Southland Tales Damage Control: Snip, Snip
Filed under: Drama, Music & Musicals, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Cannes, Universal, Distribution, Newsstand
It's been hard for anyone who cares about movies to ignore the dismal critical reaction Richard Kelly's Southland Tales received at Cannes. All but the most passionate of Kelly fans saw the 160-minute film as a sloppy mess, too long and too unfocused to be anything but a disappointment. And, just like that, a movie that had been an eagerly-awaited sophomore effort turned into a disaster that might not even be distributed in the US. Though Universal already owns theatrical distribution rights in the US, the company still has not assigned the film a release date, and seems in no hurry to do so. Based on an interview Kelly gave Entertainment Weekly, it sounds like Universal's solution to what has suddenly become a major problem might just be a whole lot of editing. According to Kelly, he still has no idea if the film will be released in the US, but he's heard talk of major cuts: "Potentially it could be shown with almost an hour of it missing. I don't quite know what [the resulting] film is." Hmm. While it's always fun to talk about all the movies studios ruin when they try to make them "better," one wonders if Kelly really would rather his film never play on American screens than go under the knife. I mean, it's not as if his seven hour (or whatever) preferred cut won't be instantly released in a costly, elaborate DVD edition.
As a Kelly neutral, I'd actually be interested in getting to compare Kelly's vision (which, apart from himself, no one really seems to get) with what a more traditional editor -- interested in nothing at all beyond story and clarity -- would do with the material.
[via Film Stalker]
_thumbnail.jpg)
Discuss: So, How Was 'Twilight'?
Quizzimatical: Vampire Movies
Insert Caption: Twilight
Fan Made: 'Twilight' Cookies
Cinematical Seven: Great Exports from Down Under
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg){kind=spacer}
_thumbnail.jpg "Watchmen Storyboards")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
5-30-2006 @ 6:18PM
Culture Snob said...
There are many of us (well, at least me and Jim Emerson [http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2006/05/darkness_for_donnie_darko_dire.html]) who think that Kelly's director's cut of Donnie Darko (and his commentary on the original theatrical cut) limited interpretative possibilities for the movie and diminished it. Based on his very limited track record, he should give his movie to an editor he respects and see what he or she could do with it.
Reply
5-30-2006 @ 6:33PM
James Rocchi said...
The problem is that Southland Tales does not require a few bits here and there taken out, as if you were removing brown spots from an errant avocado. Southland Tales is bad -- and bad in fascinating ways, but bad -- all the way through.
Reply
5-31-2006 @ 3:19AM
Richard Brunton said...
Thanks for the "via" Martha, much appreciated.
I think that this could do him nothing but good. Look at the sales generated out of the Directors Cut of Darko. If the US get an edited release a few years down the line after it has been released on DVD he can look forward to the profits of a new edition with his original film.
Not good for us, but everyone taking profits from that movie would benefit. Plus there's the whole ethos building about his movies being cut by studios and how they always restrict his genius.
Being cynical, there's a lot to play on by releasing a cut version first.
Reply
5-31-2006 @ 7:32PM
Triflic said...
Hmmm, I'm torn on this, I actually strongly prefer the theatrical cut of Darko over Kelly's directors cut, for one reason or another, the success of that film came about from the restrictions placed upon him. So having to go from 160 minutes to 110 minutes may be a good thing.
And comparison to a directors cut down the road is never a bad thing. God bless DVD.
Reply
6-08-2006 @ 3:16PM
Timmo said...
Rumor has it from people inside the situation that a distributor for the US is going to be announced shortly and that the theatrical release will be something very close to what was shown at Cannes.
I think this is mostly a good thing, as I'd rather see a sprawling, unfocused Richard Kelly film than one that was butchered into a 90 minute film under orders from the suits at the studio.
Reply