Directors' Cuts: True Artistic Vision or Money-Making Schemes?

George Lucas's Lucasfilm finally announced that the first three Star Wars films are going to be released on DVD, come September. Director's cut, Lucasfilm claims. Which is fine and dandy for him because he knows that despite the controversy surrounding his constant, irritating tweaking of the first three films, Star Wars fans are going to shell out top dollar for the set.

In 1997, Lucasfilm announced the release of "Special Editions," which amounted to nothing more than enhanced special effects for the first three films, because Lucas the crybaby claimed the lack of technology in 1977, 1980 and 1983 didn't create the look he felt was sufficient enough. Gee, that's funny; when Star Wars was released in 1977, the state-of-the-art visual effects threw the gauntlet down for future special effects-driven films. Not since 2001: A Space Odyssey had special effects so captivated and thrilled audiences. So why the sour grapes, George? Simple, really: he owns the rights to the films, so he can do with them as he pleases. Don't like the way the X-Wing Fighter swoops down into the Death Star? No problem, CGI will take care of that. Not enough backdrops on Cloud City? No problem, CGI will take of that.

So, where's the original versions, the ones we saw in 1977, 1980 and 1983? Oh, they no longer exist, say Lucasfilm. What we now have are "enhanced" versions that are really watered-down versions that are solely intended for the purpose of raking in more money. Under the guise of "restoration,", which the original trilogy didn't need, people dropped millions of dollars to see the same films with a little more pizzaz.

This isn't to say that "Director's Cuts" are money-making schemes. Sadly, more often than not, film studios will tinker with films in a way they believe an audience will be more receptive to, which in turn weakens the film and makes it less interesting to audiences. Add a new scene here, they'll demand. Or, take these scenes off. The original version of Fatal Attraction ends with Glenn Close's character killing herself and implicating Michael Douglas' character for the "murder". The dreaded "test audience" strongly disliked Adrien Lyne's intended ending, and Paramount demanded newer, more audience-acceptable ending be filmed.

On the other hand, Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate was an example of a director getting his way when he shouldn't have. Fresh off his success with The Deer Hunter, Cimino's Heaven's Gate is four of the most self-indulgent, lost hours ever committed to film. It tanked miserably at the box office and was buried by the critics. It was re-released under heavy edits months later, but the edits couldn't hide the fact that the film was a piece of shit that shouldn't have been greenlit in the first place.

The problem is fundemental: which is the truest vision the director intended? There have been many examples of a film studio ripping films to shreds, despite the wishes of the director. The original version of Ridley Scott's Blade Runner (1982) was muddled by the film studio, made worse by Harrison Ford's wooden voiceover. In Scott's "director's cut," released ten years later, the voiceover is gone, and the one scene that suggests Harrison Ford's character may have more in common with the replicants he is pursuing, however brief that scene is, adds more clarity to a film that seemed befuddling the first time around. In what's probably the most egregious example of a director's cut going too far, Francis Ford Coppola released Apocalypse Now Redux in 2001, with more than an hour's worth of extra footage, footage, mind you, that adds absolutely nothing to the original released in 1979. Most of the new footage centers around a French plantation in Cambodia, which is nothing more than an argument for imperialism that never really gets off the ground. Coppola wanted to make this argument the central theme of his film, but the "new" footage proves unnecessary, and it grinds the film to a halt, making it even harder to watch. The tragedy of this cut is that it's now the official version of Apocalypse Now; filmviewers have now been deprived of the original, superior film version.

The problem with "Director's Cuts" is that for the most part, the director's self-indulgence wins out over rhyme and reason, and we're subjected to a film that for all the intrusiveness Hollywood film studios are known for, sometimes the execs know what the hell they're talking about. Apocalypse Now was too damned long and too damned lugubrious in Francis Ford Coppola's original, now official version, so edits had to be made. Good for Paramount to stick to their guns back then. Shame on them for letting Coppola have his way now, and even more shame for depriving us of the first cut.

The fact is, there's a fine line that's never been established with "Director's Cuts." I, for one, would love to see what Orson Welles intended with The Magnificent Ambersons had RKO Pictures never butchered it down to what they felt was a more reasonable running time. We will most likely never get the chance to see it, if the original reels no longer exist. But for the sake of posterity, mainstream and director's versions of films should and must be made available always. Both versions of Fatal Attraction are widely available, but the original Star Wars will never again see the light of day.