By now, everyone's aware of the idea of a director's cut: nasty mean studios and cinema chains force filmmakers to cut their movies, re-edit them, etc, to fit whatever agenda they have (getting more bums on seats or interpreted more charitably, making the movie into something people might want to watch).
However, come DVD time/20 years later and suddenly the option to make more money looms large - surprising though it may seem, studios now make more money from DVD sales and rentals than they do from theatrical showings - and the idea of releasing an alternative version or creating special edition that costs more suddenly becomes very appealing. So the studios give the director a call, say “make it how you wanted to make, provided it'll only cost an extra £50”, and hey presto, a director's cut is born.
Most famous of all, and the one that really started it all (bar Close Encounters' special edition, a thinly veiled way to stop certain producers from getting any more money from the original release) is Blade Runner's director's cut, now available in a googolplex of different versions, but all of which generally lose the narration and the end bit nicked from The Shining's left-overs, and have a unicorn dream sequence injected to make it clear Deckard's a replicant.
But I was musing on the concept and wondering are directors' cut necessarily a good thing?
After all, films are collaborative processes and quite often the things that will emerge in discussions between the editor, director, writer and other production staff will be better than what the director will come up with by himself or herself.
Without a focus audience and the interjection of the studio bosses, The Shawshank Redemption would never have ended as it did, but would have stopped with Red on a bus. Which would have been miserable and bollocks.
Is the Blade Runner director's cut really better than the original? I actually quite like the narration. It makes the whole thing more Chandleresque and explains things that you probably wouldn't have got without it (eg the social connotations of use of the phrase 'skin job'). Yes, the extra unicorn scene makes it clear that Edward James Olmos knows Deckard is a replicant, but there's already a scene in which he has replicant eyes, so it should be entirely obvious that he is already.
Then there's Amadeus. I loved the original. Trouble was, the original release was one of those double-sided DVDs you had to flip halfway through the movie. So I naturally bought up the director's cut as soon as it came out and gave away my original.
Absolute rubbish. If I wanted to go to the opera, I'd go. I don't need Milos Forman sticking in an extra 40 minutes or something of opera footage just to show off all the trouble he went to. It kills the pacing of the movie completely and I haven't got the original to fall back on. Bastard.
So today's question of the day: can you think of any directors' cuts that have indisputably been better than the originals and worth waiting for? Or are directors' cuts just a way to fleece the punters again?
September 28, 2007 | Reply
The Lord of the Rings jumps to mind. The "Extended Editions" were planned from very early on, so were designed rather than bolted together late in the day. I'm not saying it wasn't a way to fleece the punters, just that they were honest enough about it up front and managed to come up with two cracking versions of each film (if you like that sort of thing)
September 28, 2007 | Reply
I cannot think of *any* directors' cuts that are better, or even as-good-as, the theatre releases. I'm sure at least one must exist, I just can't think of it.
I think directors often don't really know why their movies are good (or bad), so how can giving them free reign to make their movie "their way" make them better?
Most often (always?), a director's cut is longer than the original release. But, if the footage originally cut were essential, it wouldn't have been cut in the first place, and putting it back in just waters down the experience.
Don't take 130 minutes to tell a 90 minute story.
September 28, 2007 | Reply
Phoenix
Kingdom of Heaven: butchered on release. Director's cut is a different and far greater film.
Abyss: directors cut makes more sense. in general, the dirctor's cuts are better in James cameron's work, titanic excepted.
The reason lots of movies get cut aren't for artistic reasons but finanial: too long= not enough screenings per day= not enough money made. Lots of films are cut for time restrictions from the studio, not to remove bloat.
September 29, 2007 | Reply
The one I would've made the case for being "indisputable" is Blade Runner. But as you've just disputed its betterness, I can't really go with that one.
Ok, then, it'll have to be Welles's original cut of Macbeth and Kubrick's restored version of Spartacus.
September 30, 2007 | Reply
Was never sure about Hopkins' impression of Olivier for that version. But, it is good, I will agree.
I've also had a think about other directors' cuts and it occurs to me that the director's cut of Lethal Weapon is better than the original.
October 1, 2007 | Reply
Speaking of Welles, does the restored version of 'Touch of Evil' count? It's done according to Welles' notes. And it's definitely better.
October 1, 2007 | Reply
It almost counts. If the idea of a director's cut is that the director says "That's the version I'm happiest with", then clearly no, it isn't. It's more like an artist's impression of a director's cut. Close, but no one can say for sure if the director (ie Welles) wouldn't have wanted to do a little more fiddling once he was sat in the editing suite.
October 19, 2007 | Reply
With you all the way on the issue of Blade Runner: I'm holding onto my video copy of the original cut just for that purpose.
However, I also much prefer the longer Director's cut version of JFK, which in its shorter (and yes I know its still umpteen hours long) just seems to lose a lot of its internal coherance. Yes, I know I just said that about an Oliver Stone film, but I'm a JFK assassination story freak and I love the flawed genius of Stone's version!