Custom Cuts

Over at Word Around the Net, Christopher Taylor has an interesting post up about the movie, Blade Runner. The main point of the post is that - in this case, at least - the original, studio cut of the film is better than the Director's Cut that was issued on DVD a few years later. All of which brings up the question of who really does know best when it comes to an artistic creation.

The theatrical release of the film included a voice-over by Harrison Ford as Rick Deckard, the titular character assigned to terminate the replicants who have broken the law by coming to earth. The voice-over was designed to add more of a film-noir aspect to the movie and also help explain some of the narrative that might otherwise be confusing. The director, Ridley Scott, objected to the studio version and released his Director's Cut on DVD. The original did well at the box office and is considered a classic of the genre. The DVD has sold well, although my understanding is that a "definitive" version of the film won't be released until later this year.

So, which one is the better film?

Chris Taylor feels the studio release is better and, after watching the Director's Cut the other night, I would agree with him. But does that make us right? I mean, what is the criteria for judging? Is it strictly popularity? The truth is, neither version of the film is one of my favorites, but if I had to pick one, I'd pick the theatrical version as the one I liked better. The movie has a lot of things going for it: Interesting characters, good casting, excellent cinematography and groundbreaking special effects, and a story that makes you think.

However, it is remorselessly downbeat in its attitude, with a very bleak outlook on humanity and the future. The saving grace of the theatrical version - and the point of the studio interference, I think - is that it leaves you with the hope that Deckard and Rachael may somehow surmount their grim future or at least live their few remaining years with some measure of happiness. The ending of the Director's Cut reminds me of Alien 3, which, while also a well-made, well-told, visually arresting film, leaves you with an ending that makes you wonder why in the hell you ever invested any time or emotion in the characters to begin with.

But that's just me. So does that make my reaction to the director's version the right one? If 60% of the people who watch it agree with me, does that mean the director was clueless about his own film? I would argue that the point of any artistic work is to be read, seen, etc. but is it necessarily to be liked? Ridley Scott might very well respond to my reaction to his version and say "Well, guess what? That's the film I wanted to make and if you don't like it, tough rocks".

Of course, in Hollywood the name of the game is money and any film that doesn't make any (or enough) is, by definition, a failure. From that standpoint, the studio changes make sense because it led to a more successful release. But how would you feel if you wrote a story or made a film that became wildly popular only after someone else got hold of it and made changes to it that you didn't agree with?

Would you still feel like it was your story? And how much would that matter?