CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › Final Cut: Part 2
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Final Cut: Part 2

post #1 of 5
Thread Starter 
The film some say triggered an apparent industry-wide review of final cut policies was the now-notorious "Gigli," on which writer/director Martin Brest had final cut. His editing decisions led to serious conflicts with Revolution Studios; Brest agreed to re-shoot the ending of the picture, as Revolution wanted, but that didn't solve its creative problems.

After "Gigli," Revolution put into place a "no final cut" policy — unless, of course, they're working with an A-list director like Ron Howard, who won't work otherwise.

Brest and Revolution both declined to comment for this article.

The scandal surrounding New Line's 1998 feature "American History X" stands as another high-profile example. While director Tony Kaye did not have final cut on that film, the publicity surrounding it — which lead to Kaye's exit from the picture and its recutting by actor Edward Norton — soured the studio on the idea of giving any helmer too much liberty.

"If it comes to the issue of recutting a director, you are probably already in a lot of trouble," one high-level studio executive notes. "In 15 years, I can count on less than one hand the times when it became an issue, and the reason is because if you get to that, if both sides aren't listening to each other, then you are already toast."

In some cases, though, top stars and producers are awarded final cut. Tom Cruise gets final cut on his films, as does Bruckheimer (though Bruckheimer has been known to share it, as he did with Bay, and as he also did with Joel Schumacher on Buena Vista's "Veronica Guerin").

Among producers, Scott Rudin had sole final cut on last year's "The Hours." Yet when director Stephen Daldry was asked recently about the final cut issue, it was so far from his thoughts that he initially thought the question referred to the computer program rather than the contractual matter.

"For me, it depends on my relationship with the producer," Daldry says. "If one were in a combative relationship or didn't trust your producer, you'd argue for it. But then you could say you shouldn't be in that relationship in first place."

Daldry's success with "Hours" means that he now ranks among the directors who do get final cut, if he wants it. Other such directors include Woody Allen, James L. Brooks, Francis Ford Coppola, Jonathan Demme, Clint Eastwood, Ron Howard, Michael Mann, Anthony Minghella, Pollack, Robert Redford, Ridley Scott, Oliver Stone and Robert Zemeckis.

"Final cut is like being told you have a life-jacket when you get onto an airplane — it's cold comfort," says Minghella, who retained final cut on his upcoming Christmas release "Cold Mountain." "The reality is that the distributor has authority over the film finally because the way the film is presented to an audience is in the distributor and exhibitor's hands."

"If every director were a final cut director, it would dramatically change the nature of the business," adds Jay Roth, national executive director of the Directors Guild of America. "Final cut is something that is earned, not a minimum condition, and therefore, our view is that the issue of final cut is not an issue of Guild negotiations."

Even if a director has final cut, he or she still must accept the reality that the clause has become a moot point for most studios, which can withdraw their full backing when it comes to marketing a film if they don't like the cut the director has given them — or worse, never work with the director again. Kaye, for instance, has yet to be employed by a major studio.

Bernardo Bertolucci had final cut on his upcoming "The Dreamers," but Fox still insisted on trimming full-frontal nudity from the film. Bertolucci denounced the move publicly, even though the studio's pick up deal stipulated that he deliver an R-rated film. Bertolucci's producer Jeremy Thomas would only say: "We had a contract for an R-rated film, and unfortunately the film we made was an NC-17 film. We cut a short amount out of it."

Morgan Creek Prods. took matters into its own hands on its upcoming "Exorcist: The Beginning." Following the death of the movie's original director John Frankenheimer, Paul Schrader (2002's "Auto Focus") was hired to helm the "Exorcist" prequel, only to be let go when Morgan Creek decided it was unhappy with Schrader's cut of the film.

"I showed (my cut) to (Morgan Creek chairman and CEO James G. Robinson), and there was a conversation of maybe five or 10 minutes in the screening room," Schrader says, adding that he recut the film and offered to screen it again for Robinson. Rather, he says, "the editor was fired (and) I was told that Morgan Creek wanted to execute its cut. It was suggested that there was no reason for me to be there."

Renny Harlin was then hired to shoot an additional 10 weeks of material, for a cost between $6.5 million and $8 million, but he'll receive no directing credit when the film is released.

"Schrader gave us his cut, and I felt and everyone else felt that his cut just wasn't good enough," Robinson says. "So we went back in, and now we are going to reshoot."

The situation illustrates just how different a place the industry can be for directors who are not the Peter Jacksons of the world (though Jackson, who has final cut on his "Kong" remake, did not have it on the "Lord of the Rings" films). Then again, Jackson's work has made New Line billions of dollars richer, and that, ultimately, speaks the loudest in Hollywood. "This is all about economics," Pollack says. "And anybody who thinks it isn't is a fool."


Hollywood Reporter
post #2 of 5
Glad to see I wasn't the only person to read this article today.

I didn't think anything was all that new in it though. I thought Final Cut was always the Holy Grail of directors. But even so, it is a business and companies are in it to make money. If they are worried, well yeah they are going to come in and make changes and cuts.

Now whether it is right or not is debatable. I have seen films where the forced cuts made it better and others where the director's cut is better. Personally, I think it is just the luck of the draw on how a cut works. Also, with DVD, viewers usually get a chance to see both cuts of a movie.

It's just such a slippery issue. The artist in me wants the directors to have final cut. The more practical side of me says it's the studio's money and they have a right to distribute and show the product they want.

I also think of it like writers and editors. Most writers I know need a good editor to both clean things up (grammar and spelling mistakes) and get the best work out there.
post #3 of 5
If Brest had final cut on Gigli, I don't know why he didn't use it. God knows his version must've been better than what was released.
post #4 of 5
Does Sydney Pollack just go by "Pollack" now?
post #5 of 5
No, he prefers "The Artist Formerly Known As Sydney Pollack"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › Final Cut: Part 2