So earlier today, I posted a news link to Whedonesque — yeah, I know, big geek — about director Richard Kelly’s new film Southland Tales and how it was apparently being edited against Kelly’s will, and was in fact going to be cut by the distributor by a full hour before release. It turns out now that this so-called news was in fact quite old and had been taken out of context. Kelly is still very much involved in the editing process, and he’s very pleased so far with the results. He’s looking forward to the release of his film.
What I found most interesting — and this is something I also posted at Whedonesque — was the divide in the responses I saw, both there and elsewhere online.
“Oh that’s horrible!” some people would say. “The artist’s vision is sacrosanct. There must be no editing he doesn’t approve!”
“Well maybe,” answered back the others. “But his earlier film was a whole lot better because of the edits he was forced to make. The director’s cut is just not as good a film.”
I haven’t seen the director’s cut of Donnie Darko — only the theatrical release — and I really don’t know a whole lot more than the very basics about Kelly’s new movie. But I do think it opens up an interesting can of worms for discussion: should an artist’s vision be compromised if it makes the art better?
And yeah, I know “better” is a pretty loaded term, but I’m genuinely to hear what people think.