laureatedvd.com

[Christoph Nestel]

It is well known, that PEEEPING TOM suffered from different censorship since it was produced, until Martin Scorsese tried to restore the film and initiated its rediscovering when the film was shown in September 1979 in New York in a version which was said to be unabridged. Nevertheless to me there are various inconsistencies about the version of PEEPING TOM which is available today. The original version seemed to have been much longer, but nowhere I could find details so far which would explain the mystery about different running times I'm giving to you now, below:


When the film was first submitted to the BBFC http://www.bbfc.co.uk/ on 22. March, 1960, it had a runtime of 108 minutes 46 seconds (this is theatrical speed standard of 24 pictures per second), so it would be 104'31 at TV and video standard which has 25 pps. It is indicated that cuts were made, but no details are given. Does anybody know, if the BBFC might have further and detailed information in documents, which have not been officially published and what would be the easiest way to get them ?


A Reynolds News critic of 10.04.1960 says, that PEEPING TOM was measured 9789 foot after a shocking scene was cut out by the censor, in which a woman is brutally murdered, because this would have been too terrible even for a x-rating. 9789 foot is a running time of 109'04 at a speed of 24 pps and 104'42 with 25 pps. So it would be naturally longer after the BBFC cuts than before, which cannot be correct. However the running times are so similar that the critic quoted possibly inadvertently the running time before the cuts (even a critic won't quote such an exact figure just for fun). The minimale differences in running times may be just a result of distributor title cards or anything like that, which were or weren't included in the measurement.


When a thearical version of PEEPING TOM was classified again by the BBFC in Britain 16. September 1994 it only had a runtime of 101'16 (24 pps) which turns out to be 97'14 (25 pps) in video inches. The Warner/Studio Canal+ DVD of PEEPING TOM has a runtime of 97'07 (25 pps), as given by the BBFC classification from 01. February 2001. The NTSC Criterion DVD has a runtime of 101'11 (24 pps) containing the same version as the British DVD.


How does this fit however now together with the reconstruction of Martin Scorsese ? PEEPING TOM had its USA release under the titles FACE OF FEAR and THE FOTOGRAPHER OF PANIC much later on 15.05.1962. The American theatrical length was 86'00 approx which would be a runtime of 82'33 in video inches. So Scorsese already would have to do a huge restoration job even to achieve the length of the 97'07-version we all know today. But otherwise it is stated, that Scorsese and Powell discovered the films' original negative, so he would have tried to reconstruct the original full length version. If some film elements would have been irreparably lost, this information should have been given somewhere. But the 97'07-version seems to be assumed as the entire version of that film by everybody today. I simply can't believe that this is correct due to all that facts.


Some years ago the film script by Leo Marks was published. I was strained like a tearing elbow. But after examination I found no scenes therein, which are missing in the film. However the question remains whether it was really the original film script or only a transcription of the film itself (in the version we know today) as I assume. So thus again no step forward in lightening the censorship of PEEPING TOM.


Does anybody know anything about sequences missing in the film today ? Does anybody know about the correct different running times in foot, which are given nowhere ? How the different lengths can be explained and what happend to the original version ? The rumour is, that it was sold to a blackmarketeer after the films failure. But what happend to it afterwards ? Is the original negative still known to exist today ? From which film elements do the current versions derive from ?


Many questions - few answers. And quite strange that no film historian would have investigated about this so far, as it seems.

Best, Christoph