Thursday, July 10, 2008

I'm Not Here to Make Links

MCN two ways of seeing Barack Obama
Defamer "Tom Cruise as The Village People" What a biopic that would be. Can we get Todd Haynes to direct?
NY Post strange case of Kiss of the Spider Woman's long wait for a DVD
Scanners the color of movie blood
MNPP "incinerated by lousy dialogue"

Twitch a new DVD release for Terrence Malick's The New World in October. Why is it that I just can't handle the issue of this ever-evolving movie? It really bothers me. Films are not blogs --you're not supposed to keep fiddling with the design (*refresh your screens*). They're more like books. Books don't suddenly get rewritten. Even when I love the movie in question (Blade Runner and this) I have issues. When I see a movie, I want to know that I've seen it. When I watch it again I want to marvel that the detail I'm catching for the first time is, in fact, something I've seen twice. I want the "never before seen" thing to be a figurative experience, not literal. I don't want the "you haven't really seen the movie!" feeling hanging over me like some mutated sword of damacles...(wielded by Audrey Rose?). This hurts me. I can't wrap my head around the existence of three versions of one movie less than three years after its debut.

"I'm not here to make friends"
FourFour Rich is utterly brilliant, yes? Check out his latest video montage. This is why I can't watch much reality TV. Once you've seen one, you've seen them all.


Anonymous said...

"They're more like books. Books don't suddenly get rewritten."

Untrue. E.g.: Great Expectations.

But I agree that the lack of a fixed text for movies (with myriad versions of so many releases) makes it difficult to evaluate them.

Anonymous said...

This very annoyance (which I share) has stopped me buying the last DVD of the movie. I heard that the version released on DVD wasn't the full extended version that was released in Europe. I was smitten with the film as I saw it at the cinema, and refused to buy a cut-down version. I want the film I was smitten by!


Anonymous said...

film is an ever evolving medium and many films are compromised due to budget constraints, time constraints, and all too often studio interference. As such directors of these films have the right to alter them later and make them better than before in order to succeed in bringing their true vision to the screen. Look at the case of Scott's own Kingdom of Heaven - what was originally a mediocre effort due to studio butchering turned into arguably one of the best films in Scott's filmography when he released his 45 minute longer directors cut. and for the record plenty of novels have been revised and in some cases altogether re-written.

Jason Adams said...

Thanks for the heads-up on that blood piece at Scanners, Nat. I had not seen that.

As well as the linkage to me, of course. ;-)

Robert said...

I agree wholeheartedly Nathan. Studio interference is one thing. Sure a director has the right to eventually release the film he wants. That should leave 2 versions, one to count as the official film and one to be forgotten as yet another example of studio crap.

But when there are 3 or 4 or 5 versions of a single film. When studios add scenes for the DVD release (this drives me nuts too) eventually you get to a place where there is no definable film.

It's very frustrating.


anon --i am totally OK with a director's cut showing up after the fact. it makes sense for the reasons you state.

but 3 versions when this first premiered in December 2005? How many versions will their end up being for crying out loud.

Love the movie. But already wasn't OK with it being replaced two months after it's release with another theatrical release (which I guess is the one that's on video now?) which is to be replaced by this one.



and by "their" i meant "there" obviously

ARGH. Stop it Terrence. Make another movie and stop fiddling you genius you...

(if anyone needs a reason why directors should not be allowed anywhere near their original films to revamp them it's George Lucas... at least Ridley Scott was only doing minor tweaks to Blade Runner after that first director's cut.

Janice said...

La Kidman is back in the banner - yay! :)

But who is that lady to the left of Heath? I'm sure I ought to know who she is, but about three names are popping to mind, as if she were an actress mini-mashup.


josh's left or your left. ack. i suck at directions

brittany murphy and amy "cool mom" poehler

Janice said...

"Frankenstein" is another example - Mary Shelley wrote it originally in 1818, then in the second edition (1831) she toned down the "black" humor and anti-aristocracy subtext.

1818 text:

1831 text:

(in case you're curious).

Janice said...

//josh's left or your left. ack. i suck at directions//

The blond BETWEEN Josh and Heath.

Anonymous said...

I just have one question.

Are they here to make friends?


that's amy "i'm a cool mom" poehler of SNL/MEAN GIRLS fame.

"there are no rules in this house!"


liz --- NO!

every single star in the banner has verified that they are merely appearing to win the game (what game that is none of us know... since the banner will change as soon as they start feeling comfortable about it)