Mulholland Drive edited? (1 Viewer)

[Thomas T]

I seriously doubt that the anti Lynch faction demanding to see Mulholland Drive exactly as it was shown theatrically would object to, say, a director's cut with 20 minutes of added footage despite the fact that it is not the film that was shown theatrically and those 20 extra minutes could well change the mood of the film.
No, they would be salivating despite the fact that this was not the exact film as shown in theatres.
You can't have it both ways, guys. It's Lynch's film and he can do with it as he damn well pleases. We don't have to like it. Why are we arguing about the right of an artist to control his work? This is something to celebrate, not whine about.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

I seriously doubt that the anti Lynch faction demanding to see Mulholland Drive exactly as it was shown theatrically would object to, say, a director's cut with 20 minutes of added footage despite the fact that it is not the film that was shown theatrically and those 20 extra minutes could well change the mood of the film.

First off, just because someone's not a massive devotee of a filmmaker, that doesn't make them "anti". If I were anti-Lynch, I'd hope he never makes another movie. I'm more Lynch-indifferent. Just because some people disagree, that doesn't make them a "faction".

Second, you make a good argument, but if the "longer" version was the only version available, you can bet I'd complain.

 

[Joseph Young]

but if the "longer" version was the only version available, you can bet I'd complain.

I'm of the same mind on this also. It makes me grateful that with films like Almost Famous/Untitled and the upcoming FOTR fans are being given a choice to purchase the theatrical cut and/or the extended.

Cheers,

Joseph

 

[Samuel Des]

You can't have it both ways, guys.

No offense, but I don't think that's really a good comparison. There's a difference between a DVD that has less (blurred image) versus a DVD that has more (additional footage).

Let's test this. Say that (1) there is a director-approved blurred DVD. Let's say (2) there is another un-authorized DVD with no blurring, with no additional cuts. (3) Though one is not Lynch approved, both are legitimate releases. (4) Given the ability to choose only one DVD, which do you pick?

I'm willing to bet that most (including those who identify themselves as "pro-Lynch") will buy (2) -- even if it isn't Lynch-approved.

Wanting to get the full picture doesn't make you pro- or anti-Lynch. It makes you a consumer voicing a dollar opinion.

 

[cafink]

I seriously doubt that the anti Lynch faction demanding to see Mulholland Drive exactly as it was shown theatrically would object to, say, a director's cut with 20 minutes of added footage despite the fact that it is not the film that was shown theatrically and those 20 extra minutes could well change the mood of the film.

Why do you doubt it? If a longer cut was the only version made available, then yes, I promise you I'd object to it as would a good portion of the HTF membership.

 

[Steve Felix]

I can't think of anything that starts a civil war around here faster than director alteration issues.
I'm of the belief that even if directors have the right to change their work after the theatrical release, that doesn't make it right. I won't buy a "director's cut", an "unrated" cut, a cut with "3 minutes of bonus footage," or a censored/altered cut.
In my several years of thinking about these things I've made two exceptions to that rule: Return of the Joker, and now this. Return of the Joker because it's history is a story so absurd and heartbreaking it breaks even my hardcore principles, and MD because on my close-to-properly-calibrated TV, on which the brightness is set so that black is black, it really is too dark to see a blur or anything else that might have been there.
The only analogy I can think of: it's like digitally removing a boom mike that is in the matted part of the frame -- there's no effect if one is watching it properly in the first place! (Don't mean to accuse anyone of not having a perfectly calibrated set considering I can't guarantee mine is.)
If I had proof that the scene was darkened for DVD I might be holding to principle, although film doesn't lend itself to precision in color and light. On top of varying ambient light and bulb/TV birghtness, our eyes percieve differently.
Boy, I bet I've changed some minds!

 

[Thomas T]

Scott: When I used the term "anti-Lynch faction", I was referring to those who who disagreed with Lynch's decision to defer to Laura Elena Harring's wishes. Whether one loves Lynch, hates Lynch or is indifferent to him is irrelevant when it comes to an artist's right to control his creation. If enough people group together to protest something, that makes them a "faction" in my book.
Samuel: I respectfully disagree. The comparison is apt. There is a greater chance of 20 minutes of additional footage altering a film than 3 seconds of blurred genitalia. I stand by my statement that the same (and yes, I know I'm generalizing here) persons crying "foul" about the blurred genitalia would do backflips over an extended version. I would suspect that most posters would have purchased the unrated director's cut of Basic Instinct over the theatrical cut despite it not recreating the theatrical experience.
Carl: ".... as would a good portion of the HTF membership". It's always dangerous to speak on what others would do. And no, you don't have to point out to me that that is exactly what I am doing. I'm guessing HTF members would be enthralled with a longer director's cut and you're guessing that they would vehemently object. Whose guess is closer to the mark will remain unanswered.
Steve: I congratulate you. You seem consistent across the board, a quality I admire but difficult to find in most.

 

[Brian Perry]

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I think Scott has a point about the lack of chapter stops. Lynch apparently wants to preserve theatrical purity by preventing us from skipping to specific scenes, yet has no qualms about editing the theatrical release. This seems contradictory.

Some people have mentioned that this editing sets a precedent, and I agree. What would you say if DVDs not only lacked chapter stops but were also not fast-forwardable? Don't you think the public would be outraged?