halloween: unrated director’s cut
as if two versions we’ve seen this year weren’t enough (the so-called workprint and the theatrical version), rob zombie hit us with a third version of rob zombie’s halloween this week in the form of the ‘unrated director’s cut’ dvd. this isn’t just the theatrical cut with the few seconds the mpaa cut out… this is a whole new version distinct from either of the previous incarnations (here is a list of the key differences between the work print and theatrical cut). the director’s cut takes (for the most part) the best bits of the two previous versions and creates a new film, alleviating many of the flaws found in either prior cut. this is, by far, the best version of the film.
that isn’t to say its perfect. regardless of how you cut it together, the last 3rd of the film is rushed and michael’s motivations for returning to haddonfield and tracking down laurie make little sense. still, a lot of the character scenes and subtlety evident in the workprint have returned and overall the film flows far better than before. the theatrical ending (superior to the one originally shot) remains, although it has been edited slightly differently. michael’s ridiculous escape from the hospital from the theatrical cut is (thankfully) replaced with the original rape scene/escape from the work print, with the better bits of the theatrical version escape cut in (e.g., the death of his caretaker, danny trejo). fans of the theatrical escape are oddly left out in the cold because despite having an extensive collection of missing scenes on the dvd set’s 2nd disk, the most commonly seen version of michael’s escape is not included anywhere on this dvd.
in terms of editorial choices, i only have two small complaints with this new version. i really miss the scene where bracket and loomis first meet from the work print, as i always found it funny and a great introduction for brad dourif (it can be found in the deleted scenes, however). far more impactful is the re-editing of the death of laurie’s father. the version in the work print is incredibly creepy and suspenseful while the new version is played just for a cheap jump scare. like the theatrical escape scene, the original version of the father’s death is not found anywhere on the dvd — so i’ve included it and the new version below so you can compare. which version do you find to be the most effective?
work print
director’s cut
all this comparing/contrasting and f’ing around with different versions made me realize something about the current state of film — the theatrical experience is no longer the best way to see a movie. theater chains seem perplexed by the drop in attendance and i recall eli roth blaming the poor turn-out for hostel 2 on piracy — but i don’t think i’m alone in saying piracy had nothing to do with me not paying $11 to go see hostel 2 in the theater. i knew that within a few months it would be on dvd in a director’s cut with all footage they couldn’t get into a r-rating restored and possibly other important scenes that were cut simply in the interest of running time. why would i pay all that money to see a castrated version? it’s certainly not for the over-priced popcorn. going to see horror films in the theater is now like watching one on the usa channel… what real film buff wants to see a censored version of a new film? halloween takes this even further in that the theatrical version isn’t just less bloody — it’s a far inferior film simply in terms of the story. theater chains are making efforts to get people back into the seats (e.g., the new trend in 3-d and mobile concession stands within each theater), but i think it will take more than that — at least for adult genres like horror. people are not going to continue buying tickets when the dvd is not just more convenient and cheaper, but actually gives you a vastly different (and, arguably, definitive) version of the film itself.
You’re right. The work print is by far the superior version of that scene. And you raise some really interesting questions about the “definitive” version of a given film. I’ve always said (and still do, damnit) that if you want the real experience of a film, then you simply must see it in a theater. Otherwise, you lose the film’s sense of timing, focus, as well the important social aspects of the film. But after reading your post, it occurs to me that the current state of films and dvds just goes to show that we’re in a new age of digital media that is far more fluid than anything before it. We’re no longer content with the old-fashioned producer-consumer dynamic of media – we all want multiplicity and interactivity. Theaters are giving way to dvds by the same dynamic in which newspapers are giving way to news blogs. Which is all cool, but the old fart curmudgeon in me agrees with the Cohen brothers in thinking that the risk is that we sometimes get so caught up in the razzle-dazzle of bonus features that we forget to simply pay attention to the artistry of the actual film. Or, even worse, we get a George Lucas who can’t seem to stop screwing around with films that were perfect the way they were.
i’ll save the argument about the benefits of bonus features for another time — however, i would like to say that that’s not what i was referring to in this particular instance. i’m not saying that commentary tracks and making-of featurettes are things you can’t get in the theater therefore the dvd experience is superior — i’m saying that increasingly the film itself is different on dvd. it is not possible to have seen this version of [i]halloween[/i] in the theater… yet its the best version available. the definitive version of the [i]lord of the rings[/i] trilogy is now the extended edition dvd set, which contains some 3 extra hours of actual footage. if i’d know that at the time when the films were released, i highly doubt i would have paid $33 dollars to see what amounts to a [i]cliff notes[/i] version of jackson’s actual vision. a more recent example would be [i]live free or die hard[/i] which was gutted to get a pg-13 and which was incredibly disappointing in the theater but quite surprised me by being an altogether different (and quite good) experience on dvd. i rarely make it to the theater anymore because i’d just as well wait a bit and see the entire movie than pay to see a truncated and sanitizied version. due to mpaa restrictions and theater chain’s need to have movies with short running times, this will likely continue and i predict theaters will either need to fundamentally change their business and content model, offer something that is impossible to get at home (e.g., 3-d), or… face extinction.
i quite agree with you that seeing a horror film in the theater with a large crowd is an amazing experience and one not easily re-created at home — however, that is not enough to out-weigh the fact that i can’t bring myself to walk into a screening of a film that i know has been altered either for moral or business reasons… especially when i know in 2-3 months the ‘true’ version of the film will be readily available to me at my local ‘best buy.’ i mean, would you really pay to go see hitchcock’s [i]psycho[/i] for the first time in the theater if you knew going in the shower scene has been truncated by 10 seconds b/c of violent content, 3 dialogue scenes were cut for time and that the full version would hit dvd in 60 days with all of that restored?
Actually, I do agree with pretty much everything you say. It’s just that the prematurely old man in me is a bit suspicious of the idea that a given film has become so fluid and malleable. It would be like Rothko deciding that he wasn’t happy with his paintings and then going back to the museum to change them. But, I really do dig what you’re saying about how movie theaters are stifling the director’s true vision of a given film because they have too many economic factors to consider, such as film length and mpaa ratings. If DVDs are empowering directors and audiences alike to avoid those limitations, then I say let the theaters go extinct.