Well, I've heard some debate about the Caligari thing, so I don't know, but yeah, that's the story. (The more film stuff I read, the more I am convinced it is all apocryphal and we cannot trust it!)
I don't think that opinion is idiosyncratic. I think it's pretty common. I think we want our "heroes" (of whatever stripe) to be aware of what they're doing. If it's an accident, it takes away from their talent/glory/whatever. But I often wonder if that's how I should think about it, because heavens, so much comes out through unconscious inspiration, through happy accidents. Welles said that directing was the art of presiding over accidents, and I know many writers or songwriters who simply cannot speak intelligently about their creative process--or even the end product--because they've produced something that they might not fully consciously understand, or be able to articulate.
Of course, the matter of having something imposed from the outside is different. We don't *know* that von Stroheim's version of "Greed" is qualitatively better, but we assume it is, just like Welles' version of Ambersons. Either way, it's a damn shame that they were tampered with, because we feel outrage at that being "taken away." What would happen if someone found either, and no one liked the original? Most people need editors, or constructive criticism, or partners. Is the difference when it gets "taken away"?
I haven't seen the "official" Chaplin stuff you're talking about, but it sounds awful. He wasn't a great technician. I think in general it's a mistake for artists to redo their work unless they literally remake it and leave the original be. I hate that Spielberg suddenly felt uncomfortable about the guys with guns in E.T. and so took 'em out. (Let's not even mention Lucas. Oh wait, I have.) You do what you do. When your politics/opinions/revolutionary youthful outlook on life change, does that give you license to erase your artistic past?
Since I'm already ranting a bit, I'll mention one director's cut I don't like, and which I think was Got Wrong: Amadeus. Yeah, not a classic, oh well. Anyway, the film used to cut from Salieri's perusal of Mozart's music for the first time to his diatribe against God and burning of the crucifix--in the new version, it goes to Stanzi's humiliating sexual pass, Salieri's refusal, then the God business. For me, this weakens the entire thrust of the film and the character. On the other hand, Blade Runner should have been the director's cut version from the beginning, so...
no subject
I don't think that opinion is idiosyncratic. I think it's pretty common. I think we want our "heroes" (of whatever stripe) to be aware of what they're doing. If it's an accident, it takes away from their talent/glory/whatever. But I often wonder if that's how I should think about it, because heavens, so much comes out through unconscious inspiration, through happy accidents. Welles said that directing was the art of presiding over accidents, and I know many writers or songwriters who simply cannot speak intelligently about their creative process--or even the end product--because they've produced something that they might not fully consciously understand, or be able to articulate.
Of course, the matter of having something imposed from the outside is different. We don't *know* that von Stroheim's version of "Greed" is qualitatively better, but we assume it is, just like Welles' version of Ambersons. Either way, it's a damn shame that they were tampered with, because we feel outrage at that being "taken away." What would happen if someone found either, and no one liked the original? Most people need editors, or constructive criticism, or partners. Is the difference when it gets "taken away"?
I haven't seen the "official" Chaplin stuff you're talking about, but it sounds awful. He wasn't a great technician. I think in general it's a mistake for artists to redo their work unless they literally remake it and leave the original be. I hate that Spielberg suddenly felt uncomfortable about the guys with guns in E.T. and so took 'em out. (Let's not even mention Lucas. Oh wait, I have.) You do what you do. When your politics/opinions/revolutionary youthful outlook on life change, does that give you license to erase your artistic past?
Since I'm already ranting a bit, I'll mention one director's cut I don't like, and which I think was Got Wrong: Amadeus. Yeah, not a classic, oh well. Anyway, the film used to cut from Salieri's perusal of Mozart's music for the first time to his diatribe against God and burning of the crucifix--in the new version, it goes to Stanzi's humiliating sexual pass, Salieri's refusal, then the God business. For me, this weakens the entire thrust of the film and the character. On the other hand, Blade Runner should have been the director's cut version from the beginning, so...
Ultimately I've said nothing.