So-Called Director's Cuts & Revisionism

The archetypal Director's Cut was released in 1992.

The joke of course was that this was no such thing, as the vast bulk of the large list of edits that Ridley Scott had specified while he went to finish '1492: Conquest of Paradise' were ignored, as detailed in Paul Sammon's excellent book 'Future Noir'. Nevertheless, the trend started with that release became increasingly prevalent, with Special Edition cuts of 'Aliens' & 'Terminator 2: Judgment Day' getting prominent home video (remember that phrase?) releases and cinematic re-releases of 'Spartacus', 'The Abyss', 'E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial', 'Alien', 'The Exorcist' and 'Apocalypse Now' among many, many others all featuring new versions. Editing between cinema and home video releases (there's that phrase again: home video releases. Is there something wrong with DVDs or blu-rays?) was nothing new even prior to this trend. Minor reframing, correction of continuity errors, slight edits were all fairly de rigeur; 'Batman' (1989) was made to look considerably brighter on home video compared to its original cinema release, at least partly due to the difference in projection mechanism.

Nowadays alternate cuts on even the initial blu-ray/ DVD release are commonplace, giving directors & studios the freedom to cut initial cinema releases for maximum commercial impact while retaining the ability to take a second bite at the cherry for reasons of artistic satisfaction or even just allowing audiences a peek behind the scenes of the creative process.

So where did this freedom get us? Greedo shooting first, of course. The best known example of creative revisionism (and one that I personally loathe) acts as the poster boy for why movies should be left alone. But the problem with this latter idea is that it implies that every movie has a definitive version. A few years ago, a small crew tried to finished 'Star Trek: The Motion Picture' as originally envisaged and without over-reliance on newer techniques and technology. In what way is the painstakingly finished result (the "Director's Edition") worth any less than the originally released movie? The 'Redux' of 'Apocalypse Now' feels like a totally different movie to the original, but not one that I could suggest was  comparably beter or worse. James Cameron (director of 'The Abyss' and 'Aliens') studiously rejects the notion that any of the secondary releases constitute Director's Cuts in any way; he sees them as interesting alternates.

I'm hoping that the blu-ray of 'Star Wars' or 'Episode IV' or whatever we're supposed to call it today doesn't reveal that the Stormtrooper who hits his head on the door frame magically misses it. But equally well 'The Final Cut' of 'Blade Runner' really is my favourite take. The recent iteration of 'I Am Legend' would have been far stronger with its original ending. I like the inhabited base scenes in the newer take of 'Aliens' but the sentry guns add nothing that I find interesting. And just so we're really, really clear, Han shot in cold blood. The plethora of alternative versions of any movie out there has made the concept of a definitive version pretty much meaningless; figure out which one you like and stick with that!