> Does history not teach us anything?

> The Abyss. Studio cuts make the ending unintelligible.

Original cut is intelligible but really stupid. Myself, I prefer the "Huh?" ending because it didn't make me want to scream, "THIS IS MORONIC!" at the movie. On the other hand, everything in the director's cut before the last half-hour is brilliant. Gah.

> Almost Famous. Nearly a half hour cut from the film, but its box office was still soft. It's well received critically, but the director's cut on video is admired much more. Does anybody prefer the shorter version?

I like them both. The longer version is better but... longer. The movie is fairly long as it stands. They really feel like different movies and I have to say the theatrical cut is paced much, much tighter. I understand why the film was released the way it was in the theater.

> Again, I'm not (currently) on a tirade about studio-forced cuts in *general*. I'm just saying, geez, studios are STUPID to hire a Welles or a Scorsese -- with the full understanding that these directors are not commercial giants -- and then cut their films in an utterly *hopeless* attempt to milk more money out of the box office. As Poland put it, "If Miramax picks up a film like Cinema Paradiso and feels that this unknown film from an unknown filmmaker will be better received at a shorter length, the logic is hard to fight. But if you choose to invest in a Scorsese movie, why try to change it into something else?"

It doesn't make a ton of sense, really. I think you sort of have to go on a case-by-case basis, really. I haven't seen either version of "Gangs" so it's hard to say. Poland says he likes the longer version more, but he's not really a reliable critic. Did anyone see where he said "Adaptation" is possibly the best screenplay of *all time*? I have faith that it'll be great, but I'm pretty sure that's a vast overstatement (especially since Poland said that after seeing the movie like once).

I know there are cases where studio interference with an otherwise good director's vision works well. Perhaps the best example is "The Big Sleep," where Warner Bros. made Howard Hawks add a few scenes with Lauren Bacall and tweak the movie a bit. The studio version actually comes out longer, but is significantly better.

I'm guessing this was a happy accident, though, as the additions were made because Bacall was becoming popular at the time. I think what it kind of comes down to is the fact that studios are interested in money while directors tend to be interested in the quality of the film.

>
> I suppose, though, that I can at least be thankful for the modern trend of director's cuts in videos and DVDs, although I'd rather the original release were the "right" one in the first place. This way, though, at least the original vision is available *somewhere*.

What's interesting is how many "director's cuts" are released where the director actually had the final cut in the theatrical version. If I remember right, Cameron Crowe wasn't forced to cut "Almost Famous" by the studio. I don't think Cameron was forced to cut "Abyss" either (though I may be wrong on that). I think part of the reason director's cuts seem superior is the director assembles them after the movie has been completed for some time and the director is more objective. He also knows what worked with audiences and what didn't. So perhaps it's unfair to lay so much blame on studios: director's make mistakes in the editing too.

>And, to be fair, often the director's cuts of films *are* inferior cuts; sometimes it's better if a film is tighter and more brisk. But in an age where studios (often rightly) figure audiences only have 20 second attention spans, the tendency is to cut too much -- rip out everything but the high points, not realizing that it's the glue in between that holds them together.

I have an interesting thought, though. The absolute best American movies were made during the peak of the American studio system. This was not a time when directors had final cut, and the idea of the "auteur" was not exactly one present in the studio system. Despite this lack of creative control by a director, some incredible movies were churned out (with the notable exception of "Citizen Kane" where Welles had total control; that he never had it again is a tragedy). I'm at a loss to explain this.

Stephen