|
Banned
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dobyblue
…As this thread shows, you're in the minority here.
|
That may be so, however, the majority of people are often dead wrong. More is not necessarily better. Don't forget, they hand out editing awards at the Oscars for a reason—it is an art. I happen to prefer the theatrical cut for many reasons. But I think Holly E. Ordway over at DVDTalk pretty much sums up my feelings about the Director's Cut:
Quote:
Given the strengths of the theatrical cut, what exactly does the additional 52 minutes of new footage give us? Largely, more of everything that we already have. Instead of one well-chosen image or scene, we get several of the same; instead of a scene trimmed to its essentials, we get insignificant material before and afterwards. It's clear right from the beginning that this additional material disrupts the pacing and dilutes the impact of the film. In the next three paragraphs, I'm going to talk about some of these specific changes, and in the process I will reveal some spoilers; if you don't want to see any spoilers, go ahead and skip this next section.
[Spoilers Begin]
Take, for instance, the scene in which Dunbar reports to the crazed Major Fambrough to take his new posting. In the theatrical version, after Dunbar arrives in town and walks up to the building, we immediately cut to him in front of the major. The extended version shows him being let into the building by a subordinate soldier, and walking down the hall into the office. What does this add to the film? Absolutely nothing. At the end of that sequence, viewers will recall that the major pulls out a gun and shoots himself, with the film immediately cutting to Dunbar hearing the shot as he rides away. In the extended version, this powerful scene is prefaced by a scene in which the major demands his "crown" and scuffles with his staff. This is completely unnecessary, as the preceding scene with Dunbar amply demonstrated the major's madness. Then, instead of the dramatic simplicity of the suicide in the original cut, we get a drawn-out version, in which we see the bloody window, the townsfolk gathering around, and the body being found. All this merely serves to diminish the stark effectiveness of the scene.
We also get many small additions that, for lack of a better word, are clearly just "flab." When Dunbar reads from his diary, instead of a pure voiceover to other on-screen action, we actually see the camera move down to show the page with the written words on it, and we also get scenes that act out scenes that were previously simply summarized in the voiceover, like his reconnaissance rides. In another example, when Dunbar discovers the dead deer in the water at Ft. Sedgwick, the theatrical version shows us just one image: the shocking sight of the dead animal's head submerged in the pool. We then move to his bonfire of the corpses, with the size of the pile telling us just how many bodies there were beyond that chilling first one. The extended cut shows us three dead deer, as well as footage of Dunbar actually hauling the corpses out of the water. What do the second and third deer tell us that the first one didn't? Nothing. In fact, they simply cheapen the effect of the simple, dramatic first shot.
Flab is bad enough, but what's worse is that many of the longer inserted scenes serve to destroy the dramatic tension and sense of discovery in the film. For instance, intercut with the scenes of Dunbar traveling to his new post, we get a scene that actually shows what happened to the soldiers at the fort. That means that when Dunbar actually arrives and finds the fort deserted, there's no sense of surprise at finding the place empty; we're also deprived of the possibility that the soldiers might return and the tantalizing unresolved mystery of what happened to them. Another glaring example is a scene with the Sioux in which a war party comes back and Stands with a Fist (Mary McDonnell) is shown weeping over her dead husband. In the theatrical cut, we don't see her until later in the film, and we experience first a sense of surprise at finding a white woman living among the Sioux, and then a sense of mystery at her depression. Learning of the reason for her sadness is a revelation in the original cut; the new cut gives it away well in advance, sapping that later scene of its dramatic power.
[End of spoilers]
I never fully appreciated just how good the pacing was in the original film until I saw it blown to pieces by the additional footage. From simple flab that reduces previously tightly crafted and polished work to being simply ordinary, to scenes that destroy the tension and sense of wonder of the original cut, there's not a single addition here that I felt actually improved the film. I think that the theatrical cut of Dances with Wolves is a fantastic movie, but the four-hour version is a testament to self-indulgence, to a bloated "more is better" mentality that makes me think much less of Costner as a director.
|
In my opinion, she hit the nail on the head. However, since the director's cut exists, I believe MGM should include it in any Blu-ray release. If they choose not to, you can bet your sweet arse it will resurface later in a Special Edition Blu-ray Director's Cut Leatherette Set.
This isn't to say that some Director's Cuts don't improve upon the original, I just don't think that it is so in this case.
Last edited by AaronSCH; 05-29-2008 at 05:02 PM.
|
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
. It will just have to hold me off until the extended release. I just can't pass up on the cinematography of this movie in 1080p.. too much to overcome.
Linear Mode
