Leave a comment

city_of_dis September 16 2009, 15:38:23 UTC
A lush and beautiful, under-appreciated near masterpiece, possibly overlooked because the theatrical cut was a horrendously compromised attempt to dumb the narrative down for general audiences. The director's cut is a simmering, slinky, robust ride through the halls of sanity.

Reply

colubra September 16 2009, 15:45:58 UTC
Well-said! I normally view a director's cut as interesting additional data: this one is simply transformative, from tp to bottom.

Reply

city_of_dis September 16 2009, 16:04:37 UTC
I think director's cuts are almost invariably superior to editors' cuts; editors work for the studio and usually care mostly about what the studio wants in terms of content, sellability and length. Directors, whose vision the piece was in the first place, have a much, much better idea of how it should play out. I don't think they're at all "interesting additional data," they're how the movie was supposed to be in the first place.

Reply

colubra September 16 2009, 16:13:53 UTC
Which is a fair point, on reflection: there's a lot to be said for the director's original intent being definitive.
On a related note (since Dark City pays a fair bit of homage), I'm very much looking forward to the nearly-complete cut of Metropolis coming in a year or two, when they finish restoration of the print they found in Argentina!

Reply

city_of_dis September 16 2009, 16:16:17 UTC
Me too! I've been hankering to watch Metropolis lately, but have held off, so that the next time I see it, it will be the new cut!

Reply

threnodyeris September 16 2009, 17:27:46 UTC
YAY!!!!!

i saw so much potential in the theatre version, and was pretty disappointed for exactly the reason you say.

i'm putting this on my netflix queue right now.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up