I mostly agree with one suave folk. Every film (except Fire walk with me) is a David Lynch's director cut. I don't hide that some day I would love to see the famous bunch of copious and deleted scenes of the movie published on a new DVD release, to be distributed worldwide.

It's a fact that Lynch was bound to make it look more tight and deleted a lot of scenes. Peter Jackson got his LOTR trilogy re-published with each of the 3 movies at their original length. Now it's time for David Lynch to take it out. The fact is also that Lynch is a kind of moving on person. He tends (I read this in a new interview) to want to forget the previous works and not be too attached to them.

"Did they scoff the whole damn Smörgåsbord?" (Audrey) 

"Gimme a donut!" (Coop)

Let me put it this way. We will probably have to wait another bunch of years before seeing a new film by David. Well, that's okay for me. But in the meantime, if he or someone else in charge could take care of the FWWM deleted scenes issue (which, I'm sure I read somewhere, he's been taking care of it), it would be lovely!

I don't know, Erwin. FWWM, LH and IE seem to be so different that I'm not quite able to say if one is truly better than the other. I love them all!

Although every Lynch film seem to have concrete and frequent liaisons with the others, I find all his works to be very different - in style - from each other. That's a really important thing: not to repeat yourself.

"Did they scoff the whole damn Smörgåsbord?" (Audrey) 

"Gimme a donut!" (Coop)

"Did they scoff the whole damn Smörgåsbord?" (Audrey) 

"Gimme a donut!" (Coop)

Chris,

     Please explain the Tim Burton trap. Teach me Obi One!!!

 This is the exact mentality that I wish wasn't the case with David's work.

 Let me respond to each point:

Directors cuts have nothing to do with rewriting the past.  Apocolypse Now REDUX was not rewriting the past....it was showing it with all the extra scenes.  (I will use Apocolypse Now REDUX again to respond to the following point....)

(back to APOCOLYPSE NOW REDUX) AN existed for many, many years...and the final cut on that WAS from Francis Ford Coppella...(therefore the DIRECTOR'S cut) .but years later he let it be known that he had ORIGINALLY wanted it to be a longer film.  Sure, after he was told to cut it, he shorted it HIS WAY and it was still HIS CUT......but his original concept was longer.

THE FIRST TIME DAVID CUT FWWM, IT WAS WELL OVER 3 HOURS IN LENGTH.  Then the studios told him it had to be shorter, and he DECIDED that by making it just Laura Palmer's story, it would be shorter, and a more well rounded film.....(which is what you are making reference too)....however, this decision to cut it shorter wasn't just David's brainstorm....it was only after the studios bugged him that he re-envisioned the movie.  Now maybe David believes that FWWM should stay as it is....completely cut and the extra scenes just be extra....but that was the subject of the original post....does this mean he disagrees with recutting the films?  (I will try to change the title if you find it confusing)

As far as FWWM goes, I am saying that I wish it could be done like AN REDUX was done. 

DUNE is definatly justified in this....

Sure, these are the only 2 movies I could come up with that fitted this description, but I was mainly asking if this signified that David Lynch didn't believe in recutting his film once they had been put out.  Perhaps I should have said UNCUT edition of films...instead of DIRECTOR'S CUT.  Sorry about the semantics. 

I agree Hyde. It's strange how when the studios have forced DL to cut the running times (Lost Highway, Blue Velvet, and FWWM) DL in recent years has decided that the shorter version is his prefered version. Yet months after the films were released, DL was quoted in many magazines about being not so happy with the restriction on the running time. For FWWM he actually mentions how he would like to revisit a longer cut of FWWM in Lynch on Lynch. Also, for Blue Velvet, I remember reading an article which said that the 3 hour cut of Blue Velvet was his favorite and it "broke his heart" to have to make cuts to that film.

Now that most of the films have been preserved on DVD, I'd love to see the original cuts or "workprints" of all his films.

-B

Good points, Hyde.  Despite claims to the contrary, a director of a major studio release rarely has complete control.  With negative costs for studio releases running well over $20 million on average, there is a need for accountability.  Five hour films do not translate to big box office totals. 

 If Lynch had total control, FWWM probably would have run about 20 hours.

Well, there is one thing I would say about this: There are certain things in FWWM that I didn't understand the first time round. Then I read the complete script on the Internet, and it made much more sense.

Do you remember the part where Leland looks at Laura and Donna and he imagines a past event: Laura and Ronette at the Blue Diamond Hotel? The first time I saw this, I thought he was just imaging Laura and Donna in their underwear!!! It sounds ridiculous, but the film didn't make it very clear.

Also, the script clarifies the idea that Teresa Banks was blackmailing Leland and that was a motive for him to kill her.

Finally, the scene in the nightclub went over my head a bit, because there were no subtitles, and of course, it is too loud to hear what they are saying. (But now the DVD has the subtitles, it is a lot easier to follow.)

In fact, there were several other scenes like that, which didn't make sense, because things had been left out.

So I think it would make FWWM into a better film if at least _some_ of the extra scenes were put back in.

The scene with David Bowie is a perfect example.

It would make so much more sense with the extra material. 

I also agree with those who say that a director doesn't have the control for the picture to make it as long as he wants to..........

However, I think DUNE would fit in with the trend of movies such as LORD OF THE RINGS which are SOOOO damn long.....if he made that movie today....I like to think it would be a different story.

"Did they scoff the whole damn Smörgåsbord?" (Audrey) 

"Gimme a donut!" (Coop)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned here the censored US version of Wild At Heart, which is, of course, Lynch-approved. I fail to see why he didn't insist on the unrated version for the special edition. Surely no one can honestly believe the R version is superior in that one key scene?

http://blogaboutnowt.blogspot.com

http://suchastheyare.blogspot.com

http://blogaboutnowt.blogspot.com

http://suchastheyare.blogspot.com

Because Lost Highway isnt a better film than FWWM...thats the easy answer.

Ill let you know on IE when I see it Saturday.

I was always under the impression that David was under pressure to cut the film from an almost 4 hour run time due to worries from the production company and he most certainly cut things that he wanted in the film.

Fred, it's the scene where Bobby Peru blows his head off. Check out this link for screen grabs:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare7/wildatheart.htm

http://blogaboutnowt.blogspot.com

http://suchastheyare.blogspot.com

Fred, it's the scene where Bobby Peru blows his head off. Check out this link for screen grabs:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare7/wildatheart.htm  

http://blogaboutnowt.blogspot.com

http://suchastheyare.blogspot.com

Hi all, long time no see…been lurking.  Busy, but lurking.  Had to chime in on this one.

The quotes above are absolute proof that the two films mentioned were not Director’s Cuts. IMHO.

I want to throw in my two coppers from an artists perspective.  Most of my experience is with print, but I have made a few shorts.  The shorts were done all by my lil old self and so therefore are “Directors Cuts”…nobody told me to cut here or there or whatever.  As an author (a couple of books published, dozens of shorts and articles) I am more or less at the mercy of editors who, like Studios/Exec Producers, want the “piece” to appeal to as broad of a base as possible within the given genre.

They want a “marketable” product.

As a small-time short filmmaker, I have complete freedom and do whatever I want and if the fests like ‘em they take ‘em and if they don’t…too bad because I am not changing the film to suit anybody’s taste but my own. I do it for the joy.

As a pro writer, I begrudgingly and with a stench in my nostrils and a knot in my stomach, allow an editor to “cut” my work, or heed their “suggestions” to fit their specific publishing “needs”.

Usually.  But, gawd, I feel like a whore after that.

A work of art, such as a David Lynch film, or a film by any other director (especially a writer/director) for that matter, ceases to be a Director’s Cut the minute a studio head/exec producer says it needs to be shorter, or different than what was initially turned in, and the director says “ok”.

Yes, the director may mull it over and find a way to make the final cut still fit his vision, but in reality, it is not his pure vision anymore. 

Filmmakers, writers, other artists often benefit from the input of studio heads/editors etc, because it pulls the artist out of tunnelvision and helps to “tighten” things up for the “consumer” and thus, the artist gets his work in front of more people, makes more money, and in so doing, makes happy studio heads. 

But many times, artists will also just “do their thing” and damn the torpedoes.  Dave did it with IE, and ALL of his shorts (Its his M.O. “That’s Modus Operandii” yelled Gordon.). 

But the first cut Dave presented of FWWM was 3 hours and THAT, my friends, was the “Director’s Cut”…heeding the suggestions of producers/studio etc was just wisdom on his part as he was, like most artists, still establishing himself, and so had one eye on the long-term.

Artists have to compromise quite often if they want to make a living as an artist.

Fellini said that he would never ever have finished any film had it not been for studio heads or producers because he would just create and create and create…

Dave did that with IE, hence the three hour Lynchfest! Which I find to be three hours of fantastic art, btw. Thank GOD he didn’t have to hear from any exec/studio before putting that out.

However, if all directors were allowed to make only directors cuts, most of the good movies would be too long and too deep and cause most of mainstream America to be confused, or fall asleep, or start Jonesing for the next Owen Wilson dungheap.

Compromising one’s artwork early on is done so, by the wise thinker, to eventually establish a platform for the artist to make his Inland Empire, or whatever the artists masterpiece/opus may be called.

Hope I don’t sound too artsy-fartsy here.

I’m distracted now by the snow on my front lawn.  I live on the Oregon Coast so this particular sight is VERY rare.  Kind of cool, actually.  No pun intended.