On Directors' Cuts and "Zack Snyder's Justice League"

The term "auteur theory" was first coined by American film critic Andrew Sarris in the 1960s though the idea of an filmmaker being an auteur originated with the French film critics of the magazine Cahiers du Cinema. The auteur theory believes the director is the author of a film and a director is an auteur if they have a distinguishable visual style and recurring themes throughout their work

I begin with the auteur theory because I believe the term "director's cut" reinforces the idea of director as author. A director's cut of a film suggests validity- this is the true version of the film and what was seen originally was a compromised version of a filmmaker's vision. And I do think that's true in many cases. Films have suffered from being cut down from their intended length and tampered with by studios. One of the best examples is Ridley Scott's Blade Runner. The 1982 theatrical cut had the studio imposed happy ending and Harrison Ford's voice-over narration. The 1992 director's cut and subsequent 2007 Final Cut enhanced the film's standing as a science fiction masterpiece. 

Then there are times where a true director's cut can't exist. For example, the restored version of Orson Welles' Touch of Evil. Welles had died before that version was released so it cannot be called a director's cut. However it is based on Welles' memo to Universal Studios and is the closest thing to Welles' vision for the film. And the Assembly Cut of Alien 3 didn't have David Fincher's involvement but is seen as an improvement over the theatrical release, closer to what Fincher was attempting with the film.

Peter Jackson and James Cameron don't like the label of Director's Cut because it implies dissatisfaction  with the theatrical release. They prefer "Special" or "Extended Edition." The Extended Edition of his Lord of the Rings Trilogy weren't intended by Jackson to replace the theatrical versions. They were for fans who wanted more of Middle-Earth. But there's also the several special editions of the original Star Wars Trilogy. George Lucas feels the special effects at the time of the original trilogy's production didn't allow him to fully realize the Star Wars universe on screen.

As I said earlier the term director's cut relates to the auteur theory. But, as with the auteur theory, it's important not to lose sight of the collaborative process of filmmaking. Many people's work is also compromised. One major case of this is Zack Snyder's Justice League. It was recently announced we are finally getting to see Zack Snyder's version of Justice League in 2021 when it premieres on HBO Max. In this case, this isn't a director's cut since the the theatrical cut was largely Joss Whedon's, with some footage from Snyder. What we have is a completely different film. And it feels like a game-changer. Warner Bros. smuggled in the Whedon--directed film under Snyder's name, hoping to get approval from critics and fans who reacted negatively to Batman v. Superman. The plan backfired when the film bombed and fans felt betrayed. The #Releasethesnydercut movement was born and led to Snyder's gaining the opportunity to show his original vision.

In the wake of the movement there's already been a push to release the late Joel Schumacher's supposed darker and longer cut of Batman Forever. And David Ayer's Suicide Squad may also finally being getting a director's cut as well. Ayer initially said the version released in theatres was his cut but the film received a extended cut on blu ray and he has recently been talking on Twitter about his original vision for the film and scenes which were cut. It's become a meme to say "#releasethe" whatever cut. Studios may engage with the directors they hire differently going forward. In the era of social media people are more aware of what goes on behind the scenes and directors have a platform to talk about their work. 

Now, I want to make clear I don't think studio involvement is always a bad thing. In the case of Howard Hawks' The Big Sleep (1946), the film was improved by additional scenes shot at the behest of producer Jack L. Warner. He encouraged by Lauren Bacall's agent Charles K. Feldman who believed Bacall's career would be over if she received the same negative reviews she did for Confidential Agent (1945), shot after The Big Sleep was released first due to its war-time subject. The additional scenes between her and Bogart, including a discussion about horses which is very sexual in its innuendo, helped make the film a classic.

  

I'm glad Snyder and everyone involved finally sees their work get its due. As a fan of Snyder's first two films in this story it's exciting to see a proper continuation of what he set up.      

So, are you excited for Snyder's Justice League? Do you believe it'll change anything in Hollywood? Comment and let me know.

On Robert Pattinson as Batman and Fan Entitlement.

When it comes to comic book movie- or any big Hollywood movie- casting, history, as in all things, repeats itself. With Robert Pattinson announced as the new Batman in Matt Reeves' upcoming film,

there's already a petition to replace Pattinson, just like his predecessor Ben Affleck when his casting in Zack Snyder's Batman v. Superman was announced. They're both in good company though.

When Michael Keaton was first cast as Bruce Wayne/Batman in Tim Burton's 1989 Batman (which, like me, celebrates its 30th anniversary this year), the reaction from fans was less than positive. Keaton was known for his comedic roles in films such as Mr. Mom, Johnny Dangerously and Burton's Beetlejuice. Due to Keaton's comedy background, the impression was Burton's film would be similar the Batman TV show from the 60s starring Adam West, which was notably comedic, whereas fans were hoping for a more serious take. 

Burton's film would ultimately turn out to be a fun-house mirror version of the 60s series, with Jack Nicholson's Joker being a more psychotic take on Caesar Romero's performance. West played Batman as just a normal guy dressing up in a Bat-suit; Keaton brought a strong silent presence to his portrayal of the Caped Crusader and played to his comedic strengths as Bruce Wayne. Keaton's performance was a slightly "off" version of Wayne, a version of the character that emphasized how weird and anti-social a guy who decided to dress up as a bat would be. Now, it's hard to disassociate Keaton from the role, especially for my generation who grew up with Keaton and Burton's two films.

Heath Ledger's casting as the Joker in Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight was met with intense scepticism who couldn't see Ledger as a psychotic clown. Ledger would go on to posthumously win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, the only actor to win an Oscar for a superhero film. And his performance is still seen as the benchmark for super-villain performances.

Even Robert Downey, Jr. as Iron Man was met with resistance. But his performance and the original Iron Man gave birth to what's arguably the biggest franchise in film history, the Marvel Cinematic Universe. 

It's okay to have doubts regarding an actor's casting but creating a petition to recast an actor before they even give a performance is, I believe, dictating the film-making process. I feel certain fans want to control the making of these movies when t's the director's crew and cast whom craft it. Pandering to fans does not a good movie make. Look at Justice League, which was re-shot from Snyder's original version to accommodate fans who disliked Batman v. Superman and Man Steel. It ended up making Superman a caricature and losing any of the edge and thematic aspiration that Snyder brought to his previous two films. 

There's also a petition to remake Season 8 of Game of Thrones and before that one to remake The Last Jedi. However one feels about the new season of GOT (I haven't seen it but know the events of the previous episode) or The Last Jedi, they will never be remade. Ultimately they have be viewed as they are, good or bad, or somewhere in between. I have my criticisms of The Last Jedi but there will never be a version of the film which "fixes" my issues with it. Being critical of the media you consume is healthy but wanting an artist to somehow to remake or change a film or TV show reeks of entitlement. Now, there are cases a where a director has gone back and tinkered, added or eliminated things from a film. Oliver Stone continued to rework his maligned Alexander. Ridley Scott went back twice to Blade Runner and of course George Lucas notoriously added to special effects to the original Star Wars trilogy. While it is possible for a film to be changed down the road, in these cases it was the directors' choice to go back and alter their films. Their reasons had to do with their creative fashion rather than fan dictation.

Coming back to Pattinson, I think he's a tantalizing choice for the role because like Keaton and Bale, and even Val Kilmer, he's not a conventional leading man. In his roles in David Cronenberg's Cosmopolis and the Safdie Brother's Good Time, has an off-kilter quality that befits the weirdness inherent in Bruce Wayne's character. I also admire Reeves as a filmmaker. The last two Planet of the Apes films are what more Hollywood blockbusters should aspire to be. So now I leave it to you. What you think about Pattinson's cast as well as fan petitions? Comment below and let me know.

Some thoughts on ''RoboCop Returns'' and other recently announced films

It was recently announced that another RoboCop film-entitled RoboCop Returns- is in development with Neil Blomkamp attached to direct. What intrigues me about this announcement is it's not another remake or re-imagining but a direct sequel to the original, essentially ignoring RoboCop 2 and 3, and based on a story by the writers of the original film, Edward Nuemeier  and Michael Miner. Nuemeier and Miner wrote a script for RoboCop 2, which was never used. Justin Rhodes- who wrote the new Terminator film in production- will be writing the screenplay 

I know for many Blomkamp is a director who made one good movie (District 9) and hasn't made anything worthwhile since. I agree Blomkamp hasn't completely lived up to his promise; both Elysium and Chappie partly felt like attempts to replicate District 9's success. However, I do believe he's a talented director and working from another writer's script may be beneficial. Also, Blomkamp is somewhat of a spiritual heir to Paul Verhoeven who directed the original. Like Verhoeven Blompkamp blends social commentary and gory violence, though with all together different aesthetic. 

This isn't the first time a franchise film has ignored previous sequels. Superman Returns acted as alternate Superman 3 to the first two Christopher Reeve films; the upcoming Halloween (with Jamie Lee Curtis returning) is ignoring everything post John Carpenter's original, nixing the brother-sister twist regarding Michael Myers and Laurie. Funnily enough, Blomkamp wanted to make a follow-up to Aliens with Sigourney Weaver, disregarding David Fincher's controversial Alien 3. I was worried that Blomkamp just wanted to do Aliens again, even though I still want Weaver to come back for another film. Ideally, RoboCop Returns won't just be Blomkamp remaking the original but expanding upon its themes- similar to Blade Runner 2049.

. 

I'll freely admit I'm more of a fan of the DCEU than the MCU, despite the behind the scenes problems and reshuffling constantly going on at Warner Bros. I'm also one of those people who want to see Zack Snyder's cut of Justice League, despite having fun with the theatrically released version. With that said, it's a little odd to be getting two Joker movies, one with the already established Jared Leto version from Suicide Squad and an origin film set a different continuity, starring Joaquin Phoenix and directed by Todd Phillips, with Martin Scorsese on board as a producer. But I do like that DC is further distancing itself from the MCU, with movies set in alternate continuities, which reflects DC Comics history.

While I was excited for Leto's performance in Suicide Squad I  was a little disappointed in the depiction of the character, though in a better written and realized film I think he can be great. I love Phoenix as an actor, and I've always have since seeing in M. Night Shyamalan's Signs back in 2002. I think he's a perfect fit for the Joker. 

The problem I have is this film is to be a Joker origin story. I feel the Joker works best without a origin story. It differentiates him from Batman's other villains and super villains in general. The Joker isn't defined by a tragic past or any psychological motivation, which makes him the complete opposite of Batman, who is all about having a tragic past and psychological motivations. Batman wants to control the chaos of his mind and the world, while the Joker is an "agent of chaos," as Heath Ledger's Joker proclaimed himself in The Dark Knight. And a big part of what made Ledger's Joker great is the character's ambiguous nature. Were any of the stories he told true, were some aspects true, can he not even remember? In Alan Moore's seminal graphic novel The Killing Joke the Joker says he prefers his backstory to be "multiple choice," casting doubt on the backstory we're given in the story.  

I'm also not excited about Phillips directing. though I see how his background in directing gritty comedies about masculinity does fit. It's just I'd be more enthusiastic if someone like Fincher or Denis Villenueve was behind the camera.

Almost a decade later, a sequel to Zombieland has been officially announced, with the original cast members (Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Emma Stone, and Abigail Breslin) all returning, as well as original director Ruben Fleischer. I don't know exactly what you do with a sequel to this property. I really liked the original when I first saw it but it essentially was a re-worked TV pilot made in to a movie. Certainly, Eisenberg and Stone are bigger names than they were in 2009. Back then he was probably still seen as the ''poor man's Michael Cera'' and she was still the ''girl from Superbad.'' It'll be weird seeing them back in these parts, particularly Stone who to me always comes across as just being Emma Stone. Given the gap in time between movies, especially in regards to Breslin- I assume this movie will be ten years post the original, so I'd be kind of interested in what the world of the original looks like now. Maybe civilization has rebuilt itself though the charm of the original came from it being a four-hander. I think it's best to not incorporate too many new characters. Keep it simple. 

So, what are your thoughts on these upcoming projects? Comment below and let me know.

Some brief thoughts on Joss Whedon and Batgirl

It was announced this recently that Joss Whedon was in talks to write and direct a Batgirl movie for DC/Warner Bros, presumably to be part of the DCEU (DC Extended Universe that began with Man of Steel. It's a major coup for DC/Warner Bros. Whedon helped make the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) what it is today, successfully bringing together its disparate heroes in the game-changing The Avengers. Having Whedon on-board the DCEU adds some good will considering the controversial reaction to their film output thus far.

Whedon's sensibilities do line up with writer Cameron Stewart's run on Batgirl several years ago, which was more lighthearted compared to Gail Simone's serious take on the character. Just imagine Buffy the Vampire Slayer but with Batgirl and I think you have something akin to the actual film.

When the DC universe was rebooted for the New 52, Simone re-imagined Barbara Gordon as having gained the ability to walk again. Barbara had being paralyzed by the Joker shooting her. This event occured in Alan Moore's The Killing Joke. In the previous continuity, Barbara took on the role of Oracle, a computer expert working alongside the DC heroes. With the DCEU reportedly moving towards a lighter tone, a Whedon Batgirl wouldn't feel as out of place as it would immediately post Batman v. Superman.

Whedon's Batgirl film is said to be taking inspiration from the New 52 so the question is whether The Killing Joke will be part of Barbara's backstory. The Killing Joke is a controversial, with some considering it sexist and misogynistic. Critics of the story view Barbara's role in the story as essentially a plot device to psychologically torture her father Commissioner James Gordon. I believe there is a way to incorporate Barbara's paralysis in to the story without her being a plot-device, which is to have her in costume and in action when she is paralyzed. 

Another important question is who will play Barbara. Many have suggested Emma Stone, who's fresh off her Oscar win for La La Land. Admittedly, I'm not a huge fan of Stone and feel Jane Levy- who's name has also been bandied about for the role- is actually a more versatile actress and deserves a star-making role of this caliber. British actress Imogen Poots is also another actress who always feels like she's on the cusp stardom. 

I'm looking forward to seeing more of the Bat-family as the DCEU progresses, particularly with Ben Affleck's Batman in BvS seemingly cut-off from everyone except Jeremy Irons' Alfred Pennyworth. So, let me know- is Whedon a good pick? And who do you want to play Batgirl in the DCEU?