Exploring the Unreleased and the Remastered: A Look into Director’s Cuts
There are two sides to every film, the artistic and the commercial. The artistic side consisting of the directors, writers, cinematographers and so on, while the commercial consists of the producers and the studio, anyone involved with the money. Typically, these two sides of the film should work in tandem to create the best possible film for both parties, an artistic film, one that spreads the message of the ones who made it, and a profitable film, for those who paid for it all to happen. This is typically how it is done, and for the most part, it works. The studio and the creatives work together, and they get the movie out to the public for them to enjoy (and pay for).
However, there are other times when these two sides clash and issues can begin to arise. Maybe the studio wants a part cut from the film that is not testing well or that is too extreme and will affect the rating of the film, maybe there is too much cursing. Maybe the filmmakers went over-budget and need more money in order to finish the project the way that they originally intended to. Maybe simply, one side will not do what the other side wants, in either direction. In these scenarios there are really only two outcomes, but they are both very nuanced. Either the film gets released or it doesn’t. If the film doesn’t get released, no one wins, the filmmakers’ message isn’t shared and the studio doesn’t get any money, this outcome happens very rarely and usually if a film is not released when it was originally intended then you can be sure there is a battle going on behind the scenes from either side of the production to get that film released. If and when it does get released, questions get raised as to what parts of the film are the original vision, and which are shoehorned in to make a profit.
What has been interesting to see develop is recently, with some huge franchises that have made themselves into giants of cinema, like Star Wars, The Avengers, and to a lesser extent films like the recent Godzilla or “Monsterverse” films. As these franchises have developed, the studios behind them have been gaining so much power over the creative side of production while the filmmakers have been simultaneously losing so much power over the commercial side of production. This has led to many big studios like Marvel and DC running through directors like never before. Directors like Edgar Wright, who was fired from directing Ant-Man, the team behind The Lego Movie, Chris Lord and Phil Lord, who were fired from directing Solo: A Star Wars Story and Zack Snyder being replaced before finishing Justice League. These are not little independent directors who are getting a shot at something big with one of these franchises, these are established directors, who made films that didn’t align with the studios ideas for a film and were subsequently fired. This is happening more and more often and is getting more and more accepted in the industry. These big franchises, while they can help directors break through to new heights of success, and while they do give the cast and crew the financial freedom to try out more artistic and experimental projects on the side, still can have a terrible, almost career ending edge to them.
Over the last few years, a specific director has been at the head of a lot of these behind-the-scenes battles and on more than one film. That director is Zach Snyder, and if you have been in involved on any film circles on social media for the last few years you no doubt know the hashtag “#ReleaseTheSnyderCut”. The “Snyder Cut” as it has become known is an unreleased cut of the 2017 film Justice League, following a troubling production and personal issues, Zack Snyder left the film while in the last steps of production, leaving the finishing touches to be done by Joss Whedon, the writer and director of the incredibly successful 2012 film The Avengers.
The studio behind Justice League brought him on to take what Zach Snyder had shot and what he intended, and turn it into something more light, cheery, and funny, more so mimicking the style of the Avengers films instead of going in their own direction for a DC version of it. This change in the film led to extensive, reshoots, rewrites, and reedits, that, long story short, did not work and fans and critics alike panned the film when it released in 2017. Later Snyder revealed he had a 4-hour unreleased cut of the film in his possession that supposed “fixed” the films issues, including plot holes, and just general parts where the film was lacking. This film’s production is deep, troubling, and hard to get into but what matters is, the Snyder Cut, comes out today on HBO Max.
What seemed like an impossible feat and an impossible fight, has been accomplished. While the film may not be perfect it is an incredibly unique, interesting, and important cultural object. Zack Snyder put it really well in a recent interview with the New York Times when he said “It’s the closest thing to a cult film that could exist at this level of pop culture,” and he is correct. From a rallying cry on social media, a fervent defense of the film and its director from fans, and the energy being poured into this film’s rollout made it a cult classic even before it was released. This streaming release is monumental, its an attack back at the big studios, it’s the artistic voice being heard over everything else, and even though it is a superhero movie and for some people, that isn’t their thing, it is extremely important to modern cinema, and the industry as a whole.
With all this attention on a battle with the studio, and a classic fight between producer and artist. We have begun to think about different Director’s Cuts throughout history, going all the way back to the first Director’s Cut, The Gold Rush, a 1925 silent film by Charlie Chaplin, that was rereleased in 1942 with a new soundtrack, narration, a different frame rate, and tightened editing. More recent notable director’s cuts include the alternate endings to Jordan Peele’s 2017 Get Out where, instead of being picked by his friend, the main character, Chris, is arrested by the police for being seen strangling a woman outside.
Director’s Cuts come in all different forms and are made for very different reasons, however, most come down to studio interference, or certain scenes not being received well by test audiences. Other noteworthy director’s cuts to look into include, Apocalypse Now, which famously has various extended cuts and alternate endings, made more for artistic exploration and less studio interference. Ken Russel’s infamous 1971 film, The Devils, was heavily censored due to it’s explicit sexual and violent content, mixed with its commentary on religious institutions. Many cuts of this film are rated X and some scenes from the film were thought to be lost until very recently.
With director’s cuts and saved or salvaged scenes only appearing recently, this is a great example of something other than studio interference that can lead to the creation of a director’s cut. Another film that could have suffered from this censorship is Andrei Tarkovsky’s Andrei Rublev, which has two versions–one running at 3 hours and 20 minutes long, and one running at 3 hours and 15. It is rumored that the film was made shorter due to issues with Russian censors at the time, but Tarkovsky has come forward and endorsed the shorter cut. He even went so far as to say “nobody has ever cut anything from Andrei Rublev. Nobody except me. I made some cuts myself. In the first version the film was 3 hours 20 minutes long. In the second — 3 hours 15 minutes. I shortened the final version to 3 hours 6 minutes. I am convinced the latest version is the best, the most successful. And I only cut certain overly long scenes. The viewer doesn’t even notice their absence.” Tarkovsky goes on to say that some scenes of brutality or violence that would go on for extended periods of time in the original were cut short in the later versions “in order to induce psychological shock in viewers” as opposed to just make them sit and watch it happen.
While the recent increase in director’s cuts can be taken as a negative sign that the studios are getting too much power, there is also a lighter, more interesting side to it all. Often times films that are longer, or exceeding three hours, have a difficult time showing in theaters, mainly because in the time it takes to screen a three-hour long movie once, the theater could screen a one-and-a-half-hour movie twice, which means double the tickets sold for them. Longer movies just aren’t that viable for movie theaters, they lose money on them. Because of this, cuts will be made to films to fit better into theaters schedules, Midsommar, and The Hateful Eight are two recent examples. The solution to these films that were cut short used to be to release a director’s cut, but now a new option exists, to simply put it on streaming services.
With streaming, there is no money loss for featuring longer films, and audiences are more likely to watch these longer films as they can watch them in the comfort of their own home, and they can pause it, which are both issues that arise when watching long films in theaters. An example of a film that used this tactic is Martin Scorsese’s The Irishman, a 3-and-a-half-hour film that likely would have had to be cut down to be screened in a theater. The film did very well because people could “pick it up” when they wanted to watch and pause or stop to take a break when they needed to.
Today, the Snyder Cut of Justice League will land on HBO Max and stand at a whopping 4-hours long. Another director’s cut the streaming service has snatched up is Kenneth Lonergan’s 2011 film Margaret, which, when originally released got less than stellar reviews but has since been called a masterpiece since this 3-hour extended cut has arrived.
Streaming is a new frontier for cinema, and with the COVID-19 pandemic making it one of the only safe ways to consume cinema, it makes sense that there has been a shift of this kind. This trend of extended cuts on streaming is one that seems to benefit many, the theaters can show the shorter version, the studio can make its money and the director can release their original intention when the time comes to put the film on streaming. This could be the future of these alternative cuts of film, and with the increase in them to begin with, there is an interesting future ahead for mainstream cinema.
The history and future of director’s cuts are very compelling topics for anyone interested in, or studying film, to see what was presented, what was intended to be presented, and how they differ. Below we have highlighted some of the most interesting instances of alternative versions and director’s cuts that have existed in the history of film. Every film has a story of its production, some are more complex than others, below are some of our favorites.
Brazil
Directed by Terry Gilliam
A film that follows Sam Lowry, a low level, day-dreaming government employee looking for his perfect woman in a very dystopian future. A future where the government seeks to save society by destroying the individual, a government run by an inept bureaucracy that fosters chaos, that our main character happens to be a part of. A society that is obsessed with the pursuit of eternal youth and is easily distracted by hyper-consumerism. A surreal blend of Kafka and Orwell, all wrapped up and directed by Terry Gilliam. Brazil is very dark film, about staying in line and submitting to this awkwardly organized civilization. Expanding on the themes of classic literature like 1984 and The Trial into a brutalist, and a little bit too realistic look at how cities and societies beat down the individual and forces the most desperate to take refuge in the last place they cannot touch–their mind. However, as this film shows, sometimes the haven of the mind isn’t safe either. And it’s that idea, the idea that even in our mind we are not safe from bureaucracy and government control, that led to the studio battle and the alternate cuts of the film.
“Brazil is the least optimistic of Gilliam’s films, and the most personal.” Says Jack Matthews, film critic and author of the book The Battle of Brazil: Terry Gilliam v. Universal Pictures in the Fight to the Final Cut. With this quote in mind, it makes sense that, with this film being Gilliam’s most personal that he would fight to the last man for the right to release his film the way he intended. Sadly, for Gilliam, however, the studio had different plans. A dark film like this that explores the horrors of what mankind is becoming should have an ending that matches. So that is what Terry Gilliam did, but the studio in charge of handling distribution in the U.S. did not like this and fought to have him change it, leading to 3 different versions of the film.
The original cut of the film, known as the “European Release” runs at 142 minutes long and ends on a very dark note. With this ending, it was released into Europe and internationally without issue, as the distribution was handled by a company called Embassy International Pictures. However, this cut of the film and it’s dark ending did not sit well with Sid Sheinberg, the chairman of Universal Pictures, the studio in charge of distributing the film in the U.S. Allegedly, Sid, and other executives at Universal showed the original cut of the film to test audiences and it scored very poorly. Sid then insisted on a dramatic re-edit of the film to fit it for a happy ending.
This led to two different editing teams working on different cuts of Brazil, one team headed by Terry Gilliam, and another headed by Universal, without Gilliam’s knowledge. The version that Gilliam ended up editing was a 132-minute cut of the film known as the “American Release” and this is the version that is the most commonly viewed, especially in the U.S. The version that was worked on without Gillaim’s knowledge, became know as the “Sheinberg Cut” or the “Love Conquers All” Cut of the film. The first name being a reference to the Universal chairman who headed the movement, and the second being a reference to the imposed happy ending tacked onto the film to give it a brighter outlook. This version runs only 94 minutes and while it was never released it was prepared for syndicated television and changes the entire focus of the film.
This gets the three versions down to the “European Release” or the “Director’s Cut” as it became known after the edits began on the film, the “American Release” a cut version edited by Gilliam, and the “Love Conquers All” cut, the one butchered for a happy ending and TV by Universal. Brazil originally released in Europe between February and April of 1985, the battle between Universal and Terry Gilliam went on until December, when it was finally released in the US after a few events took place. One being a famous one-page ad taken out in Variety by Gilliam to attack Universal and hopefully draw attention to his film and get the public to rally behind him for a release, a #ReleaseTheSnyderCut but almost 40 years earlier.
The other event being Gilliam undercutting Universal by travelling around and screening his director’s cut of the film to critics and film schools without the studio’s approval. This led to Brazil being awarded “Best Picture”, “Best Screenplay”, and “Best Director” by the Los Angeles Film Critics Association. This mixed with the ad, the public desire to see the film, and the fact that it was being secretly shown, led to Universal to fold and release the 132 minute “American Release” to the public on December 18, 1985, 10 whole months after it’s original release in Europe.
Rent Brazil now from FACETS.
Rent Brazil: Love Conquers All now from FACETS.
Blade Runner (1982-2007)
Directed by Ridley Scott
Perhaps the most famous film with multiple versions is Ridley Scott’s 1982 Sci-fi, Cyberpunk, masterpiece Blade Runner. With 7 different and distinct versions of the film in existence starting in 1982 with the original “Workprint Version” of the film and extending all the way to 2007 with the “Final Cut” of the film being released alongside the 25th anniversary of the original film. The history of production of this film and its subsequent versions is incredibly interesting and really unique in the way that it happened, other movies have a director’s cut sure, or issues with production, but not to this extent.
For those who don’t know, Blade Runner is the story of Rick Deckard, a beat-down, burned out former policeman turned “Blade Runner” a person whose job is “retire” “replicants” or synthetic humans. Deckard gets assigned a difficult task of hunting down three advanced “replicants” who are on Earth illegally, and the story goes from there. Blade Runner masterfully explores themes of memory, morality, humanity, and class, in a beautiful sci-fi masterpiece that arguably spawned the genre of CyberPunk, at least molded it into what we know it as today.
The first cut of the film was the “Workprint Version” from early 1982. With a runtime of 113 minutes, it was shown to test audiences in March of 1982 and was received generally poorly leading to modifications resulting in the release of the “U.S. Theatrical Version.” A series of events very similar to the “Love Conquers All” cut of Brazil. This “Workprint Version” version was later shown at a few theaters as an unofficial “Director’s Cut” that was released without Ridley Scott’s approval. However, this unofficial release in the early 90’s led to the studio to begin work on a legitimate “Director’s Cut” of the film which was later released in 1992.
Shortly after the original “Workprint Version” was shown to test audiences but before the film could see a wide release, a “San Diegeo Sneak Preview Version” was shown. It was shown only once in May of 1982 and is apparently nearly identical to the “US Theatrical Version”. However, this “Sneak Preview” version of the film includes three scenes that don’t appear in any other version of the film. The scenes seem like very small tweaks to the film, and don’t really introduce anything new to the story, but it is important to keep in mind juts how important editing and pacing are to the final cut of a film. A shot lingering just a few frames more than it does in a shot changes the entire tone and pacing of a scene. An insert shot put at just the right moment can change everything.
In June of 1982 during the films initial release and original theatrical run, there were two different versions shown, one was known as the “U.S. Theatrical Version” which ran at 117 minutes and is also known as the “Original Version” or the “Domestic Cut.” This is the film that everyone in the U.S. was originally exposed, with no other versions of the film really surfacing until the 10th anniversary of the film in 1992.
The other was the “International Cut” also known as the “Uncut Version” or “Criterion Edition”. This cut of the film while being the same length as the “Original Version” included more violent scenes than the “U.S Theatrical Version” and was originally unavailable in the US until the re-release of the film in 1992 branded as the “10th Anniversary edition.”
Sometime between the films original theatrical run and the 10th anniversary re-releases and director’s cuts, the film was edited by and broadcast on CBS. The film was cut down to 114 minutes and was edited to tone down the violence, profanity, and nudity, in order to meet the network’s broadcast restrictions. This cut of the film is known as the “US Broadcast Version.”
Ridley Scott’s “Director’s Cut” from 1992 runs at 116 minutes and has significant changes from the original theatrical versions. From the removal of Deckard’s voiceover throughout the movie, to the re-insertion of a strange and now famous sequence featuring a unicorn, and the removal of a studio imposed “happy-ending” similar to the situation with Terry Gilliam’s Brazil. This is the cut of the film that stemmed from the circulation of the unofficial “Workprint Director’s Cut” in the early 90’s. However, this cut of the film still suffered from pretty significant studio influence.
Ridley Scott’s definitive The Final Cut from 2007 runs 117 minutes and is the only cut of the film where Ridley Scott had complete creative control over the entire edit of the film.
A fantastic and influential film, with an incredible and seemingly impossible history. How much footage did they shoot in the original production in order to fit 7 distinct versions? How much do micro-changes in pacing and shot sequencing really matter? Well, watch for yourself, seek down the versions and see what strikes you about each one. Or, for those who don’t want to watch a 2 hour long film 7 times, a handy guide to seeing what scenes are added, removed, or altered in any way can be found here.
It is really interesting to look into this history, and its impact on the film industry as a whole. Also, it is really incredible to consider that technically, this film has been in production for 25 years now, while most of that time it has been in post-production, with editing and such it is still a unique feat in the history of cinema. On top of that, it really makes Boyhood’s 12-year production just seem really pathetic in comparison.
Rent Blade Runner (Director’s Cut) now from FACETS.
Rent Blade Runner (Final Cut) now from FACETS.
Funny Games (1997-2007)
Directed by Michael Haneke
Two films, from the same director, with the same script, with the same set, filmed 10 years apart, with different actors, a different cinematographer, and a different setting. The original 1997 film takes place in Germany and the recreated 2007 film takes place in America. These films may seem like an odd entry to this list, since the 2007 Funny Games also known as Funny Games US, is actually a recreation of the original 1997 and not some sort of “Director’s Cut” or alternative version. However, the reasons the film were remade and the motivation behind the changes in the film really seem to be like a “Director’s Cut” more than two distinct films.
Michael Haneke’s incredibly unique experiment in filmmaking deserves a mention in this conversation because it explores what elements makes a film the way it is. He examines which aspects of setting, story, and characters, really make an impact on the final cut of a film. Plus, the themes in the film like the purpose violence in media, and the blurring of the lines between fiction and reality, add to this sort of meta-commentary on film itself and make for an incredibly interesting but sometimes very hard to watch experience.
The original Funny Games from 1997 follows a wealthy family who arrive at their holiday home on a lake in Austria for a vacation. When they arrive, they meet two unfamiliar faces at their neighbors’ home, two young men, Peter and Paul. After the family settles in Peter and Paul begin to impose themselves on the family’s vacation, coming over, asking for eggs, asking to use the phone, and so on. However, these visits are far from innocent as their visits slowly begin to take a dark and violent turn. They break the eggs they borrow; they break the phone they were using, and it just gets worse from there. The film gets very grim, and very violent very quickly as the young men begin to subject the family to torture and sadistic games. The motives and origin of the men are never explicitly stated however they seem to have strange powers over the movie itself, Paul often looks at the camera, or smirks or winks at it, and Peter often references the formulaic conventions of suspense in traditional cinema throughout the film. They seem to know more than everyone else in the film. This all ties to the themes of the film, the theme of observation, the blurring of the lines between fiction and reality, along with the themes of violence in media and what purpose it serves.
This film is a very “meta” experience and the 2007 remake only adds to that. Michael Haneke had originally intended for 1997 film to be set in American but due to practical issues involved in the production had to settle for filming it in Austria. He had also intended for the film “to be seen widely by a U.S. audience as the film was commenting predominantly on violence in American cinema” (Filmmaker). Sadly however, this really did not happen.
When Haneke was offered to do an American remake of the film he jumped at the idea, an opportunity for him to get his original vision out there to the audience it was meant for. This is why the 2007 Funny Games really seems more like a director’s cut than a remake, it was not remade for the reasons many other films are remade, there were no upgraded special effects, there was no desire to get it to a wider audience for commercial purposes, it was all about the original vision, which is what most director’s cuts are for in the first place.
The recreated 2007 is a literal shot for shot remake there are no differences between the two aside some cinematography being slightly different. Either film realistically offers the same experience, with one being in English and one in German, pick one and enjoy, watch both and see what happens. This is an experiment in filmmaking and a one of very few shot-for-shot recreations of film, it is definitely one worth checking out.
Rent Funny Games (1997) now from FACETS.
Rent Funny Games (2007) now from FACETS.
Director’s cuts are an incredibly deep and an incredibly interesting rabbit hole to dive into. For more resources, from side-by-side comparisons of scenes from different versions of a film, to just the films themselves be sure to check out some of the links below and take a deep dive into the subtle and the sometimes strange.
Side-By-Side Comparisons and Explanations of Alternate Versions. LINK
A deeper dive into the troubled production of Justice League and more information about the Snyder Cut. LINK
Some Directors Cut films available to rent now from FACETS.
Tyler Meder is an Editorial Assistant Intern at FACETS. He received his B.A. in Communication, Film, and New Media from Carthage College after completing his thesis on shot on video horror films. He has contributed work in video and writing to multiple industries including live theatre, which earned him an honors in Animation and Video Production from the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
