I enjoy it when I read an argument that changes my mind on an issue. I'm serious. It's not that I enjoy having my opinion changed. The enjoyment comes from finding a well crafted argument that causes me to look at an issue in a new way. I even enjoy an argument that doesn't change my opinion, but still brings up good points I hadn't considered before.
When the "revised"
Star Wars films were shown in theaters (when was that?) - with "better" effects and added scenes - I, being a film purist, was shocked. Why mess with history, I thought - these films are considered classics and landmarks of cinema. Leave well enough alone. Then, this year, Mr. Lucas "revised"
THX 1138 and released it to DVD. When will this madness end?
There's an interview with George Lucas in the latest issue of
Entertainment Weekly, about the "revised"
Star Wars trilogy that's being released on DVD this week. Now, my mind is changed - to a point.
(George Lucas says he prefers the word "completed" to "revised.")
Entertainment Weekly asked: "What's the line between restoring a film and altering it? Obviously, the versions of the
Star Wars Trilogy and
THX 1138 on DVD go far beyond what we saw in theaters." George Lucas answered, "Film is so expensive, and it's run by corporations. They just take it away from you, and it's frozen in time at the point it's yanked from your hands. I've been lucky enough to go back and say, 'No, I'm going to finish this the way it was meant to be finished.' When
Star Wars came out, I said it didn't turn out the way I wanted - it's 25 percent of what I wanted it to be. It was very painful to me. So the choice came down to, do I please myself and [finally] make the movie that I wanted, or do I allow the audience to see the half-finished version that they fell in love with?" Then, later in the interview, he said, "Nobody seems to mind the [idea of] a 'director's cut.' But to go the next step and say, had they given me another $50,000 to finish these matte paintings, this is what the film would look like - that's not changing your mind."
So why, exactly, is it that I can enjoy the "director's cut" of
Blade Runner - with the voice-over removed, the unicorn dream added, and the stronger suggestion that Deckard is a replicant - and even consider it a better film than the original version I saw in the theater, and yet be outraged by a different version of
Star Wars? One reason is that when
Star Wars was released in 1977, it was amazing to see such cutting-edge special effects - things that had never been done before, like showing a space ship flying through space by moving the camera instead of the model space ship. Those special effects altered the way films were made from that point on. To go back and say that the film would be better if those 1977 special effects were done with 2004 computer graphics is quite different than to say it would look better with better matte paintings.
I own
E.T. on a two-DVD set: One DVD has the original version that was shown in theaters, and the other has Steven Speilberg's "remastered" version. That's the way remastering should be done, I think - with the original preserved.
Still, if I were asked to read my "Second Chances" story, I'd read it the way I originally wrote it, not the edited version that was printed in
The Sun.
I read my "meditation" story to Writers' Group today, and it got a good reaction. Barbara and Don both commented that they felt relaxed just hearing it - which was exactly what I was trying to achieve.