Some Case Studies
Last week's article examined some of the issues and ideas surrounding director's cuts, special editions and re-releases in the age of the Digital Versatile Disc. Over the next two articles I will delve deeper with some recent (and not so recent) case studies. This week: Blade Runner, Star Wars, and E.T. the Extra Terrestrial.
Ridley Scott's seminal future-noir, Blade Runner (1982), was one of the first films to use the small screen to re-emerge in a radically altered form. In its original theatrical release, the film ended with Deckard, the hunter / hero of the film, escaping the spiritual corruption of futuristic LA with Rachel, an android with whom he has fallen in love. The happy ending and Deckard's final voiceover seemed quite out of step with the noirish themes of the rest of the film, and it became apparent that much of this material had been added (from off-cuts of The Shining (1980)) at a late stage to appease studio bosses, who were unhappy at the film's dark tone and ambiguous story-line. Under Ridley Scott's supervision, the film was re-released in 1991 with the voiceover removed, and the original (downbeat) ending and several key sequences restored. Crucially, the new edit also added a radical story-line in which it is implied that Deckard may in fact be a Replicant himself, adding a new layer of complexity to his character and his relationship with the Replicants he has hunted down.
The Director's Cut of Blade Runner is undoubtedly a superior and more complete film than its parent, and any subsequent television or cinema release has invariably showed it in place of the original, to the extent that the Director's Cut has essentially supplanted Scott's first theatrical version. But which is the 'real' Blade Runner? The inferior version which reflects the commercial and artistic environment in which it was produced or the superior cut which is a product of hindsight? In Blade Runner's case, the Director's Cut is better, leaner, and quite obviously closer to the Ridley Scott's original intentions for the film. Consequently no-one really minds that it has eclipsed the original. But what happens when a Director's Cut isn't as good as the film it replaces, or the motives aren't quite as clear?
The full commercial potential of the Director's Cut was perhaps first established with George Lucas' theatrical re-release of the Star Wars "Special Editions", which returned to cinemas in the late 1990s complete with new scenes and reworked special effects. At first, Lucas' intentions seemed wholesome enough. He wanted to give audiences, particularly those who might not even have been born at the time of Star Wars' original release (1977), the chance to see the films again on the big screen, while simultaneously addressing some of the narrative and technological faults he had come to see in the three films in the twenty years since their original release. But Lucas's intentions weren't entirely altruistic. The Special Editions were also a way of gauging the commercial viability of the Star Wars prequels, which were then still in development. Their inevitable success, particularly their subsequent release on video, in a variety of versions and packages designed to appeal to collectors, swelled the coffers of the Lucasfilm Empire and enabled George to make his prequels almost entirely without support from the major studios. Of course, this also meant that George and his moguldom would also reap all the ensuing rewards.
Furthermore, not all Star Wars' devoted army of fans were entirely happy with what Lucas had done to their hallowed trilogy. Some of the new scenes were fine. Others weren't really very good at all. Greedo's reworked death in the Mos Eisley cantina, the CGI Jabba in Star Wars, and that daft new ending to Jedi, all seemed rather strange, especially to the kind of fans who knew the film's dialogue better than its actors. As ever, Lucas was at the forefront of technological development; but a large part of Star Wars' appeal was its technical innovation within the context of its time; the fact that, against all the odds, Lucas managed to produce a believable, engaging and innovative space epic despite the technical limitations of late seventies film-making. Which, then, is the real Star Wars - the one Lucas produced on a shoestring, became one of the most successful films of all time, and reshaped the future of American film-making - or the one in which all the quirks, deficiencies and idiosyncrasies have been conveniently airbrushed out? Ray Harryhausen, were he alive today, might want to revisit many of his films and replace the stop-motion animation - groundbreaking in its day, and a huge influence on many subsequent directors - with superior computer-generated effects. But without those old effects, Harryhausen's films would quite literally not be the same. I'm not sure Star Wars is any different.
Other directors have deliberately ensured that new cuts of their films are seen as alternative, rather than superior, versions of the original. Spielberg's recent Director's Cut of E.T., released for the film's 20th anniversary, added several deleted scenes, replaced much of the original puppet E.T. with a new CGI version, and (bizarrely) replaced all the FBI agent's guns with walkie-talkies. The recent DVD edition of E.T. was released with both versions - the original and extended cut - on three discs (ironically the DVD release of E.T. also demonstrates the more cynical side of directors' cuts, since it emerged in three different editions, all of which contained slightly more material, unbeknownst to its earlier customers). For Spielberg, it's part technical exercise, part vanity project. Jaws (1975) would probably benefit more from a technological overhaul, but Spielberg is fully aware that the film is a classic as it stands, warts, mechanical shark and all. Like all films, and all works of art, Jaws is a text of its time. In the age of digital filmmaking, the concept of the director's cut might be about to change all that.
Next week I'll consider the 'remixed' versions of Apocalypse Now: Redux, Brazil, Touch of Evil, and The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring.
