Also, Cox says (I quote): āWhat follows is just pop psychology, idle speculationā. It sounds like, to me, that there is more guess work here than truth.
I have said we have to respect the artistās version, but that doesnāt mean that I (and everyone else) canāt have another opinion about his work.
Otherwise we werenāt allowed to criticise works of art anymore, as long as the artist thinks his work is the best in the form he released it.
That was my question.
It was just an example, an illustration of what i meant to say; maybe itās just Alec Coxā speculation, but these things happen. In the case of Leone they were likely to happen: he was a very dominant person, on and off the set, and he was seen as an āauthorā at a certain point, which made all others involved in the movies look less important. You notice this when you read (or write) about the genesis of his movies. The question people try to answer is not: who had the idea of hiring Eastwood, but: Who proposed Eastwoodās name first to Leone.
To answer Johnās question: No, weāre not āallowedā to change anything, but in a creative process alterations are sometimes made (scenes cut, the spelling of words corrected, sentences or entire paragraphs changed etc.), and in some cases we simply have to do something to preserve the work of art, Da Vinciās fresco of The Last Supper is a good example.
Sometimes I view the shorter version and other times the longer version. Depends what mood I am in. Prefer the original mono soundtrack, has more of the 60ās feel to it for me and the sound I am used to for this film.
Yes mono track definitely (though I like the explosion sounds in the new one)ā¦ iāve seen the extended cut once, and the old theatrical cut about 50 times. So you see which one I prefer.
Then I suppose I prefer someone elseās version of GBU to Leoneās. Whomever dictated the edits made the right decision, in my opinion.
To follow your art metaphor, I wouldnāt demand changes to the Mona Lisa. But contemporaneous patrons often made demands for changes, as producers do now. Without the edits, GBU plods in ways that no other Leone movie does for me.
[quote=āStanton, post:242, topic:307ā]I have said we have to respect the artistās version, but that doesnāt mean that I (and everyone else) canāt have another opinion about his work.
Otherwise we werenāt allowed to criticise works of art anymore, as long as the artist thinks his work is the best in the form he released it.[/quote]
To respect an artistās vision is to allow his work be released how he wants it; this didnāt happen with Leone and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Everyone and anyone can have an opinion about it, but to release it other than how he wanted it is not respecting that vision. So when you watch a cut version of this film and judge it, you are judging a movie that is not Leoneās, but someone elesās. Of course you can dislike his cut of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, but itās an insult to him that you prefere someoneās edited and butchered vision of the movie. An artistās right is be allowed to give his work of the art the release that he deems to be best.
Not an insult in the slightest to Leone. Films are, as Scherps pointed out earlier, a collaborative art form of which the director is only one contributor. Donāt get me wrong, I do believe the director is the most influential part of this collaborative process and Leoneās films clearly bear the āstampā of which you spoke earlier. But if we must respect an āartistās visionā then there would never be a script rewrite or retake of an actorās performance. The writer and actor are both artists contributing to the project. Are their visionās less worthy?
Moreover, sometimes even the greatest and most successful artists need reining in on occasion or at least benefit from an outside pair of eyes to look more impartially at their work. Scherps mentioned before about his work as an editor in the publishing world and this is a perfect case in point. Often times a writer is too close and involved in their work to realise when they have done too much or that a scene not only is unnecessary but actually harms the bookās flow. At this point a third party can be invaluable and the end result, still credited to the author, is a better piece of work as a result.
Iāve seen a number of films over the years that have subsequently been re released in a ādirectorās cutā and have rarely seen one that is an improvement on the original. In fact usually the opposite is the case. Apocalypse Now is a case in point and one which we have discussed here previously. The extra scenes included in the Redux version add nothing to the film in my opinion (I know others differ) and actually make it drag where it neednāt. I donāt see that as an insult to Coppola. Rather perhaps as a compliment to those others involved in the decision making process of the film. Sometimes the producers do actually know best.
Bit sceptical myself with some of these new cuts.
Dislike when a director comes back to a film years later and his tastes have now changed and / or style of film making has. Then cuts the film on how he feels it should be if made today. Recent example of this for me was the so called Directorās cut to Tony Scotts Revenge. Shortened the film, loosing some good background fleshing out of the character stuff. Some new music tracks. A complete disaster for me.
I remember having this discussion a few years in our cultural ātertuliaā (go and find out :P) about Apocalypse Now Redux version. One of the guys had so good memories of the theatrical version, that he he keep saying the new version destroyed the film
Everyone and anyone can have an opinion about it, but to release it other than how he wanted it is not respecting that vision. So when you watch a cut version of this film and judge it, you are judging a movie that is not Leone's, but someone eles's. Of course you can dislike his cut of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, but it's an insult to him that you prefere someone's edited and butchered vision of the movie.
-
Thatās a rather oppressive take on cinema, isnāt it? We canāt judge a work based on its own merits, but only through the intention of the author, knowing the context and history behind the development of the work? I donāt understand why youāre so outraged about this. Weāre not trying to deny directors final cut. Weāre not opening Leoneās grave and pissing in his coffin. Iām merely saying that in this case, in my opinion, what you call Leoneās vision contained some narrative excesses that the international cut remedied. If the international cut didnāt exist, I wouldnāt hold GBU in the esteem in which I currently hold it. The previously deleted scenes when re-added, again this being my subjective opinion, detract from the film.
-
Fraylingās Spaghetti Westerns says these sequences were cut by Leone before the Italian print (261), and from what I can read of the follow-up book online, the international cuts seem to be vastly different from the scenes weāre talking about above (Tuco in the gun shop, for instance, is not one of the newly restored scenes, I donāt think, nor is any scene with the crippled leader of the camp who disapproves of Angel Eyes and companyās criminal dealings). Donati talks about how Leone preferred to cut out chunks of story, rather than shorten scenes and interfere with the rhythm. Has this information been disproven? Because otherwise, thereās really no need to argue.
I've seen a number of films over the years that have subsequently been re released in a 'director's cut' and have rarely seen one that is an improvement on the original.
Donnie Darko is the worst example of this I can remember. The theatrical version is a masterful piece of science fiction. The directorās cut is an overlong, bloated, over-explained bit of dreck that takes the fun out of the original.
[quote=āCat Stevens, post:252, topic:307ā]1. Thatās a rather oppressive take on cinema, isnāt it? We canāt judge a work based on its own merits, but only through the intention of the author, knowing the context and history behind the development of the work? I donāt understand why youāre so outraged about this. Weāre not trying to deny directors final cut. Weāre not opening Leoneās grave and pissing in his coffin. Iām merely saying that in this case, in my opinion, what you call Leoneās vision contained some narrative excesses that the international cut remedied. If the international cut didnāt exist, I wouldnāt hold GBU in the esteem in which I currently hold it. The previously deleted scenes when re-added, again this being my subjective opinion, detract from the film.
- Fraylingās Spaghetti Westerns says these sequences were cut by Leone before the Italian print (261), and from what I can read of the follow-up book online, the international cuts seem to be vastly different from the scenes weāre talking about above (Tuco in the gun shop, for instance, is not one of the newly restored scenes, I donāt think, nor is any scene with the crippled leader of the camp who disapproves of Angel Eyes and companyās criminal dealings). Donati talks about how Leone preferred to cut out chunks of story, rather than shorten scenes and interfere with the rhythm. Has this information been disproven? Because otherwise, thereās really no need to argue.[/quote]
Iām not āoutragedā, as you put it, but other peopleās take on this. This is just an enjoyable disscusssion about a film that we all like. I am not getting worked up over some elesās opinion here. If what Frayling says is true, then you are right, there is really no reason to argue. But, I have never heard this before, so do any members here have this story in different books?
Thatās basically what Iām saying. I never want anything else officially released than the directorās (or whoelse was the creative force behind a particular film) version.
But it is not an insult if I would like a different version more. It is only an opinion.
I can for example overleap scenes while watching a DVD, if I donāt like some scenes. I can prepare me a copy of a film I have bought which skips some scenes, or adds a deleted scene. I can tear out the last chapter of my copy of the A Clockwork Orange novel, because I think it destroys the book. This doesnāt hurt anybody.
Of course Iām not allowed to sell such āspecialā editions.
Saying that I donāt like particular scenes of a film is not different than saying I would prefer a different actor in a role, or a film would be better with a different score, or for me the action scenes are bad, or whatever.
Preferring a shorter version is only some kind of film criticism.
Thatās not true.
Except for the chicken/cave scene these scenes were all in the original Italian release version. Some of these scenes were maybe deleted or shortened for later re-releases, but then in 1983 (when Leone was still alive) put back in the film. (according to an Italian Leone book)
The cave scene was maybe part of the world premier version, but then cut out for the official release version. And wasnāt restored in 1983.
The version of 1966 (same as the 1983 version) is imo the DC version. The one we have to deal with.
Taking a slight different turn on the subject were discussing, I think these days the Companies, Directors etc, play on the Uncut factor, they theatrically release a film, and then on the DVD edition we got the Uncut, Unrated, Uncensured unwhatever version as long is different from the original theatrical release lone, its a marketing thing.
Off course things are different when we talk about older films, released when such worries were non existent, with the already directors dead things are indeed more problematic, and ethic questions can be raised.
Myself Iāll prefer to watch all versions available and then choose the one I like the most, regardless of what the director wanted, he was the one who filmed the damn things (cut or not) anyway so.
Today it is easier for a director to accept the release of a cut version, because he knows he is at least allowed to prepare his version then for the DVD. This goes especially for horror films which are mostly cut for the theatrical release.
It is indeed a marketing thing, but it is also a chance for the director to get his version released.
French director Claude Sautet had re-watched all his older films and then most of them shortened, cause he thought they would work better this way for a modern audience. Some by a few sec, but from one he cut 10 min out.
Peter Weir has prepared a much shorter version of Picnic at Hanging Rock. The cut scenes are on the DVD as bonus.
The best way to release such films is to make a DVD edition which contains both versions.
Apologies then. I was reading a tone into your words that you didnāt intend then!
[quote=āStanton, post:258, topic:307ā]French director Claude Sautet had re-watched all his older films and then most of them shortened, cause he thought they would work better this way for a modern audience. Some by a few sec, but from one he cut 10 min out.
Peter Weir has prepared a much shorter version of Picnic at Hanging Rock. The cut scenes are on the DVD as bonus.
The best way to release such films is to make a DVD edition which contains both versions.[/quote]
Cropping can also be a complicated issue. Vittorio Storaro seems to want to put many of the films on which he was director of photography into 2.00:1 for DVD/BD release. For example the Criterion release of Bertolucciās āThe Last Emperorā is in 2.00:1 according to Storaroās wishes, but the original release was 2.35:1. Unsurprisingly there are some very unhappy fans out there.