I picked up a copy of Jonathan Rosenbaum's Goodbye Cinema Hello Cinephilia: Film Culture in Transition the other day at Borders and it has been very interesting from the get-go to say the least. I have a feeling I will be bringing up many topics of discussion from this book. The first one I want to talk about is director's cuts. Rosenbaum brings up an interesting point in regards to how director's cuts are brought about both by the director of the film as well as the production companies. There are those director's cuts that are truly director's cuts. These versions of the films are truly and accurately what the director was trying to go for, but due to time constraints or editing wishes by the studios or production companies, the film was of course shortened or just changed around to make it more commercialized for audiences. These director's cuts are then of course released, most of the time after the theatrical version has been seen by audiences, and placed onto DVDs or Blu-Rays nowadays. On the other side though, we have the director's cuts that are either not even close to what the director was going for or are closer but not quite there. Rosenbaum brought this to light as you have a correct version (being of course the theatrical release) and then you have the more correct version (being the version most like what the director intended for). Sometimes of course the production company that owns the rights to the film will put out a "Director's Cut" without any consultation from the director, usually in hopes that it will of course boost their sales. They foresee that people get in their heads that simply because it says "Director's Cut", it is a more exact version of what the film should have been, when perhaps that version was not what the director intended at all. Rosenbaum brought up a few examples and the one that sticks out to me, the one being what popped into my own head as I started reading his section about director's cuts, was none other than Blade Runner. Blade Runner has six different so-called "Director's Cuts", come to find out none of what Ridley Scott really had intentions of fully portraying in the movie. He was consulted for all of them at one point or another throughout their releases and, according to Rosenbaum, claims that the sixth and final cut is closest to what he was going for (the more correct version). However, it brings up the point again that all of those so-called "Director's Cuts" are not really director's cuts. They are just other versions of the same film.
This now leads me into my question for discussion. What other movies have you guys seen or might you know of where there is a director's cut available, however, it's not a true director's cut? Also, what movies DO have true director's cuts?
Discussions about anything and everything related to movies, documentaries, and TV shows.
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
Good topic. Foreign markets have to be considered. George Romero's Dawn of the Dead is a great example. The US theatrical cut ran about 127 min. This is the "Director's Cut" and Romero's preferred version. The Euro cut released as Zombi (and overseen and edited by Romero's filmmaker friend and financial helper Dario Argento) was chopped to under 118 min and removes much of the character motivation and development and ramps up the violence and gore. The result is a more cartoony adventure which Romero attributes to Argento not really understanding the satirical and political nuances of the film.
ReplyDeleteAdam Green's recent film Frozen comes to mind as well. Specifically (SPOILERS) the scene where Kevin Zegger's character is attacked by wolves. In the American cut the attack is shown mostly through reaction shots to the other characters and via audio queues of the actor being tormented. Green shot additional coverage of the actual attack with tons of gore for European markets which you can see on the blu ray (and apparently did so willingly). In this latter example I see no "more correct" version but rather artistic compromise for the sake of expanding the film to broader audiences.
Stephen Speilberg was coerced into making an additional cut of Close Encounters of the Third Kind in 1997 as sort of an exchange. There were scenes he never was allowed to finish due to budget and time constraints in 1977 when the film was released. On the flip side - Columbia never liked the original ending of the film. The solution: Stephen shoots an alternate ending the studio wanted in exchange for budget to finish the scenes he always wanted to finish and place in the film. Thus the "Special Edition". The advent of DVD and blu ray has allowed Stephen to actually submit a third version of the film: The true Director's cut that removes the '97 ending and restores the original plus inserts the additional finished scenes from 97. Best of both worlds and as fans we can have all three to choose from. Aint America grand?
Director's interested in making coin while trying to maintain some sort of artistic backbone get around the problem by introducing the dreaded "Extended Cut" into the game. Extended Cuts are famous for bogging down running times and making films dreadfully long. (Hey guyz wanna watch LOTR - we need to take a week's long vacation but sounds fun) Fortunately these are almost always home video perks and can be skipped outright or relegated for a rainy day. Ridley Scott seems prone to this - specifically with Alien and Gladiator. Both extended cuts are presented and overseen by the director but he avows that the theatrical cuts are the "director's cuts" and therefore more correct (I guess).
How about Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut? He was the original director and shot a lot of what was theatrically released for SMII in 1980 prior to being fired from the endeavor by the producers. Is the Donnner Cut the director's cut or is the Richard Lester theatrical cut (using at least some footage from a totally different director) counted as more correct? The Donner cut seems even conceptually to be inferior to the Lester tape job - so then is the producer the carrier of the vision in this case?