Directors cut, please explain.

[snapper]

hi all,

for a while now I have been very confused by these releases.

I thought the director controlled the takes of the film when they record the movie. It's this person that yells out cut ect...

I also beleived the director and editor worked very closely to produce the final movie.

So what the hell is this directors cut edn then? I though the original release was a directors cut. Do they change their mind later and decide to re-edit the film, perhaps due to complaints or suggestions from other film gurus? Or doesn't the director have great control in the editing room?

thanks

[MrMacabre]

Hi death,

It's actually the producers (those that invest the money) that have control over a film under most circumstances. In fact, I'm quite sure that either the Executive Producer or Producer even has the power to fire a director in the name of protecting the investment.

A lot of the mainstream directors these days have clauses in their contracts that guarantees them final cut, so then they only have to deal with the MPAA in regards to the version / finished piece they want to release.

Should the MPAA label a film an NC-17, the director then has to go back and make slight adjustments to bring the sex, or language, or gore level down to that suitable for an R rating. This is because an NC-17 will basically kill the grosses for a film, as many newspaper / film advertisers will refuse to advertise an NC-17.

That's why, when a DVD like Jason Goes To Hell - Unrated Director's Cut is released on R1, you'll notice much more sex and gore than in the theatrical cut, as home video is different to theatrical runs (easier going) and hopefully by then, their budget has been recouperated with plenty of profit. These versions are usually great for fans and newbies alike because they're seeing the un-tainted presentation as envisioned by the director.

With that said, there are still many companies (like Paramount, which hold the rights to Friday the 13th Parts 1-8) that refuse to release Uncut / Unrated material. Either way, DVD Politics come into play and this is more of an American issue than an Australian one.

Btw, this is just my understanding of it from what I've learnt / read over the years. If anyone knows otherwise, please dont heisitate to correct me.

[MrMacabre]

Originally posted by death
Do they change their mind later and decide to re-edit the film

Only if their names are George Luca$ or $teven $pielberg. :p LOL

[cinetone]

A director is involved with the production through what is referred to as the "director's cut" -- the edit of the film that the director feels is his/her "vision" for the piece. Once they have completed their cut, their job/contract is at an end.

It is NOT the director's film (in 99.9% of times). Final responsibility for what is released generally rests with the producers -- it's THEIR film... it's the INVESTORS' film... and the director is an employee. Director does not get final cut unless there is a clause in their contract giving them final cut. You can count on one hand how many directors get "final cut" (not including low budget, indie or auteur pieces -- I'm talking studio pictures and general commercial film production).

It is not necessarily a bad thing to change a director's cut; most directors' cuts that I've seen pale in comparison to what was oriignally released -- a good example being ALIENS. The director's cut of that film is, in my opinion, awful. There is only one scene in it that adds anything to plot or character (the scene where we learn Ripley had a daughter, which gives more coherency to her becoming the surrogate mother to the girl in the film). Apart from that, every other scene in the director's cut of ALIENS is redundant.

Another example of a poor director's cut is DEEP RED (aka PROFONDO ROSSO) as released by Anchor Bay on DVD. There's an awful lot of flab and repeated information. DEEP RED is one of my fave films, but the director's cut is nowhere near as good as the substantially shorter dubbed English language version. Personally, I prefer the Italian theatrcial release cut which pops up on SBS from time to time.

Movie fans scream blue murder when a director's vision is tampered with... yadda, yadda, yadda... but the thing about film making is that it's a collaborative process AND it is all about subjective opinions (both the making of the film and the viewing of it).

This is a subject that can be debated endlessly -- I'm all for director's cuts (when they're good), but for the most part I've not liked many of them and found them to be indulgent.

[MrMacabre]

Originally posted by cinetone
Another example of a poor director's cut is DEEP RED (aka PROFONDO ROSSO) as released by Anchor Bay on DVD. There's an awful lot of flab and repeated information. DEEP RED is one of my fave films, but the director's cut is nowhere near as good as the substantially shorter dubbed English language version. Personally, I prefer the Italian theatrcial release cut which pops up on SBS from time to time.

I've only ever seen the Director's Cut, and I will admit that in the guts of it, there is a good 20-30 minutes of boredom. LOL

I'd be interested to see the italian theatrical cut.

Might do some DVD hunting later, see what region has which cuts.

[snapper]

hi,

thanks for the replies.
I thought the producer just paid for it and the director controlled it, but I stand (actually sit :D) corrected.

Now I know why the bigger directors are also exec producers and producers, they want complete control.

Your replies have now got me interested to know which movies have a better directors cut version released?

In particular I hear people complaining/commenting of the lack of a directors cut for Lethal Weapon 4, is the Directors Cut ver better for parts 1-3?

thanks

[MrMacabre]

Originally posted by death
Now I know why the bigger directors are also exec producers and producers, they want complete control.Same with the smalltime productions, like Clerks. I'm pretty sure Kevin Smith also had some sort of Producer credit in that.

Originally posted by death
In particular I hear people complaining/commenting of the lack of a directors cut for Lethal Weapon 4, is the Directors Cut ver better for parts 1-3? To be honest, those sorts of "Director's Cuts" (which come decades after the original with mere minutes more) are simply cash-ins I believe.
Look at the Star Wars Trilogy. Does Luca$ even remember what he had in the original? There have been so many alterations it aint funny. And yep, supposedly more to come...
:rolling:

[linton]

Originally posted by MrMacabre
Only if their names are George Luca$ or $teven $pielberg. :p LOL

Haha, reminds me of that episode of south park not long ago, where they where going to re-release raiders of the lost ark.
:) :)

[MrMacabre]

Originally posted by linton
Haha, reminds me of that episode of south park not long ago, where they where going to re-release raiders of the lost ark.
:) :)

Lets not laugh too hard.

Wouldn't put it past him. LOL

[Sauceman]

Originally posted by linton
Haha, reminds me of that episode of south park not long ago, where they where going to re-release raiders of the lost ark.
:) :)

With all the guns digitally replaced with WALKIE TALKIES! :dD

[King Eric]

Even though a director may have control over final cut they also have contractual obligations to the studio to deliver a movie no longer than a certain number of minutes.Time limitations can mean that some very good scenes are left out of a movie.Listen to the deleted scene comm with richard kelly on donnie darko and it is clear that he was very upset at having cut scenes to achieve this.
In luc besson's leon the professional the us distributors cut 24 min from the original movie because they got nervous about bad publicity it might draw with a close relationship between a middle aged man and a 12 year old girl.
There are a couple of great deleted scenes in boogie nights that i recon diserved to be in the movie but there again how long will some people sit in a movie theartre?Dvd is the ideal medium for the real fans of movies who dont want to be short changed just to satsify a studio's need to get one extra showing in a day.

[Tsargrad]

If you want a good comparison between directors cuts and studio cuts.

Go by Brazil Criterion... (then sell it to me at a reduced price :))

It has the full international cut, as Terry Gilliam wanted, and then the love conquers all tame cut (which I have not seen).

Personally director should have all say. Sure its the studios money, but it's his art and they pay him to do his art.

[craptest]

Originally posted by death


Your replies have now got me interested to know which movies have a better directors cut version released?



I think people sometimes 'over estimate' the directors role in a films creation. I know that sounds incredibly daft, but often folks don't realise what a huge collaborative effort film making is. And how much is sometimes out of the directors control. Blame the french I guess (Auteur theory - http://www.cinemazine.com/engels/archief/kael/eng1.html).

Some of the greatest movies ever made were products of their times. A combination of accidents, financial restraints, forced comprimises and power struggles.

That's why I often worry when directors come back to their work years later. No longer constrained by time or money, surrounded by yes men, they go about creating 'the definative version'. Not a bad thing when its 'Beach Titty Party 3', but what about if its a film you already consider perfect? Mmm.... :confused:

But I digress. I was planning to list a few director's cuts that I think 'improve' upon the original... and a few examples of "please take the brush away cause the friggin' reckin' it'. But I'm all out of ink....

If a director wants to go back and 'fix' a film, that's fine. But don't assume its the 'definative version'. Because that's based on another assumption -that the film was entirely his (hers) to define in the first place...

cinetone's comments were spot on.


(great thread btw....)

[Tsargrad]

one film where I prefer the new cut is Apocalypse Now: Redux.

The whole scene w/ the french settlers is terrfic to the story.. the french settlers are ignored in all vietnam films, and they were there during the war since it was a french territory for a long time.

[cinetone]

...is one of the more controversial battles over director's cut. From what I understand, in that instance, Gilliam had director's cut approval in his contract and what the producers did was a breach of contract.

Regarding directors and their "art", the director is left alone to do their thing (hence the first cut being known as the director's cut)... it's only once they've completed the cut that their job is finished. If they've done a good job and delivered what they were employed to deliver, there's usually no problem and any further changes made are minor.

It's a good idea not to use film and art in the same sentence too quickly -- it's not a pure art form. It's the most expensive artform and therefore dominated by business decisions, not artistic ones.

[Tsargrad]

yeah true... in the end of the day its money.. ill clarrify that I dont think armageddon is art, but films like brazil I definitely think they are. its so offbeat its just a sensation

[King Eric]

It's a good idea not to use film and art in the same sentence too quickly -- it's not a pure art form. It's the most expensive artform and therefore dominated by business decisions, not artistic ones.

Not all movies are made for a dumbed down hollywood market,thats why we have a thriving indipendant movie industry going on making movies like donnie darko.They are not worried about how many million they can make in the first week.
When sam raimi and the boys did the evil dead they never expected to make anything.They where just having fun doing something they loved.
Most of the exciting things in movies happen outside the hollywood system i recon with original stuff like "Ring" comming from japan a good example.Hollywood just end up translating a dumbed down version for the dumbed down punters.

[cinetone]

Originally posted by eric b
Not all movies are made for a dumbed down hollywood market...

I prefer indie movies too, always have; there's a lot more freedom to do something different and you (usually) don't have a team of people looking over your shoulder questioning everything you do. Bottom line though, someone has to pay for the movie and it's nigh impossible to find investors who will invest with no expectation of return. Unless one is paying for the film entirely out of their own pocket, the same rules apply for indies. For better or worse, no matter what the intention of the filmmakers (e.g. Richard Kelly/Donnie Darko and Sam Raimi/Evil Dead) they still have a responsibility to the money people and will make decisions in accordance with that responsibility (it's the only way not to lose control of one's film).