What is it about director’s cut that makes it different from the original film? A director’s cut implies that the original cut was not the “actual” vision of the director. It implies that the director didn’t get “final cut” for their film. Hence, a director’s cut is the film as they wanted it to be–unaltered, unabridged.
During the editing of a film, compromises are made, and scenes are removed or added to make it more marketable or profitable. From this perspective, the intent of the film is to make it more accessible to audiences, hence, profitable.
But years later, we come across a director’s cut that is being released on Blu Ray or DVD. That implies that the director’s vision wasn’t fully represented in the theatrical release. The director’s cut might be the original version before it was edited for theaters, or it might be the version they edited after the release. Why not? It doesn’t need to be marketed for theatrical release anymore. It’s made it’s money back.
Is the director cut a marketing ploy for more sales, or is it an attempt by the director to show audiences what they were missing–what they didn’t see in theaters? Perhaps both. Maybe a director’s cut is just a longer version of the original film. Maybe it has a different tone, or maybe it has more storylines or scenes in it.
Regardless of what’s different about them, director’s cut are important in the sense that it represents the director’s true vision–the unabridged version they wanted you to see. It goes back to the premise of the director as auteur–the artist of the picture.
Fallton Havenstonne 