Extended Editions: The Unkindest Cut of All?
User Rating:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
by Dale J. Nauertz
It was just announced (perhaps a month ago) that “Star Wars” is finally coming to Blu-Ray. As those who have listened to our podcast for more than five minutes probably know, I love “Star Wars”. It is, perhaps, the first piece of popular culture I ever loved. In theory the news that these films are finally making their debut in High Definition should make me excited. Instead, it merely pisses me off.
It angers me because I suspect, nay, I KNOW that George Lucas likely has absolutely no intention of releasing what myself and probably everyone else in my age bracket truly wants: the original theatrical versions of these films, before George decided to “improve” them for a 1997 re-release into theaters.
I remember those giddy, early months in 1997. Myself and other geeks were ecstatic because the “Star Wars” trilogy was returning to theaters. For the first time in more than a decade we would be able to see these beloved films on the big screen. For some, myself included, it would be the first time we had ever seen these films on the big screen. What sweetened the deal was that Lucas would “improve” some of the special effects in these films (which were good enough to have captured our collective geek love in the first place but had, admittedly, started to look a little creaky by the time “Twister” came along) using the awesome tool of CGI. We (at least I) thought this was going to be the coolest thing of all time. And, because people like Jones and I seem to have a blind spot when it comes to anything related to these beloved films, it actually was…until “Return of the Jedi” returned to theaters.
By the time “Jedi” rolled around, we had already seen the other two films again and had debated the merits of the “improved” special effects ad nauseum. I remember thinking that the new and “improved” effects in “Star Wars: A New Hope” were actually pretty cool. Granted, I thought the new Jabba looked pretty sketchy, but otherwise the new effects sort of brought the film up to date. “The Empire Strikes Back” only boasted a couple of tweaks (Even Lucas seems to know that he should leave well enough alone on that score, when your film is hailed as perfection by critics worldwide you should probably take a “hands off” approach), all of which were fine. I remember defending the new versions. I probably even said something blasphemous such as “they’re better than the originals”. As I said before, I sometimes have a “Star Wars” blind spot. (A little less than a decade later I would go on to say that “Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith” was the best of all the “Star Wars” movies, another blasphemous statement I have since come to regret.)
But then came “Return of the Jedi” and everything changed. Apparently, the primitive special effects of 1983 had prevented George from realizing his original vision for the third act of the “Star Wars” saga. Specifically, I had kept him from including a musical number between a squishy ball of crap with protruding Tina Turner lips and what can best be described as Joe Cocker crossed with a particularly hairy cockroach. To which my only response is “Thank you, primitive special effects”.
Not only is this number absolutely awful on every level (well, not EVERY level: I suppose he is a very well-rendered hairy cockroach thing) but this sequence brings the entire film to a screeching halt and makes us realize that George Lucas has been pissing on us the entire time. After viewing this, everything he added to the first two films is a lot less forgivable. I accepted Greedo shooting first without much complaint the first time I saw it, but after the addition of the hairy cockroach that moment seemed like an absolute atrocity. In fact, I couldn’t even enjoy the rest of “Return of the Jedi” in its theatrical presentation. I had been yanked out of the film’s delightful world and was utterly unable to return. That grating musical interlude, followed by the “improved” Pit of Sarlacc sequence (boasting an inexplicable cameo by the plant from “Little Shop of Horrors”) was my turning point. Suddenly Lucas was not the genius who had helped build my imagination and enhance my childhood, he was the dickhead who had whored this wonderful childhood experience out in order to make a couple of bucks.
Now, in and of itself, none of this is a problem. Sure, his “special” editions of the “Star Wars” saga are not that hot, but I could live with them if only for one little thing: they have supplanted the original films and become the only available versions! The films I love are now gone, except in a crappy, non-remastered, non-anamorphic transfer included as a virtual afterthought to the second cash-in DVD release of these film. As you watch them you can almost hear George Lucas saying “There, that ought to shut them up”.
I have heard people defending this decision on the internet (”They’re HIS movies, he can do whatever he wants with them”) and I can sort of see their point, and I’m not going to be one of those whiny internet Communists that insists that movies belong to “The People” once they are released to the world and the creator of those works must thereafter leave them alone and pristine for all time, although that point holds a certain degree of validity as well. The truth is that I really don’t care what the director of any film does with that film AS LONG AS WE STILL HAVE THE CHOICE TO WATCH THE ORIGINAL VERSION, THE VERSION WE BECAME FANS OF IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! I, like my feminist ancestors, am simply fighting for the freedom of choice. That’s really the only thing I want. I don’t care if he releases new, further “improved” versions of the “Star Wars” films every five years from now until the end of time. I don’t care if he puts out a version that includes his originally intended love scene between Han and Chewie (a scene he was technically unable to realize on film until just now) as long as the original versions of these films are still available to us! Would I still want the original versions of these films if the special editions weren’t as crappy? Probably, yes…but I’m sure it wouldn’t be as big of an issue to me. Lucas certainly has the right to revise these films however he wants as often as he wants, but I also have the right to bitch about never being able to see the versions of these films that I initially fell in love with, and I will…until Lucas remasters those versions and makes them available on Blu-Ray. See, it’s just that easy to shut me up, George. Just bring out the same films you brought out in 1977…and 1980…and 1983, and present them alongside whatever version you currently prefer. I’m pretty sure he had to touch up the original versions in order to craft the abominable “special editions” in the first place. And even if he didn’t, most of the work is already done. The “special editions” really aren’t that much different, so his Skywalker Ranch hands only have to remaster about twenty minutes of film (tops) to make them look as good as Lucas’s beloved “special editions”.
But the “Star Wars” films aren’t the only example of this phenomenon, they’re simply the most famous. Take “Dances With Wolves”, for instance. When “Dances With Wolves” was first released onto DVD, it was the same version of the film that had swept the Oscars back in 1990. But the DVD format was all about double-dipping, so when MGM brought out another edition of the film a few years later, they included some extra footage that had not been in the original theatrical cut of the film. As a longtime fan of “Dances With Wolves”, I was happy with this development. But then I began notice something rather troubling: the extended cut of “Dances With Wolves” was available everywhere while the original theatrical cut seemed to have been phased out. That first DVD printing disappeared from the shelves and has never been re-issued. What’s even more disconcerting is that the new 20th Anniversary Blu-Ray of the film contains the extended cut and nothing more. The new footage that was added to the extended cut of the film is fine, but none of it is particularly memorable. (The only scene I specifically remember is the one that explained why the fort is abandoned when Lt. Dunbar, played by Kevin Costner, arrives there near the beginning of the film. However, this explanation merely destroys the wonderful sense of mystery that hung over the original film without adding anything especially noteworthy in its place.) The theatrical version of “Dances With Wolves” clocked in at an appropriately epic three hours. The extended cut is damned near four hours long, taking a film that many detractors already considered bloated and bloating it further still. This new cut doesn’t make the film better, it simply makes it longer. The extended edition was interesting to watch once, just out of curiosity, but if I want to watch “Dances With Wolves”, I’ll stick with the version I saw originally, the one that I still think deserved the Best Picture Oscar over “Goodfellas” (and I LOVE “Goodfellas”). I was lucky enough to purchase that version on DVD back in the format’s early days. Those who were not so lucky may never see the superior theatrical version again.
Consider also “The Good, The Bad and the Ugly”. It, too, was released in an extended, remastered edition several years back and, like “Dances With Wolves”, this extended edition seems to be the only one currently available to consumers. It is certainly the only one that has been released on Blu-Ray. Like “Dances With Wolves”, the added footage isn’t bad (not at all) but it isn’t essential either. I can’t honestly judge the merits of this new footage because I’ve seen the original theatrical cut of “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly” more than a dozen times and whenever I watch the extended cut the new scenes merely distract me from the film.
“Kingdom of Heaven” is another film where only the extended, director’s cut is available on Blu-Ray (though both versions still exist on DVD) but, in the case of this film, I can’t really quibble too much about the disappearance of the theatrical cut. The theatrical cut was good, but Ridley Scott’s director’s cut is a bona fide masterpiece, restoring subplots and whole story arcs that were slashed to make the film more commercially viable (i.e. “shorter”)at the box office (and the film still tanked, unfortunately, probably because audiences were feeling sword and sandal fatigue after being inundated with films such as “Troy” and “King Arthur” following the smash success of Scott’s own “Gladiator”, which is a shame because “Kingdom of Heaven” in any form is better than any of those films). Still, would it kill the studio to put both cuts of the film on the Blu Ray, a format that was touted to have far more storage capacity than DVD and which, far too often, is underutilized?
While we’re on the subject, when was the last time you saw the theatrical cut of “Anchorman”? Or “The 40-Year-Old Virgin”? Before you answer, take a good look at your DVD boxes. That’s right, you’ve been watching the “unrated director’s cut” all these years. The same goes for “Knocked Up”, “Forgetting Sarah Marshall”, “Superbad” and countless others. The theatrical cuts of these films have disappeared in favor of bloated, allegedly “raunchier” versions that have now become the only available cuts. This is a common practice with comedy releases, a marketing tool to get you to buy the film in hopes that you’re getting something that was “too hot” or “too offensive” for theaters but which was actually, in most cases, just “too long”. In the case of “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” I KNOW that the film had better pacing and was, in fact, funnier when I saw it theatrically. But since that cut of the film has been lost to the ages, I guess I’ll never be able to confirm that suspicion.
As I mentioned earlier, my problem is not with the existence of these director’s cuts and extended editions and unrated versions. The problem arises when these alternate versions of a film are the only ones offered to us, which often leads to the original and (generally) superior versions of these films being lost to the sands of time and the revised editions becoming the definitive ones. Look at “Lawrence of Arabia”, for example. I have no problem with the restored version of “Lawrence of Arabia” that was released onto home video in the 1980’s, mainly because it’s the only version of the film I have ever seen. This version of “Lawrence” is a sumptuous, intelligent masterpiece of breathtaking scope and yet startling intimacy that paints a multi-layered and not-always-flattering picture of a fascinating and important historical figure. But I still wonder how the film played originally, in the version that audiences saw upon its initial release. I understand that the now-standard restored print of the film is the one that David Lean originally fought for, and I certainly have no problems with it, but don’t we deserve the choice of also seeing the film as it was originally shown (even though, from what I have read, the current version is far superior)? I know which one Lean preferred, and which one has become the definitive version, but I could appreciate the differences and alleged improvements much more if I could see what it was like before they “fixed” it.
In most cases, I believe this is what directors dream of when they release their “director’s cut” of a film, that the film they wanted to make will become the preferred version, vindicating their personal choices and proving that their vision, and not that of the meddling studio, is the right one. And it does, occasionally, happen that way. The most famous example of a director’s cut that replaces the original in the hearts and minds of all who see it is Ridley Scott’s “Blade Runner”. When it was released in 1982, after much studio interference, it was a box office failure and largely a critical one as well. But when Ridley got the chance to release his version into cinemas and on home video in 1992, it became an instant classic, a towering achievement in the sci-fi genre. I’ve seen both versions and, though I do enjoy some of Harrison Ford’s detective movie narration in the original cut, Scott’s director’s cut is easily the superior film, one that doesn’t beat you over the head with oversimplifications and overexplanations and ends on a more ambiguous note that jibes with the rest of the film (unlike the horribly incongruous happy ending that the studio insisted upon). The most telling part of that last sentence, however, is “I’ve seen both versions”. The director’s cut is the one Ridley would prefer us to watch, it’s the one that became the definitive version, and yet both versions (hell, THREE versions) have been released on the Collector’s Edition Blu-Ray and DVD. They’re both there for the audience to discuss, debate, choose from, and, above all, SEE.
Whenever a director tries to hide the original cut of a film in favor of his own preferred version, whether he calls it a “special edition” or an “extended edition” or simply a “redux”, it almost feels like the director doesn’t believe that the version of the film that he or she prefers is the one we, the audience, would if we had our freedom of choice. There’s a certain insecurity in this “my way or nothing” approach. Certainly Steven Spielberg didn’t destroy (or even shelve) the original print of “E.T.” when he released his twentieth anniversary special edition. Both versions are right there on the DVD and you can watch whichever you’d like (and you’ll probably watch the special edition with the walkie-talkies instead of the guns once, out of curiosity, and then go right back to watching the one you grew up with…I know I did). Francis Ford Coppola originally made “Apocalypse Now” unavailable in favor of “Apocalypse Now Redux” but he’s since either come to his senses (or listened to the clamor of the audience) and included both cuts on subsequent DVD and Blu-Ray releases.
I’m sure Peter Jackson would probably prefer that we watch the extended cuts of his “Lord of the Rings” films, but he offers us the original theatrical DVDs as well. In this case, the extended cuts have been so universally beloved that there was a general outcry when ONLY the theatrical versions were brought out on Blu-Ray.
All of this brings us back to the “Star Wars” special editions. If Lucas is so confident that these are the definitive versions, the ones that any true “Star Wars” fan would prefer, then he has nothing to lose by giving us the theatrical cuts as well and allowing the fans to do their own equivalent of the “Pepsi Challenge”. Give us the freedom of choice, George. Steven did it. Francis did it. Hell, even Ridley did it (at least once). Or is it that George can’t stand the special editions himself, but doesn’t want to lose face by admitting it? Having watched Joe Cockaroach’s musical number again while crafting this article, I’ve come to the conclusion that this is the only theory that makes any sense.
Be the bigger man, George. Release both versions. I promise we won’t think any less of you. After seeing the prequels, I don’t even think we can.
