A reader named Dan writes:
“I decided to watch Apollo 18 after
reading your review. One of the things I was surprised by was the amount
of deleted and alternate footage. I was wondering if you ever factor
deleted or alternate versions of a movie into your reviews and how that factors
into your enjoyment, or lack thereof. Thanks.”
Dan, that’s a fantastic question, and important
one in this age of special editions, director’s editions, extended cuts and the
like.
All these different cuts and editions indeed make
it more difficult for film critics and reviewers to be definitive about a film’s
quality, because the question immediately comes up: which version did you see?
In horror films, the difference between cuts
can prove especially vital. A movie
might get hacked down to a PG-13 for theatrical release, but come on strong as
an R on DVD. Those lost and restored
moments aren’t just about gore, they’re often about intensity, and the level of a horror film’s intensity can indeed
make a difference in considering its artistry and success.
Your question asks about deleted scenes and
alternate versions, so I’ll tackle each of those separately.
I can’t claim that my approach is right, or the
only approach on this subject, but I am something of a hard-liner regarding
deleted scenes. I don’t factor them for
in my final assessment. Those scenes may
be interesting, or valuable, but they were still deleted, and a movie is, in
the final analysis, a text. We don’t review books on the basis of deleted
chapters or passages, and nor should we do that with film. That doesn’t make them uninteresting from a behind-the-scenes
perspective, however.
Extended cuts are a different story and require…flexibility. I’m a judicious fellow by nature, and I
believe that in terms of alternate versions of movies, you have to consider
each on a case-by case basis. I can look
at the special edition of The Abyss (1989) for instance, and
see how much the new cut adds significantly to the film. Yet I can also look at the special edition of
Alien
vs. Predator (2004) and detect it is not worth the time and energy to
re-review after seeing the theatrical cut.
Perhaps it is my forty-something year old
mind-set, but I feel somewhat conflicted about the whole matter of alternate
editions. I possess the (perhaps
antiquated) belief that once a movie is released and it comes before a paying audience,
that’s the time to begin discussing it as art…in that theatrical form. I don’t like re-jiggering after theatrical release,
by and large. The endeavor should always
be to release the best movie you can the first time around.
Yet by the same token, I do understand that
some filmmakers aren’t allowed to get the cut they want into theaters, and so
their voice is important as well.
But again, a comparison to literature is
fruitful. Writers don’t always get the last say about what goes in in that
context, either. They run the gauntlet
of editor, proofreader, etc., and end up with an approximation of their vision,
but one with other voices in the mix.
You could say that film, a collaborative art form by nature, goes
through the same procedure.
There’s just no easy answer here, alas. Perhaps to my detriment, I prefer to watch a
film and evaluate it very carefully, and not return to special editions unless
I have some strong reason to suspect that the special edition will change significantly
how the film can be read or interpreted.
I feel the Ridley Scott cut of Blade Runner (1982) adds meaningfully
to our understanding of that film, for instance. But I tend to think that example is also the
exception.
Many, many “special” editions are simply money grabs, a
marketing tool pure and simple.
Don’t
forget to ask me your questions at Muirbusiness@yahoo.com
I tend to agree with you, most scenes in films are edited out for a reason and very often are superfluous to the story or narrative flow. "Blade Runner" is one of the rare exceptions to that rule, and moreover is one of the very few with a completely re-jiggered "Final Cut" that greatly improves on the original by and large, even with re-shot scenes in a few spots. The debate is raging again with the upcoming Blu-Ray release of another Scott film (which was far better than its been given credit for, I think), "Prometheus", with a wealth of scenes that may or may not deepen understanding of the film.
ReplyDeleteWhat about Ridley Scott's dir.'s cut of 'Alien'? The insertion of the one scene in which it showed Ripley encountering a still-alive, yet horribly cocooned Dallas is a scene that is hard to believe was left on the cutting room floor. Admittedly, it does not add necessarily to the narrative, but it does add to the horror of the film greatly.
ReplyDeleteJohn, good thoughts. My favorite example is Escape From The Planet Of The Apes(1971). I would like to see the filmed deleted scene of Cornelius, Zira and Milo in A.N.S.A. spacesuits inside the interior of Taylor's A.N.S.A. Spaceship in Earth's orbit as the Alpha-Omega bomb explodes, then re-enters the atmosphere to splashdown in the Pacific. This would may the film perfect for me.
ReplyDeleteSGB