Like it or not, the film business is one of investments. In Hollywood, art has to take a backseat until the producers and studios are happy and feeling safe with their money. They just gave you 100 million dollars, you can’t just release whatever you want. It wasn’t until the 40s when directors were able to take their creativity back with the re-edited release of Charlie Chaplin’s ‘The Gold Rush’, which modernised its original presentation to include an improved musical score, a narrating track and a few removed plot points. Since then, the term ‘Director’s Cut’, ‘Extended Cut’, ‘Unrated Cut’, ‘Alternate Cut’ have all assumed a superior status, even when it’s undeserved. As ‘Zack Snyder’s Justice League’ reigns on its golden throne, ‘Devil’s Advocate Unrated Director’s Cut’ lounges in its lazy boy. Some studios will trick you, some will never let you see what could have been and some films have tragically lost their original vision. How much have they cut over the years?
Director’s cuts are a solace from the bias of commercial entertainment. It can be argued that film is the most dominating medium of art, even invading the space of literature, video games and music with adaptations and concert films rolling out every year. With that significance comes the never-ending restrictions and creative abuse that is systematically applied to earn the biggest bucks at the box office. Rob Zombie’s ‘Halloween’, for example, had a harrowing production. Rob Zombie would be constantly abused daily by Bob Weinstein, the producer. When Zombie appeared on Howie Mandel’s podcast, he spoke in particular about the notes Weinstein would bombard him with.
“Sometimes the ideas got so crazy off a path where it would be like ‘Okay, I think Michael Myers should actually be this….’ by the end, he’s an astronaut in space”
However, when Zombie released the theatrical cut of ‘Halloween’, sneakily presenting his cut, the Weinstein’s true colours began to show.
“He calls me, ‘We’re adding more screenings, this thing’s going through the roof!’, Harvey calls Bob and goes ‘If you had listened to me we could’ve done double!’…I was talking to some people in their office, they’re like ’They’re fighting, they’re screaming why it isn’t 60 million!’”
While the Weinsteins are not a reputable depiction of every Hollywood producer, they’re an important example of the poison that infects and slowly kills the artistic integrity of film. Rob Zombie was just one of the lucky few to succeed against them
One of the most blatant abuses of film cuts is the “unrated” cut. You’ll usually find these plastered on the covers of horror and comedy films and they’ll mostly only add less than a minute of footage. For example, the unrated director cut of ‘Saw’ adds 24 seconds of footage which only stretches a few scenes. The most abhorrent example I’ve had the displeasure of witnessing is the ‘Unrated Director’s Cut’ of ‘Devil’s Advocate’. Make no mistake, ‘Devil’s Advocate’ is an exemplary film, the day after I watched it, I repeatedly rehearsed Al Pacino’s speech about God bellowing out “all of it, Kevin! All of it!”. However, for the distributor to proudly proclaim an unseen version of the film, with the only change being the addition of original footage of a sculpture (which has no effect on runtime) is bordering on offensive. The original footage had to be removed after Frederick Hart sued the studio over the sculptures looking too similar to one of his artworks, ‘Ex Nihilo’. Hart shortly settled in court which restricted all home sale copies and TV showings from showing the sculpture. Despite the fact that the sculpture has no bearing on the plot, the distributors decided to capitalise with the ‘Director’s Cut’ label and made it clear that they’re out for a quick buck.
Another way studios and directors may attempt to milk the last few drops from the cash cow is through repeat final cuts. In some cases, studios will have multiple goes at churning out another slightly different version of a beloved classic. Take for example, the sci-fi classic ‘Blade Runner’, which has 3 release versions. It wasn’t until 10 years after its theatrical release that Warner Bros. created The Director’s Cut, which unfortunately was not directly completed by Scott, but by a film restorer with Scott’s notes. Another 15 years later in 2007, Ridley Scott himself put out The Final Cut, the definitive version of ‘Blade Runner’ and the third time they asked for our money. Warner Bros. lied with The Director’s Cut and profited heavily on our ignorance. Is it really moral to charge us multiple times when we paid to experience an artist’s pure vision?
But alas, the trouble doesn’t stop here. In 1984, Sergio Leone released ‘Once Upon A Time In America’, a film lauded as one of the greatest crime films of all time. In the US, The Ladd Company cut the film down to 2 hours and 20 minutes (the original runtime being 3 hours and 50 minutes). The original cut was later released on a two-tape VHS shortly after the film’s theatrical run, but it wasn’t until 2014, 25 years after Sergio Leone’s death, Warner Bros. unveiled the ‘Extended Director’s Cut’ at a whopping 4 hours and 11 minutes. According to the Warner Bros. website, the new scenes couldn’t be restored to the same quality until then. Perhaps they were too busy to restore it earlier, perhaps they had trouble, but perhaps they were waiting until the 30th Anniversary of the film. Is it moral this way? To wait until an anniversary to unveil the most accurate depiction of Leone’s work, when they’ve possessed it all this time?
Maybe I’m wrong and there are no ulterior motives to any of this, but keep your eyes out. Studios have shown throughout the years that they will lie for a chance to earn more money, whether it be claiming a director’s cut on a 10-second addition, releasing multiple final cuts or selling a posthumous director’s cut. It’s heartbreaking to think that ‘Once Upon A Time In America’ was Leone’s last film before his death in 1989 and that he didn’t live long enough to see his vision correctly realised. Unfortunately, movies are an investment, and if the opinions of the executives don’t match those of the filmmakers, footage has to be cut to protect that investment. Films, at this time, are commercial art.
Leave a Reply