MovieChat Forums > 37°2 le matin (1986) Discussion > Why a director's cut????

Why a director's cut????

posted 17 years ago by MrMcArony
23 replies | jump to latest

I've just watched the directors cut and found most of the new footage entirely unnessecary. Aliens too was simply padded out with new footage that belongs in the 'Deleted Scenes' section. In the original Betty Blue I thought she went off the rails a little too quickly, and privately ... but here too, except now I had to sit through an extra hour of t n' a!! (not that I'm complaining!)
I like seeing the re-added scenes but the film then loses its cohesion, and these scenes were originally removed for a reason. Imagine 'The Joshua Tree (Bono's Mix)' or Stephen King re-editing his old books!!!
Ideally we should be able to choose in the menu which version we'd like to see, but I guess that's impossible, eh? .....

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] yozzer1966 17 years ago

Totally agree. I loved Betty Blue when I saw it when it first came out. Just watched the directors cut and have to say I found it unbearable. Way, way too long and like johnnybrennan said, the new stuff was totally uneccesary. A brilliant film has been ruined in my opinion.

[–] pjdonlon 17 years ago

You know, its funny.
I both love and hate the extended version.

I love it because... the original (short) version gives a very much stylized view of French life, there is nothing really that relates to how it is to live in France, the day-to-day stuff. Very little indeed. It all has a dream-like quality about it, the short version, which I loved.

Then, after they came out with the longer version, there are lots of scenes where there are views of normal parts of French life, such as supermarkets,
trucks, just normal stuff, which brings it back a feeling of reality inbetween the dreamlike scenes where Zorg lives with Betty. Which in itself is interesting, because she certainly doesnt live in the real world.

As Zorg himself exclaims, when he comes home to Turkey and Chestnuts, "Je reve!" (I'm dreaming!)...

But yes, this is the most amazing movie I've ever seen.

[–] mariannedreams 17 years ago

i just felt I should note the directors cut was much for v & d then t & n. I'm brilliant!
"I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals. " S.W.C

[–] Razar_C-1 15 years ago

Monkee27 said this:
i just felt I should note the directors cut was much for v & d then t & n. I'm brilliant!

I don't understand what he means by that.

Can anyone translate what "v and d" is?
For that matter, what does "t & n" mean?

I simply don't get this 'newspeak'. However double-plus-ungood it might be.

Those who sacrifice Liberty to gain Security deserve neither
----- Benjamin Franklin -----

[–] dioro 14 years ago

I think he meant "t & a".

As to "v & d", I think he meant vag and dick.

[–] pjdonlon 17 years ago

Lets not forget it was originally a novel, and so the director's cut is more true to the novel than the original cut.

I love both versions.
I have both the original VHS version as well as the director's cut on DVD.

Excellent, brilliant, amazing movie.
Totally fantastic.

[–] hkp-4 16 years ago

I loved the original film, but I could only rate it as a 9, because the change from a rosy idyllic story to a tradegy was too abrupt. In the directors cut the build up to the "break down" is far more credible. Directors cut is a clear 10!

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AnAutumnMatinee 16 years ago

i have only seen the dorectors cut. what scenes were added?

xx

www.myspace.com/newyorkmoments

[–] arnexter 16 years ago

I've seen the director's cut, only, and I love it.
Very nice movie to have some beers to or a bottle of wine and smoke some cigaretts ...

[–] Lefty_Lou 15 years ago

Yes, I've seen this cut as well. it's very difficult to find though! Quite the headache to find it...

LL

[–] allison-oliver 15 years ago

I preferred the Director's cut because Betty's illness is developed more. It explains how the negetive pregency test was the catalyst that triggered the decline in her mental health. The Director's cut shows Betty taking someone's child and hiding in a tee pee in the toy department, a desperate attempt to have a child.

Other scenes such as the olive salesman,the mattress hating refuse collector and the scene with the detective and Zorg discussing writing were not necessary but not unwelcome.

[–] markbt116 15 years ago

Is the director's cut censored? No one on this thread mentions that, but all the amazon reviews for the director's cut are imported from korea and censored.

If it isn't censored, where can I get it?

[–] pjdonlon 15 years ago

I got mine from amazon.fr i believe.
Nothing in it was censored, nor was there any hint of korea :)

[–] agymle 14 years ago

The director's cut was just recently released in November 2009 and it is not censored - 3 hours long. I'm a Netflix subscriber so I rented it. It's also available for purchase from TLA.com
It has the French language version with subtitles and the same version dubbed. It also includes an interview with the director PLUS his 3 hour commentary. Well worth a purchase for the commentary alone.

[–] emakii 14 years ago

Gracious, I'm glad I visited this board. I saw this movie (twice) when it was released and just rented it from Netflix as I remembered how much I liked it back then.

I was thinking the whole time I must be crazy, I had no recollection of it being so long, and no recall of so many scenes. Now I know why.

I also, btw, had no idea this movie was so well-received or well known. I'd always thought of it as a bit of a hidden treasure, something not that many people knew about. Guess not.

[–] silverkid 14 years ago

I just rented this movie and... Its the 185 minute cut. I was hoping to see the original 120 minute theatrical cut. Why isn't that out on DVD?

http://most-underrated-movies.blogspot.com/

[–] digger3991 14 years ago

The whole idea of a director's cut is we get to see the film the director originally intended.

I'd imagine most major film studios insist on making cuts to make films more commercial, but in doing so the film loses its narrative drive and messes up character building. Often the director himself doesn't oversee the cuts.

I can't remember a film where a directors cut has emerged and wasn't an improvement on a shorter version.

Nobody makes me bleed my own blood. Nobody.

[–] nihilistic_tyranny 12 years ago

What you're ignoring here is pacing. Often times director's cuts have more content and a deeper story, but the pacing is quite different and changes the movie in a negative way. The director's cut is not always as good for this reason. This is the case for Apocalypse Now Redux, The Lord Of The Rings Extended Versions, Aliens director's cut, Blade Runner "director's cut" (the crappy one that was the only one we saw on dvd until the original cut came out. The one with the thrown-in voiceovers,) and practically every director's cut out there.

And then there are movies where the director's cut spoils the mystery and gives away too much information. The only movie I can think offhand where this applies is Donnie Darko. The director's cut of that film is much better to watch after you've seen the theatrical version.

If you don't believe in Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, put this in your sig.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vesperview 8 years ago

I've only seen the director's cut and I loved it. I would like to see the original cut just to see if it feels too different.