Theatrical Version or Director's Cut Part 2
I wrote a post 18 month’s ago regarding whether a directors cut of a film is superior by default to the version originally shown in cinemas. Obviously the answer was no and I then went on to give three examples of films where I think the theatrical release is better to lengthier or substantially altered director’s cut that was subsequently made available at a later date. This time round in this post, I would like to do the complete opposite. I shall provide some examples of films that I think are significantly improved by a longer cut or a substantially, restructured edit. Note some of these examples are technically not a “director’s cuts” but a restoration or reconstruction of the director’s original vision. I shall endeavour to highlight what specific material or broader changes make each respective film “better”. As ever, all of these examples are a matter of subjective opinion and my views are presented as such, not “fact”.
Theatrical Version or Director's Cut?
Not all film director’s have the luxury of “final cut”. The right to ensure that the completed version of a film corresponds with their creative vision. Films are commercial undertakings and sometimes the producers, film studio or other interested parties get to assert their wishes over that of the director. Often this can be due to practical considerations such as running time or budget. On occasions, this can be down to major creative and artistic differences. Hence the theatrical release of a film may be considered flawed, unfinished or just plain wrong by the director, if changes have been imposed, regardless of the reasons. Therefore, a director’s cut of a film can offer a significantly different cinematic vision over the original theatrical release. They can present an opportunity to fix perceived problems or just put more narrative meat on the bones. This may lead to a film being critically reappraised.