The so-called "director's cut" of Dark City has several changes, a few of which improve the film, a few that detract. Here's a list of the things I can recall.
1. The film starts without the voice-over. That explanation is given later, in the rowboat scene.
2. There is no tuning at the beginning. The first hint of the supernatural, aside from the ghostly visage of the strangers, is when Murdoch is confronted by them on the scaffold. (I'm not sure if they put the conscierge to sleep before that. Perhaps)
3. Murdoch, while dressing, turns his shoe over and sees that it has not been worn.
4. Murdoch's fingerprints are shaped like a spiral, leading Bumstead to question whether someone is "joking."
5. Jennifer Connolly's actual voice is used in the songs instead of a professional singer. You can access the two on "youtube." I prefer the actual voice, which is less polished, but more sultry and atmospheric.
6. She sings a lot more of the second song. Detracts, I think from the mood.
7. The prostitute has a small child hiding in the room, the sight of which causes Murdoch to flee. She is later found by Emma and Bumstead after her mother's murder, and has drawn a picture of the three strangers, further leading Bumstead to accept that Murdoch is innocent. Film is better without her in it, I think.
8. Several scenes are just longer, with more dialogue. Frankly, I think the lack of dialogue in the original is better.
9. Murdoch is present, though hiding, when Mr. Hand goes to see Shreber in the pool. He learns more about the whole situation than we are led to believe in the original version. Also, the weakness of the Strangers in not detecting his presence is revealed.
10. Bumstead, while drinking capuccino, sees the swirl in his coffee, leading him to question his reality further.
11. During the the scene where Murdoch tells Emma that it's probable that they have never met before, she says, "I had that same feeling when I saw you at the apartment." But then she says, "no, I've loved you for years and we've been married for years etc." Only the second part is shown in the original. Her doubts are left out.
12. A longer speech is given by Mr. Hand at the harbor when he sees Emma and uses Murdoch's own words from long ago. The shorter version is better.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't prove it unless I watch the two versions side by side, but it seemed to me that they used a number of alternative takes or out takes in the director's cut, for no other reason than to just show an alternative version. I may be mistaken on this. However, if I am correct, the effect is not an improvement. Some of the takes seem inferior. However, it may simply be that they have been made slightly longer. In film, less is often more when it comes to dialogue. Much can be conveyed through gesture, a facial expression, etc. Supposedly, the scene in Citizen Kane where Kane first meets Susan was shortened in this way. At one point, Susan says, "you know how mothers are." The original screenplay supposedly had Kane launch into a speech. In the final cut, he merely mumbles Hm-mmm, with a very meaningful look on his face. We capture it all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bennett, you're soooo CLEVER...
ReplyDeleteBut in all seriousness...
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree that it is extremely difficult to analyze what does or does not add to the overall aesthetic and philosophical meaning of the film sitting behind a computer screen while not having the two films in front of you side by side, some of the many points you have raised do ring a bell.
Point #1 -
I would have to disagree with you. I think that adding a voice-over to the opening scene of the movie was a very wise decision made by the director. This is one of the few movies that I can honestly say takes you and forcefully drags you into the plot right off the bat - But maybe that's part of the beauty and appeal of the movie itself. But if the audience was not blessed with listening to a voice-over in the opening scene, the plot would be so undecipherable/chaotic that the average American movie-goer would have absolutely no idea about what it actually going on plot wise for a good first 10-15 minutes of the film.
Point #2 -
I agree that showing Murdoch's capability to "tune" his environment within the first five minutes of the movie takes away from the wonder and suspense that an individual feels when sucked into the plotline of the movie. Once seeing the tuning, the person immediately thinks to himself, "Oh, this is just another Sci-fi/fantasty flick that I was dragged into." But if denied this opportunity of seeing the tuning process till much later on in the movie, the movie-goer is forced to pay much more attention to the film itself, forced to continue to keep on guessing what this strange tale will unturn...
Point #3 -
I think that showing this 3-second image would have added immensely to the movie. Although the majority of movie-goers would have looked over this bit without giving it any second thought, the small minority of attentive individuals and various film connoisseurs would have been treated to another helpful hint adding to the further intrigue of the movie.
Point #7 –
In regards to the hooker’s child witnessing the murder and then being able to draw it by hand, I think there was some kind of strategic decision made on behalf of the movie’s producers to not include that tidbit in the final edition of the film. Being particularly attuned to their public relations consultants, the film’s producers were probably advised against including the scene on the grounds that it would be “too risqué” for the increasingly “sensitive” American audience. By including a scene of a small child witnessing her mother’s murder (let alone her mother being in one of least-respected positions available), would have been too much for some people to handle and would surely have initiated some kind of protest/boycott of the movie by various special-interest and political pressure groups.
And finally, in regard’s to actress’ Jennifer Connolly’s singing, I would have to make a side-by-side comparison of both versions on Youtube in order to form a more educated opinion on the matter…
(PS – You can be sure to see another one of my epic movie-review posts to be up on my blog by tomorrow morning! ;-)
Just to talk about your first point Yuriy, the voiceover was not a decision by the director at all. Alex Proyas did not want the voice-over, and was forced into doing it by the studio. I agree with Mr Bennett that the voice over was unnecessary. I didn't even listen to it, but I looked it up afterwards.
ReplyDelete