A-List: Director's Cuts
By Josh Spiegel
August 26, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Yes, Avatar is being re-released in an even longer format; this version is eight minutes longer, making the film run 170 minutes. When it’s released again on DVD and Blu-ray, there will be even more footage. James Cameron is one of the greatest offenders among directors, constantly going back to the grindstone, editing and re-editing footage, all to make clearer his vision of a film. He is, of course, not the only one. People like Ridley Scott and Michael Mann are well-known for updating their previous films, sometimes by excising footage and adding in new shots of similar scenes. Though I’m not talking about it in today’s A-List, the quintessential director’s cut is Blade Runner, which, honestly, might have a few editions left. Today, though, let’s look at five movies whose director’s cuts have been released, but not with such fanfare as Avatar.
Kingdom of Heaven
As I said in the previous paragraph, one of the reigning kings of director’s cuts in cinema is Ridley Scott. Even when they’re not necessary or even official director’s cuts (see his 2003 version of Alien, which he has admitted is pretty pointless), Scott loves tinkering with his films. Blade Runner has countless versions, as does Alien, but his most notable director’s cut is from only a few years ago: the 2005 sword-and-sandals drama Kingdom of Heaven. This film tanked at the box office, running for 144 minutes and making only $47 million in North America. However, the film’s extended version is meant to illuminate the theatrical cut’s many problems, enhance some characters’ roles, and adds nearly 50 minutes to the running time. Most people who are fans of the film are fans solely thanks to the director’s cut.
So why would such a film end up in such a truncated form? Well, even though Ridley Scott is Ridley Scott (and the film came after his Best Picture win for Gladiator), 20th Century Fox was unwilling to release a movie that ran more than three hours, because executives assumed - probably incorrectly - that people wouldn’t want to watch such long movies. The shorter version, of course, tanked, partly because of faulty marketing. Does the longer version of Kingdom of Heaven do better in theaters? It’s hard to say, but as a clearer story, it seems to succeed. Unlike most of Scott’s various extended versions (with perhaps an exception for the versions of Blade Runner that excised the awful voice-over narration), Kingdom of Heaven’s extended cut is a must-see, if only to see the right movie Scott wanted to make.
Donnie Darko
Donnie Darko is one of those movies you either get or you don’t, apparently. I feel like I hover in the middle; I am fully aware that the film’s writer and director, Richard Kelly, has loads of talent, and much of the film is visually amazing (with a budget of under $5 million, the effects are even more impressive). The casting is surprisingly great, from a young, morose Jake Gyllenhaal to the sly performance from Patrick Swayze. But the film’s mysteries have always seemed a bit superfluous, something Kelly integrated into the story just to make it stand out from other teen films. The director’s cut, which adds 20 minutes to the story, is meant to help answer any questions you may have had about the elliptical plot and mindbending time-travel elements. It’s kind of the same as the Lost epilogue (you remember Lost, right? Sure you do.) that was released this week.
How so? Well, the answers are nice to have, in that the mysteries are now solved. Did we need the answers, though? With regards to Lost, the epilogue answers a lot of questions you may have had about the Dharma Initiative, but those same answers could have been deduced by many of the truly dedicated viewers - and if you want to know about Dharma, you probably knew the answers or could have guessed them. So it goes for the Donnie Darko director’s cut. For the fans, it’s great to see more of this cult film, but even still, was it necessary? This is the problem of most director’s cuts, where it’s cool to see more of a movie you love, but probably not worth shelling out 20 bucks for another copy of a movie you own. Donnie Darko remains Kelly’s best film, but even the young director was unable to leave well enough alone.
Brazil
Terry Gilliam appears to have the worst karma ever. The movies he makes these days are lucky to get made; the recent Arcade Fire concert that was simulcast on the Internet was his last project, and managed to get off the ground almost in spite of his past. His Don Quixote film was such a famous misfire, there was a documentary made of its failure. Though it ended up being released, to some fanfare, his last film, The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus, was tarnished due to the shocking death of its lead, Heath Ledger. But the bad luck goes all the way back to 1985, and Gilliam’s best film, Brazil. This dystopian vision of the future stars Jonathan Pryce, Robert de Niro, and Bob Hoskins. It’s the story of a cog in a Big Brother-esque machine who tries to break free and run away with his true love; see it, and see it real soon, if you haven’t.
The road to the film’s iconic cult status was very bumpy. Though the film was released in 1985, it was only after many public arguments and Gilliam putting an ad in Variety, literally asking Universal Studios why they weren’t releasing Brazil. The studio tried to release the film in a completely different version; not only did this version have a happy ending, but it was 94 minutes long; the version that was eventually released in major theaters is 132 minutes long and the director’s cut (available on the Criterion Collection’s DVD) is 142 minutes long. What’s so bad about the film? Well, nothing, but like all of Gilliam’s non-Monty Python efforts, it’s hard to market and not a crowd-pleaser. Brazil’s many versions are lovingly recreated on the Criterion DVD, which is worth checking out, as soon as you can. Gilliam’s visual style has never been sharper, even in the truncated versions.
Touch of Evil
Calling this a director’s cut is something of a misnomer, but Touch of Evil is perhaps the best and saddest example of a director having his film taken away from him that it’s worth including on this list. Unlike some of the other films on this week’s A-List, Touch of Evil is best seen with the director’s intentions at heart. The theatrical cut of this 1958 noir classic, set on the Mexico border, is 95 minutes long. Over the years, the cut from director and co-star Orson Welles has been lost. However, over a 40-year period, Universal Studios and dedicated film restorers, including famed editor Walter Murch, have worked on two different, longer versions. One is 108 minutes long, one is 112 minutes long. The latter, Murch’s version, tries to meet Welles’ vision as much as possible.
But is Touch of Evil even worth seeing, you may be asking. You, dear reader, are missing out on a stylish, atmospheric classic of film noir. The plot revolves around a bomb that goes off near the border of Mexico and the United States, and the ensuing investigation, which brings together a straight-arrow federal agent (Charlton Heston, playing a Mexican-American), his wife (Janet Leigh), and an overweight policeman who wants to keep control of his little town as much as possible (Welles, in one of his most iconic roles). Touch of Evil is never going to be as perfect as it may have been back in 1958, but the work done by Murch and his colleagues for the 1998 restoration is as close to perfection as we’re going to get. If you haven’t yet seen Touch of Evil, do so, and so quickly. It’s one of the all-time greats.
Apocalypse Now Redux
Apocalypse Now is one of those movies. It’s one of those movies that has been regarded as a classic since its release that I…do not love. There is no question that the scope of the film, directed by Francis Ford Coppola, is staggering, and the performances from Marlon Brando and Dennis Hopper are electrifying and make the film’s third act one of the most memorable in movie history. What’s more, the supporting cast (including Robert Duvall and Laurence Fishburne) is excellent. I can’t say much bad about Martin Sheen either, though I’ve preferred him in less cipher-like roles. So what is it about Apocalypse Now that I do not love? Well, I’ve only ever seen the director’s cut, which retitles the film to Apocalypse Now Redux, released in 2001. The original film is 153 minutes long; Redux is 202 minutes long. There is clearly a big difference, but not for the better.
Though Coppola’s vision for the film, presenting Vietnam as the ultimate hell, remains intact, it also sags in many places. The extra 50 minutes of the film are made up of a few added scenes to sequences we’re all familiar with, such as the sequence dominated by Duvall’s flamboyant soldier and the Playboy section, but there’s also a lengthy subplot set on a French plantation that appears in the Redux. Does it need to be in the movie? According to Coppola, sure; still, this is one of those times where we have to ask if the director’s intent is the intent we should stick with. Just because he says it’s part of the true movie, should we agree that it’s so? Apocalypse Now is filled with memorable visuals, iconic lines, performances, and so on. Its Redux is too expansive, pushing the limit on what we should accept from even the most visionary directors.