That broadcast cut is surely nothing of real interest, only if one wants to see what was done then to films for a TV showing.
And I don’t see the 88 cut as a true Peckinpah cut, Seydor doesn’t either, as it betrays imo Peckinpah’s artistic craftmanship, and I think Mike Siegel also sees the 2005 version as the best so far, but is more critical towards it than I.
I even prefer the theatrical version to the 88 version, as the film was already a masterpiece for me in that version, and in the 88 version several things are worse, which worked excellent in the 105 min version.
I find “deleted” scenes like the one above of interest. In any case, it’s surely at least as interesting as the “theatrical cut” might be (I haven’t seen either myself).
[quote=“stanton, post:121, topic:356, full:true”]And I don’t see the 88 cut as a true Peckinpah cut, Seydor doesn’t either, as it betrays imo Peckinpah’s artistic craftmanship, and I think Mike Siegel also sees the 2005 version as the best so far, but is more critical towards it than I.
[/quote]
Of course it’s not a “true” Peckinpah cut, because he never tweaked it exactly as he would have wanted. However, it is as close as we are ever going to get and surely not that far off.
I’m not gonna speak for Mike (I don’t remember what he’s said about it), but you’re certainly not the only person who prefers the Seydor cut. However, it seems to get little support on any forums or websites where I’ve seen people express their preferences. Having said that it’s great that some people like it since it allows for good debates (like we’ve had before ). I also found Seydor’s book on the matter to be a fantastic read so I certainly don’t mean to knock him at all.
I’ve never seen the “theatrical cut”, but surely you’re kidding?
No, definitely not.
This theatrical cut has its own qualities, with nearly every episode, and remember it is an episodical film, ending in a fatalistic bloodbath. And being episodical the film is less hurt by the cuts compared to every damage done with every minute cut out of TWB, in which with every cut the balance is destroyed more, and the ending works less.
The theatrical version loses some of its complexity, and it is a pretty complex western, but the overall vision is there, it is visible for those who are able to see.
Actually I was disappointed by the turner version cause so many things did not work that good anymore like in the shorter version, and instead that the film got better for me, it somehow dragged. The only great thing was the beautiful opening montage, and that’s the biggest loss of the theatrical cut.
Actually the opening montage and the Chisum scene are the only really important additions. I could live without the others.
And this bunkhouse scene, the only one not told from Pat’s or Billy’s view, is a real narrative problem anyway. And a weakly directed one anyway.
And I wasn’t the only one who loved the film in the theatrical cut, and it was for me in that version already Peckinpah’s second masterpiece.
But unlike Major Dundee, which I watched first in a 114 min version, which got better with every added scene, the new scenes did not improve the film as long as they worked against the film’s rhythm. And for that the 2005 cut is so far the best compromise.
I think “added” is the wrong word. The scenes were “restored”.
The only film I can think of where the theatrical cut plays better than the director’s cut is “Cinema Paradiso”. However, the situation is a little different since the theatrical cut just essentially chops the final third of the movie off while leaving the rest intact, and Giuseppe Tornatore himself was involved in its shortening (albeit disheartened by the failure of the longer version). The remaining two-thirds then went on to win the best foreign language film Oscar.
Added means here that I could watch new scenes with every new version I got. That 114 min was a cut VHS version, then the full German theatrical version on TV, then a UK VHS, which did not run the expected 135 min, but was the 122 min version and contained 2 more short scenes missing from the German version, and then the restored 135 min version, the producer’s cut.
With each version the film got better.
I know several theatrical versions which are superior to the DCs or to other kinds of longer versions, and several of which I know that many fans prefer the older versions.
The longer versions are definitely not always the better choices, some are only longer. The new scenes then don’t justify the longer runtime.
But it’s as always a matter of taste what one prefers.
I certainly don’t prefer a longer cut for the sake of being longer. GBU is a good example of this where the director’s cut should not contain the grotto scene (as you said on the GBU thread, it should only be included as a bonus). Another similar case is Visconti’s “The Leopard” where the Cannes premiere had a couple of extra scenes that were then removed by the director (happily these have not generally been put back into home video releases, but unhappily have not been included as extras either - I think they have been inserted into a French DVD release)
The only thing I demand is that whatever version of a film I watch needs to have been supervised and approved (albeit sometimes begrudgingly) by the director. Exceptional cases like “Touch of Evil” (“restored” based on extensive editing notes by Orson Welles on what needed to be done) also fit in that category for me. What I will not accept is someone’s personal vision for a film (whether simply to fit in more run-times, or because of a subjective preference about how it plays).
While the 2005 cut of PG&BTK does fit into the category of “subjective preference” on Seydor’s part, this is not entirely fair in this specific case. I hugely respect the fact that Seydor says he never planned for the 2005 cut to replace the 1988 cut, nor was he happy with the second-rate restoration treatment the 1988 cut received received relative to his 2005 version. It seems the way it was marketed and packaged was not his choice. He has also written a fascinating article (in “Peckinpah Today” by Bliss) about the issue and has written his own highly informative book about the film and its many cuts. His article in Peckinpah Today is actually far more informative than Prince’s article criticizing his cut. However, the debate IMO is clearly won by Prince’s article nonetheless. In short, Seydor’s version represents his own personal taste (albeit bolstered by extensive research) that does not do justice to Peckinpah’s vision which is, and always will be, best represented by Peckinpah’s own 1988 cut. I personally don’t think the 2005 cut should ever have been released, however I am glad about the two articles and one book it has generated as a result.
I agree. Redux does have its fans and there are a lot of people who will disagree with me but I think that it destroyed the dark atmosphere and made many scenes more comedic. The extra scene of them stealing the surfboard, for example. I just thought it was silly. The scene that really annoyed me was when they found the playboy bunnies in the middle of the jungle. Nam was hell but at least they got to screw playboy models in the jungle, right? All of those scenes made the characters feel less isolated and even if the point of the French plantation scene was to portray the decline of colonial civilisation, it still didn’t work. It changes the mood of Apocalypse Now and not for the better.
I like several aspects of the Redux cut, but it is too long now (even if it does not feel a second longer while watching it for me).
The scene with the bunnies is great, bur goes on too long, The added comedic parts with the surf board and before they meet the bunnies again feel for me also totally wrong.
And the Frenchies scene has too much aspects of a message scene, with too many explaining dialogues. But it doesn’t feel real anyway, and I Iike the dreamlike beginning and the ending of that sequence very much, so again I wish it would have been drastically cut, but retain the basic idea.
But I don’t think that the Redux version changes the film’s tone or any of its meaning.
My preferred version of Apocalypse Now would be one with the napalm bombing during end credits but I don’t know if such version exists. I saw the scene as a dvd extra years ago and in my mind I thought that was how it was supposed to end when I saw the film last time. Man, I was disappointed.
Actually, the naplam bombing is from a TV print of the theatrical version. I don’t think it was ever shown on cinemas. It’s also the first print I ever watched and I was also disappointed when I realised it wasn’t on the video and DVD versions.
I hadn’t thought about latter-day tinkering by directors (or people working on their supposed behalves). For example, I like the addition of some of the things in the recently extended version of “Once Upon a Time in America” but not all of them.
With that in mind, I’ll re-state my position accordingly: I cannot think of any theatrical cut that was cut without the participation of the director that is better than the director’s cut (as I said before, comprehensive written instructions count as participation)
“Pat Garret & Billy the Kid” was cut in its 1973, 1975 and 2005 versions without Peckinpah’s participation. I haven’t seen the 1973 or 1975 versions, but in the 2005 version it is clearly evident that Peckinpah was not involved. To give another Peckinpah example, in the case of “The Osterman Weekend” we actually have a copy of Peckinpah’s cut and the studio cut to compare. The changes aren’t as drastic as in the 1988 and 2005 versions of “Pat Garrett”, but it is still very easy to discern which one has more “Peckinpah” in it.
The theatrical version was cut by Peckinpah cutters, people who knew him and his work very well. And the Turner version was definitely not a version ready for release.
That’s true and explains why it is apparently eminently watchable rather than being something done by a studio hack. However, the fundamental point is that none of it was done at the behest of Peckinpah. This discussion has however made me interested in watching it
It was Peckinpah’s preview cut. It is the closest we will ever get to his ultimate vision and surely wasn’t that far off at all.
). I also found Seydor’s book on the matter to be a fantastic read so I certainly don’t mean to knock him at all.