out but they were not carrying sabres and out to kill anyone, there was not a thousand of them….) How did they get the infantry to hold against cavalry? I suspect the answer is that the horsemen never got half as close as we imagine or films suggest…in most cases…….. |
1815Guy | 24 Nov 2014 7:14 p.m. PST |
They used some of Waterloo's extra clips in the battlefield visitor centre film of the battle. There were certainly more scenes at Hougoumont and La Haye Sainte, I recall. |
von Winterfeldt | 25 Nov 2014 12:40 a.m. PST |
"How did they get the infantry to hold against cavalry? I suspect the answer is that the horsemen never got half as close as we imagine or films suggest…in most cases…….." Yes indeed, give those disciplined Soviet extras some ammunition – then the picture would look much different. The same for re-enactment – cavalry ride up to the tip of the bayonets because usually the infantry stops shooting blanks not to injure the horses and rider when they are close. |
deadhead | 25 Nov 2014 7:29 a.m. PST |
Now you mention it von W…it is glaringly obvious! The Soviet troops were being asked to face horses coming towards them, with no way of ensuring their own safety, however much they were assured of it by the film makers. You can mark out the lanes, you can promise they will follow them….but to just stand there passively is asking a lot. If you are able to at least fire on them and keep them at some distance……that bit more reassuring. Of course that is indeed the point. Again I always thought thye break even though these are brave and disciplined modern soldiers, no one is really firing on them and they are at no genuine risk from the horsemen……..but it may not have seemed that way, to them, as you explain. |
marshallken | 25 Nov 2014 12:12 p.m. PST |
I've often wondered why the squares were shown breaking up and dissolving! It never occurred to me that the extras were panicking! During the bugle recall scene where you see the lancers charging on the left (in the distance) I can make out hordes of D'Erlons infantry running for it. |
deadhead | 25 Nov 2014 12:41 p.m. PST |
Now that I must go back and check. If there are lots of them running in the background, there must have been an earlier scene using them. Why else bother to get them set up in a background shot? I know when you mean! The bit about stop it you'll hurt yourself….. I have never seen the film at the visitor centre despite three trips to the field itself! Next time…………. |
marshallken | 27 Nov 2014 12:40 p.m. PST |
A trip to Waterloo is something I've promising myself for decades. |
Aussie Mick | 29 May 2015 2:20 p.m. PST |
Breaking News! Guys, I just found out how long the movie was from an article in New York Times dated in 1971 with the release of Waterloo in the states Cinema. It was written by a film critic on the release of Waterloo in 1971 Cinema. Here is the link link I immediately went to the bottom to see the running time of this Cinema release and was shocked at the running time. See for yourself. It took some soul searching to find this too. |
Jemima Fawr | 29 May 2015 3:37 p.m. PST |
Can you give us a precis? I can't open the link. |
Aussie Mick | 30 May 2015 8:41 a.m. PST |
Here is the article wriiten in 1971 of its release "MOVIE REVIEW Waterloo (1970) Screen: A Battle Fought Strictly for the Camera:Bondarchuk Directs Craig's 'Waterloo' Rod Steiger Portrays Ill-Fated Napoleon By ROGER GREENSPUN Published: April 1, 1971 Sergei Bondarchuk's "Waterloo," which opened yesterday at the Criterion Theater, has at least to its credit that it means to be about the battle itself, essentially about the events of June 18, 1815, which resulted in Napoleon's defeat and the end of his second bid for power. As to the film's historical accuracy, I am not competent to say. In matters of record it seems to follow the encyclopedia accounts of the battle; in places it feels rather like an encyclopedia account. But the sense of the film itself is another matter, and the particular dullness of Bondarchuk's attempt to translate history into cinema makes "Waterloo" a very bad movie. In most non-essentials, "Waterloo" has all the look of quality—the muted colors, the selection of realistic detail, the concern for a compositional control so obsessive that in each phase from the marshaling of troops to the joining of the battle, to the arrangement of corpses when the battle is over, any frame might be excerpted and labeled "handsome" or "effective." But in movies the look of quality is almost always a crushing bore. And Bondarchuck especially applies his delicate palette with the subdued refinement of a sledgehammer. Thus, when Blücher leads his troops to Wellington's aid ("Raise high the black flag, tzhildren!"—I wish I could duplicate the accent), they are observed from a great distance by Napoleon and his generals. Napoleon wonders whether they are indeed the Prussians or perhaps much needed French reinforcements. But we don't wonder, because we have been hearing "Deutschland Uber Alles" in the cellos and basses on the soundtrack for quite some time. And not only in sound, but also in image, Bondarchuck orchestrates his film—more or less the way Tchaikovsky orchestrated the Battle of 1812. Occasionally his methods work, as when by helicopter shot he spectacularly demonstrates the logic of the failure of Marshal Ney's cavalry charge against the allied infantry square at La Haye Sainte. But more often those methods amount only to ways of filling up the screen or parts of the screen with fleshed-out schema. The shadow of "Alexander Nevsky" hangs heavy over "Waterloo" (as, in fairness, it hangs heavy over almost every classy battle movie from "Henry V" down) and the drama it inspires has less to do with humanity or history than with a mechanical rhetoric of cinema. Against this background it it difficult to speak of performance—which most often resembles a more or less detailed caricature worked out before a frieze of significant events. As in most movies of this type, in any 20 lines there is likely to be something laughable (I greatly admired Napoleon after Ney's debacle, running up to his command post screaming "What's he doing? Can't I leave the field for a minute . . . ?")—which, given the frailties of historical epic, is not the point. Actually, much of the film's cast seemed to me pretty good—except for Rod Steiger. Steiger plays a peace-loving Napoleon, crafty, tired, much weighted with the destiny he seems never to get off his mind. Like a Willy Loman not wholly aware that he has lost his territory, he alternately schemes and complains—as if, in addition to all his other achievements, he had discovered at Waterloo the sources of theatrical naturalism. It is an awful performance, and every mannered point of it is emphasized by the elephantine selectivity of Bondarchuk's camera—narrowing upon the eyes, a weary fold of flesh, the carefully hunched back, the hat, the pudgy man's walk. During the first parts of "Waterloo," when Napoleon is much in view, I thought that no director, not even Bondarchuk, merited Steiger's performance. Later, in the heat of the battle, I felt that not even Steiger need have suffered through Bondarchuk's direction. But now critical calm has put all things in perspective, and I realize that they richly deserved each other. The Cast WATERLOO, directed by Sergei Bondarchuk, screenplay by H.A.L. Craig, in collaboration with Mr. Bondarchuk; director of photography, Armando Nannuzzi; music by Nino Rota; produced by Dino de Laurentiis; released by Paramount Pictures. At the Criterion Theater, Broadway at 45th Street. Running time: 123 minutes. (The Motion Picture Association of America's Production Code and Rating Administration classifies this film: "G—all ages admitted, general audiences.") Napoleon . . . . . Rod Steiger Wellington . . . . . Christopher Plummer Louis XVIII . . . . . Orson Welles General Picton . . . . . Jack Hawkins Duchess of Richmond . . . . . Virginia McKenna Marshal Ney . . . . . Dan O'Herlihy Sir William Ponsonby . . . . . Michael Wilding Lord Uxbridge . . . . . Terence Alexander Private O'Connor . . . . . Donal Donnelly Lord Gordon . . . . . Rupert Davies Marshal Soult . . . . . Ivo Garrani General Drouot . . . . . Glanni Garko Cambronna . . . . . Eugheni Samoilov William De Lancey . . . . . Ian Ogilvy Marshal Blucher . . . . . Sergei Zakhariadze
|
deadhead | 30 May 2015 12:26 p.m. PST |
I forecast we would never see the crucifix from the chapel of Hougoumont again. When it was reported found, I said this is an internet wind-up, as too good to be true. I was wrong. I will now forecast we will never see a single second of the film Waterloo, beyond the 128 minutes currently on DVD. We will get glimpses of stills, which do suggest intended for inclusion, rather than just publicity shots. We can look at a few seconds on the theatrical trailer, of the attack on Hougoumont, from a helicopter camera (badly done). We can dream…….but I think that what we see now on a disk is all that there ever was, in Russia or the West, and is all that still survives. If I am wrong, I will be truly ecstatic!!!!!!!!!! |