WATCH
LISTEN
Nicky Campbell and Rachel Burden with news and sport from the UK and around the world.
Friday 18 November 2011, 13:05
There have been a lot of enquiries about the forthcoming BFI release of Ken Russell's controversial 1971 masterpiece The Devils on DVD. Here I explain which version will be on the disc and ask are director's cuts always a good idea or is the original release usually better?
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructionsIf you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit Mark's blog to view the video.
Related Posts on Kermode Uncut
The Devil is in the Details - Mark talks to Stephen Woolley about The Devils
Hear Mark Kermode review the week's new films every Friday from 2pm on BBC Radio 5 live. Kermode & Mayo's Film Review is also available as a free podcast to download and keep.
All posts are reactively-moderated and must obey the house rules.
Tuesday 15 November 2011, 16:53
Tuesday 22 November 2011, 13:17
Comment number 1.
Connor Macgregor18th November 2011 - 13:52
Very keen on getting this. Thanks Mark for the recommendation. :)
Link to this (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
Connor Macgregor18th November 2011 - 13:56
The thing about Directors Cuts Mark is that they are more truthful to what the director's vision wants to be. I haven't seen the extended version of The Exorcist yet, only the original and that was one film that really deserves its place in cinema history.
Link to this (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
Kevy Canavan18th November 2011 - 14:12
Of course there's no hard and fast rule for every film. But I think generally if the scenes were left out for any other reason other than being cut by sensors, they should be left out.
I think directors cuts etc are interesting from an academic point of view but certainly in cases like The Exorcist and The Wicker Man...the shorter, more concise cuts are easily better.
Link to this (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
dragliner7818th November 2011 - 14:13
I think the validity of Director's Cuts very much depends on the situation. If it's a Blade Runner type scenario, where the version released was not the director's vision, then I think they are worthwhile and usually better. If it's like an Aliens type of thing, where it's basically a bunch of footage cut for length shoved back in, then I think there is an argument to be made for them being a curiosity at best, a thing of real film buffs.
There are of course times when they fall completely flat - the Director's Cut of Donnie Darko, immediately springs to mind. A version of the film that robs the original of all its mystery and ambiguity.
Link to this (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
JasonX18th November 2011 - 14:16
Hi Mark,
Probably the best example of a Directors cut both enhancing and ruining the film at the same time is of course.......Blade Runner.
The Good:
Taking narration away and removing "that ending"
The Bad:
Putting scenes in to insinuate that the Deckard character is a replicant.
Now lets get this one straight....yes Ridley Scott always intended the character to be a replicant but...and here's the thing....it DID NOT get approved.
Harrison Ford acted the role like he was a human and there is no dialogue in the film that supports the theory.
The fact that Ridley had to add scenes that insinuated that Deckard is a replicant says it all really. A case of a director butchering a film & changing its meaning.
Now we have a load of Sci Fi geeks adding their own stories about the character i.e. he's actually a new new replicant without the strength so not to give himself away and blah blah blah.
Link to this (Comment number 5)
Comments 5 of 129