In a recent interview filmmaker Zack Snyder revealed he doesn’t believe that his 2012 film Sucker Punch was released in a form he feels best represents the vision he had for it. And as is his want, he’d like a chance to revisit that film and release a director’s cut to show the public what he originally had in store for them. Upon the interviews publication, the internet (bastion of sensible, measured reaction and even headed discussion that it is) had exactly the response you’ve come to expect. It was yet another totally normal day online.
Sucker Punch, the directors multi-layered psychological action drama, had a troubled post production as the director struggled to keep the material within the desired PG-13 bumper rails while the studio had difficulty understanding exactly what the movie was and how to sell it. In the end, the 110 minute release version of the film failed to win over audiences and critics, becoming the only certified financial failure in Snyder’s portfolio. An extended cut released on Blu-ray added 18 minutes of material that many say improves the overall experience but this is notably still not considered his, “director’s cut” and this latest non-troversy over Snyder looking to add to the collection of alternative versions of his films he’s released in the past has a lot of people arguing (quite poorly) over what exactly a director’s cut is and its purpose for existing.
Film directors weren’t always looked at as being the creative furnace of the films they were hired to work on. In the early days of Hollywood the director was more or less considered an on set traffic conductor whose job it was to ensure that the day to day work on set was completed on time and on budget. Films were seen as the creation of their producers, who often expressed enormous amounts of control over the shape of the final film. This is still how many series projects are run, with individual episode directors working within the creative guidelines set by the show runners. Directors, looking to express themselves creatively, have always ground gears with producers and this came to a head in 1964 when the Directors Guild of America (DGA) negotiated an artists bill of rights that sought to establish the director as an artist and guarantee them certain creative privileges. These privileges included, among other things, the right to create a version of the film absent the intrusive fingers of producers and other interested characters. This became Article 7 in the DGA rulebook which guarantees a director the right to a, “director’s cut” of their movie.
Though somewhat vague, as much legalese tends to be, the DGA rulebook makes clear that the director’s cut of a film is the first full edit of the material that can be seen by anyone other than the director and the editor. After the editors assembly cut, where the usable material is put into storytelling order according to the screenplay, the director has 10 weeks to complete an edit of the film to present to the producers. During that time no one else may view the footage and no one else is allowed come in and, “cut behind”, or re-edit, after the director. The goal is to give the director an opportunity to show the producers their vision of the film before they begin giving notes and asking for changes. There may be various work print iterations of the film after this presentation as all parties attempt to negotiate what the release version will be, but the director’s cut is (with the assistance of the editor) the most pure and direct version of the film as the director sees it.
This is how the term is defined from the production side of the industry. The director’s cut of the film isn’t necessarily the best version of the film or even the one the director ultimately prefers, but it’s purpose isn’t to be perfect. Even for directors who have negotiated for final cut privilege where they have the ultimate say over the release version of the film, this first director’s cut may never end up being seen or even used in the creation of the release version. It’s just one step along the path to release.
Outside of this rulebook definition, what’s considered a, “director’s cut” and what purpose it serves becomes a bit more nebulous. The term has become somewhat of a marketing banner in the eyes of the public, something used to sell a second version of a film that may or may not be significantly different than the original release. Unfortunately, many films that receive a director’s cut (at least those that people remember) are films that, like Sucker Punch, didn’t enjoy a great reception the first time around. And because the public isn’t aware of what role the director’s cut plays in the production of a film, many have come to think that a director’s cut is something created as a response to criticism of the original release – a do-over giving the director a chance to, “fix” mistakes made the first time around. This perspective often exists in some manner of ignorance for the fact that, because of the notes process that keeps producers looped in on how the film is finished and contracts that typically give the film financiers authority over the release version, whatever perceived problems a film has can often be attributed to those parties attempts to, if not make the film better, than to at least make it more appealing to an audience and, thus, more profitable.
Additionally, many in the industry, including directors, come from the perspective that, unless a film is taken entirely away from a director and completed without their involvement (which unfortunately can and does happen), whatever version of the film that makes it to the public is the directors cut as ultimately it’s their name that appears on in. But the term can also be misused by a studio or producer who releases a film labeled as a director’s cut that doesn’t actually bear the director’s approval. For instance, the first version of director Ridley Scott’s 1982 sci-fi classic Blade Runner publicly billed as his, “Original Director’s Cut” was actually a 70mm work print found in storage and screened without Scott’s knowledge or involvement. It doesn’t happen as often these days, as the decline of physical disc sales has made releasing alternative versions of films less attractive, but the murky definition of the director’s cut made abuse of the term a real possibility that served to confuse the publics relationship with it.
But while grabbing an unrated, extended or work print version of a film and slapping the director’s cut label on it may not technically break any rules it does stride right over the entire point of what a director’s cut is. A director makes more creative choices during a films post-production than just picking takes and arranging scenes and sequences. They also make decisions about the films scoring, audio editing and color finish in an effort to realize a specific filmmaking goal. The director will make these choices based on how they want to film to effect the audience and these may not be choices producers and studio executives would make for one reason or another. The lack of those detailed finishing touches is the difference between a film being a director’s cut and it being the director’s cut.
One reason this part of the film production process may be so opaque might be as simple as pure, dumb human ego. Hollywood is like any other industry made up of people, which is to say all of them. It’s driven by individuals who are motivated primarily by self interest. Everyone wants to take a piece of the credit for a winner and, understandably, put as much distance between themselves and a loser as possible. If the process is vague enough it allows maximum flexibility for producers and studio executives to either insert or withdraw themselves from the process after the fact. If a movie is a success they all had a part. And if the movie is a stinker you can always throw the person whose name is on it under the bus. To be fair it’s not all so cynical. Producers and executives are ultimately the ones that will be called upon to answer for films that don’t perform well, so it’s in their interest to try and ensure that the movie has the best chance to be successful. That unfortunately doesn’t stop some people from being petty about it. To continue using Zack Snyder as an example, the director has gone on record stating the reason his 2016 home video release of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was billed as the, “Ultimate Edition” and not as a director’s cut, like the similar home video release of 2009’s Watchmen, was because the studio didn’t want to give consumers the impression the much maligned theatrical release wasn’t his movie. I guess they figured if he was going to get all the credit for one he should have to eat all the shit for the other. Fair is, after all, fair.
So what is the consumer supposed to believe? What, in a practical sense, is a, “director’s cut” supposed to be when nine times out of ten times the public will never see it and, even if they do, there’s no guarantee that what they’re seeing really is the director’s cut? Perhaps part of the problem is the perception that a director’s cut is somehow the better or more true version of a movie, an assertion that inevitably creates an argument amongst both films fans and those looking to preserve the history of film. Then there’s the idea that a director’s cut being released is an attempt to fix a film, which often results in an antagonistic debate over whether or not a director should have to live with a films possible poor performance whether they are responsible for the release version of not. Both of these perspectives suffer from the same problem of perception; that the point of releasing a director’s cut is to somehow replace the original release, to wipe it out of existence and render its impact null and impotent. While there are some cases where a director’s cut has become the de facto version of a film available (George Lucas’ Star Wars saga and his film THX-1138 most immediately sprinting to mind) in most cases the director’s cut is offered only as an additional alternative to the original release version.
Do director’s cuts matter? It all depends on your level of interest. A director’s cut is another way to see a film and an opportunity to get a glimpse into how much or how little it can take to transform a film experience in ways both subtle and extreme. If the general reaction from the audience is that a director’s cut is in someway a, “better” film experience than the original release that should speak very loudly to the film industry about whose editing room judgement should be trusted. If Zack Snyder get’s to finish and release his director’s cut of Sucker Punch his track record says it will likely be regarded as the better of the two versions but, in the end, that’s not what matters. What matters is that calling the film his director’s cut means that what we get, for better or worse, will be as close to the movie he set out to make as it can reasonably be. And that’s all a, “director’s cut” really is – a version of the film put together by the director, without outside interference, that best fulfills their vision for the film they agreed to make. Whether that’s the first cut created or one assembled after the fact, it’s this freedom from compromise that defines it.
There are a lot of hands that go into making a film, a lot of eyes they pass before and a lot of fingers that get stuck into that pie. Everyone who sets out to make a film wants to do the best work they can and they hope that audiences appreciate that work. Of course not every film hits the way its intended and ultimately all those eyes and hands and fingers will point to the director as the one at fault. That’s the nature of the business, the, “weight of the leader, I suppose”, and if you want to do that job you have to learn to roll with it. But isn’t it nice, every now and then, for a filmmaker to get the chance to be judged on the film they actually wanted to release instead of the one they had to release? We may never see an end to the arguments over whether a film is a piece of art or a piece of product or who should really get the credit for making a movie – there has to still be a reason why the Oscar for best picture goes to the producers and not the director. Maybe its up to us to decide what we value – art or entertainment? Because whatever it is we ask for is what we’re ultimately going to get. And no director’s cut will ever be deep enough to save us from the world of cynical mediocrity we seem set to inherit.
Clever endings aren’t my bag.
Laterz
*NotThePopularOpinion 