Whether we're aware of it or not, most of us will have at least one Director's Cut in our DVD collections. They're easy enough to spot as it's normally scribbled all over the box, and the set will usually come with an array of extra features. But what is the point of a Director's Cut? Some might say they're just a way to make more money, by flogging an older film and adding a new scene here or there. Others would contend that a Director's Cut often contains the true vision of the film-maker. The reality is of course that both of these viewpoints are correct, it just depends on what film they're referring too. So in this Feature I'm going to look at some of the more famous examples of Directors' Cuts, particularly the reasons behind their release and the impact they have on the films themselves.

The director most commonly associated with the Director's Cut is Ridley Scott. Scott's Blade Runner was one of the first films to be released in a Director's Cut format, and the film differs in many ways from the theatrical release. General consensus is that this Director's Cut is better than the theatrical version, not least because it removes the happier ending Warner Brothers tacked on to it. However, even this Director's Cut suffered from a rushed release, principally because Scott didn't want Warner Brothers to release their own version under the same label. As I understand it, a definitive Director's Cut is due out at the end of the year. So Blade Runner is an example of a Director's Cut which presents the film-makers vision as they originally intended it, and it just so happens that it improves the film as well.

There are of course many other examples of a Director's Cut being considered superior to the original release. Many of these are James Cameron films, with the Director's Cuts of Aliens and The Abyss recognised as superior films to their theatrical releases. Milos Forman's Director's Cut of Amadeus received a mixed reception, as some of the new scenes add little to the drama. However, a number of plot holes left over from the theatrical release were also explained, and that is something I personally found pleasing. Even Daredevil, a film which was largely panned by critics upon its theatrical release, has won high praise for its Director's Cut, presided over by Mark Steven Johnson.

Of course sometimes a Director's Cut offers very little variation from the original release, and these are normally done for commercial reasons. Back to Scott again, and this time he fiddled with Alien for a special DVD release, on the insistence of 20th Century Fox. Scott is on record as saying this was done solely for money, and that the original film still represents his final cut. The same is in many ways true with regard to The Lord of the Rings Extended Editions. Peter Jackson has said he was under no pressure to cut any footage from those films, and therefore he considers the theatrical versions to be his Director's Cuts, although he is happy to give the fans the extra scenes. Opinion is divided on these versions, and I confess I prefer the original cuts myself. The Fellowship of the Ring benefits slightly from the extra scenes, but The Two Towers and The Return of the King become lumbering and stretched.

Of course, like The Lord of the Rings Extended Editions, some Directors' Cuts involve more than just the odd tweak and often have huge chunks of footage put back in. Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now Redux is an example of this type of Director's Cut, and in general it has been poorly received. My own thoughts echo many I've read elsewhere, mainly that the new scenes actually diminish the impact of the film overall, and certainly make it needlessly long. A Director's Cut of a similar nature I await with interest is Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven, due out in a few weeks. I enjoyed the theatrical cut for what it was, but I had problems with the holes in the plot and the development of the characters, which are issues apparently addressed by the Director's Cut.

Of course the other type of Director's Cut is one where footage is actually removed. I think many of us view directors, rather cynically, as having massive egos and not wanting to cut anything from their work, but quite often it does improve the film. I mentioned in my review of it that there are actually two versions of The Shining and that one is significantly shorter. This was because Stanley Kubrick removed the footage himself, and the film is better as a result. Another famous example is David Lynch's Dune, which he trimmed down after filming over three hours of footage. In fact, when the film had much of the cut footage restored and edited in for a TV version Lynch had his name removed from it, and as a result this version carries a "Directed by Alan Smithee" credit.

So what becomes clear is that there are many reasons for releasing Directors' Cuts. Sometimes it's to restore cuts to films made by the studio, and to give us the full artistic intention of the director. On other occasions it's because the director himself isn't happy with the final effort, or it's done just to make money. You might find this last reason to be a bit greedy, but in reality films are all about the channeling of talent and turning it into money. However, most of us are happy to part with our money to be entertained, moved or enthralled, so where's the harm in it? Ultimately, while the Director's Cut can sometimes be used as a marketing ploy to earn more money, in some cases they really do improve the film significantly, and for that reason alone they're worth releasing.

© David Mercier
Discuss films and features on the FilmJudge Blog