The Wednesday Debate – To Redux, Or Not Redux? That Is The Question.
This week’s Wednesday Debate topically connects itself to recent speculation regarding changes that may or may not have been made to the Star Wars Saga in anticipation of the films upcoming re-release.
The internet is alive with the sound of anti-George Lucas rage. Early reports concerning the latest iteration of his Star Wars saga (due to be released on the Blu-ray format in just over a weeks time) report that a number of dramatic revisions have taken place, much to the dismay of a long suffering fan base, surprisingly not yet accustomed to such liberties being taken by the filmmaker. Many fans seem to have asserted an ownership on the series, which, to an extent can be appreciated. After all it is the fans that “maketh” the man, isn’t it, and their loyal following the reason for the success of the franchise? Or are the actions of the artist none of their concern, after all no one is forcing anyone to consume these revised works?
The Star Wars situation is nothing new, nor is the practice of reworking an act limited solely to the film industry. Artists and creatives have long revised their work. In the realms of literature, Jane Austen spent 16 years redrafting Pride And Prejudice, which was released in a number of guises in the period between initial conception and final draft, while Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables was a 17-year long work in progress. Michelangelo’s masterpiece, the Sistine Chapel was produced over a staggering 40 years.
In the cinema Ridley Scott famously only signed off finally on Blade Runner just a few years ago, with The Final Cut his third interpretation of assembled material. He also reappraised Alien just a few years before that. William Friedkin in one breath controversially regraded his The French Connection in to a work that many purists baulked at, and in another refused to allow any tinkering to take place with The Exorcist (Warner’s were hoping to retrofit the film in 3D). Friedkin and Lucas aren’t the only members of the New Hollywood to return to their masterpieces; Francis Ford Coppola has spent considerable time revising Apocalypse Now and The Godfather series over the years. On the other hand we have Steven Spielberg, who recently announced that any future reissue of Jaws will come complete with temporal faults, asserting that he doesn’t feel the same way as some of his contemporaries when it comes to the revision of his work (although that didn’t stop him from digitally altering the use of guns in E.T: The Extra-Terrestrial a few years back)
This isn’t merely a case of an artist taking their time. For the record, when that is the case, I personally am all for it. I like the idea of a filmmaker being given the opportunity to revisit their work, as long as it is the filmmaker that is actually doing it! I object profusely to a third party reworking a project that they had no creative part in in the first place. With Star Wars this becomes a little bit complicated. While few would argue with the notion that George Lucas was the key creative individual behind the third film in the Star Wars Saga, he didn’t actually direct it. Richard Marquand did. And Richard Marquand is no longer with us. With that in mind, any changes made to The Return Of The Jedi are done so without the directors approval. While its unlikely that that filmmaker ever had any say in the final film anyway, morally it does technically step over my own personal comfort threshold when it comes to what is unquestionably acceptable when it comes to reworking an existing film.
A favourite Orson Welles story concerns similar ideas. On his deathbed in 1985 the Citizen Kane director is said to have told close-friend and fellow filmmaker Henry Jaglom to “Keep Ted Turner and his goddamned Crayolas away from my movies”. Welles’ was famously the proponent of an artistically free cinema, given the keys to the kingdom so to speak. Alas when Rome fell, and Kane under performed, the very people that had groomed the iconoclast during his brief time in Hollywood turned against him. His follow-up to Citizen Kane, the infamous The Magnificent Ambersons was taken from the filmmaker, re-edited and the offending footage from Welles’ vision destroyed. A similar fate befell his Touch Of Evil, with Welles ultimately removing himself from the business of Hollywood for much of his career as a result of his treatment during this. That one of the filmmaker’s final requests to be so explicitly connected to the idea of the artist filmmaker is wonderfully appropriate.
So, how do you feel about the directorial revisionism? Is it okay in moderation? Completely off limits? Do you feel as though the viewer has a right to be offended when such decisions are made, or such liberties taken? Fire away in the comments below.
Like this:
Comments
20 Responses to “The Wednesday Debate – To Redux, Or Not Redux? That Is The Question.”Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...-
[...] of those of a religious persuasion. Devotion, single-mindedness, an inability to accept change (see Wednesday’s Debate) and an immovable belief in the object of their affiliation. Much like religion today, interest is [...]
The difference in just about all those cases is that the intial film is out there – it hasn’t been withdrawn. Surely if you are interested in film history, having each “draft” avaliable is the best possible outcome?
And I think you are being somewhat dismissive of the Star Wars fanbase. Goodness knows I used to be a fanatical fan, but now own nothing to do with the movies. However the changes they are up in arms about aren’t just cosmetic – they alter one of the key scenes of the whole series. This wouldn’t be as annoying to them, if the movies they grew up with were out there on BR as well. But they aren’t, and the DVD versions are offered as “bonus content”.
Mind you I have a feeling that Lucas doesn’t really care about the OT outside of how it fits in with the Prequels – indeed there are very few OT games etc out there on the market. It is all Prequels.
However that is a rant for another day. Filmmakers are free to do what they please, but must tread carefully. Their fanbases are what made them, and their ire can be terrible.
Please dont mistake the above as some kind of argument or case study; it’s not meant to be at all, but is merely an introduction to the sheer concept of revisionism and tinkering. I’m actually a big fan of the Star Wars films. Like many my age they formed a part of my formative appreciation of the cinema. Between the ages of 5 and 16 I was truly obsessed with the series, and am very much excited about revisiting them on Blu-ray, whatever the revisions.
Arguably the unaltered Star Wars are among the most widely available “drafts” of all the films mentioned. Coppola’s original Godfather is long OOP on DVD and never made it to Blu-ray. Similarly The French Connection us stranded in standard definition. Was E.T ever released on DVD with the guns in tact?
ET had both versions on its first release.
Interestingly I think Coppola with his latest film, is doing exactly what Lucas I think wishes he could. Editing a movie right there when it is screening.
The ’82 edition is long out of print on DVD now tho. In spite of Spielberg’s comeback on the subject -
“There’s going to be no more digital enhancements or digital additions to anything based on any film I direct…. When people ask me which E.T. they should look at, I always tell them to look at the original 1982 E.T. If you notice, when we did put out E.T. we put out two E.T.s. We put out the digitally enhanced version with the additional scenes and for no extra money, in the same package, we put out the original ‘82 version. I always tell people to go back to the ’82 version.”
I suspect his comments mean we will be getting the 82 when it comes out on Blu Ray.
I expect so yeah. Why were the guns removed anyway? Post-911? I can’t remember.
I believe he just didn’t want young kids threatened by guns. And then he changed his mind again.
The trouble with Star Wars is that George Lucas is like a kid with a faceful of zits, he just can’t stop picking at it. The films are good enough, i wish he’d leave be.
I was 10 years old when the original was out at the cinema, the magic was there and i think that keep adding and taking away spoils it somehow.
Bladerunner was heavily interfered with over Ridley’s wishes, so it is only now with the final cut that we have a true director’s vision of that film. Alien redux was also imposed on him, and is inferior to the theatrical cut, which he acknowledges. Apocalypse Now Redux inserts already shot footage, and the theatrical cut has always been made available as an equally valid artistic vision. Star Wars, on the other hand, has had brand new additional stuff (mostly) clumsily added to it, giving no additional depth. Just because Lucas believes he can. Why not have seamless branching on the Blu-ray, with the viewers option to add / remove segments? I would love the option to watch star wars with the Tatooine Biggs and Luke scene, but no, now we get (supposedly) Darth Vader yelling “Noooooooo” . Enough is enough. What if Citizen Kane had old man Kane’s aged makeup CGI’d, as I joked on twitter? Fixing obvious mistakes and deficiencies in aged SFX is one thing, retrofitting the original trilogy to be more in line with the spirit sapping prequels is another.
“What if Citizen Kane had old man Kane’s aged makeup CGI’d, as I joked on twitter?”
This is my point tho, if Welles were to come back from the dead and digitally alter Kane then so be it. If some random person were to do it then I’d damn the fucker. It’s all about creative intent. It’s Lucas’s film, I have no right to have any say in what he wants to do. Do I?
I think we have to recognise that not every change is equal to oneother.
Welles altering makeup – fine, ok.
Welles having the final line be an ADR – “Turns out that Rosebud was his childhood slegh. Who woulda guessed!?” – then you have problems.
But again, if that was the director’s wishes, then who am I to object?
Because we are film watchers and can be critical to changes. It isn’t a vaccum. Unless you are suggesting that we should not be allowed to reassess a filmmakers work if they make revisions because it is their “art”- in fact to take it further, does this render criticism moot?
I’m not saying anything of the sort, but the relentless complaining going on around these changes is hardly academic, its not even “real” complaining, its moaning!
But yes, I do actually think that these films are critic proof, by and large, in the respect that nothing anyone says or does will change anything. Not that inspiring change is generally a product of film criticism anyway, but tell that to those bemoaning these changes passionately.
It is real complaining.
The first “no” happens before Williams cue starts to soar, thus taking the tension off of his decision. The second no at least lines up with the cue. Neither of them tell us anything we don’t already know.
The direction and the music is telling the story of the scene. I haven’t encountered anyone who ever needed that moment to be clarifed for them.
And worst of all it dims Williams brilliant score right down. When it should be epic, it is rendered into fighting for space with James Earl Jones. It is such a delicate scene, unlike a lot of the other stuff. That is what I mean about not every change is equal.
I had the same problem with Luke being made to scream in Empire. He removed that, so fingers crossed this gets reassessed as well.
“It is real complaining”.
Sorry, I meant from the perspective of what people are actually doing in response to it. As opposed to actually claiming to the relevant parties, people are merely sitting around on the internet bemoaning Lucas’s actions.
But I suppose that is part of what happens when someone makes revisions to films on such as regular basis – they are discussed, debated and asssesed. When the 2004 ones came out – yeah people didn’t like the end of Jedi, but most liked the change to Empire (scream gone, Emperor updated). Likewise with the Special Editions some was liked, some was not.
It is an interesting relationship between people who know every frame of those three films, and the director. It gets passionate for some, but I think for most it comes from genuine love. And lets be honest, I don’t think there is anything you can compare what Lucas is doing with other films. Star Wars is its own thing.
That’s exactly what I’m unhappy about. Change should be carefully weighed against the balance of the original cut.
I’m looking forward to the boxset release, as a kid these were great memories but I haven’t really returned since. The return is overdue.
Cinema history is littered with films that have been taken out of the filmmakers hands. I find it ironic that they’ve tried to re-piece Fincher’s Alien 3 together; a recent film but one already not available in the form of the directors vision. Serves them right in many ways.
The difference is that the original Star Wars films will exist somewhere in Lucas HQ, hopefully well preserved. George has been focused on pushing boundaries of technology and sound but film conservation isn’t his strongest point. Ideally, I’d like all the versions whatever the minor changes. Part of the joy of blu ray for me is seeing these ‘older’ films dusted down and wonderfully resurrected for future generations. City Girl, Metropolis, Taxi Driver and their ilk now look amazing but retain their historical character.
Yep, dust down the old prints George and let us have those alongside your new tinkering and graphical prowess. You’ve taken a step further and that’s something I’m not entirely comfortable with.