A studio takes a film away from its director, recuts it, and puts out the revised version over the director’s objections. It’s a story as old as Hollywood, though it’s rare that the studio recuts a film behind the director’s back. But that’s what seems to have happened with Across the Universe, Julie Taymor’s Beatles-scored musical starring Evan Rachel Wood (pictured). According to the New York Times, Revolution Studios chief Joe Roth lopped half an hour off of Taymor’s 128-minute cut and test-marketed his version, which he believes is more commercial; as a result, Taymor is considering going all Alan Smithee and taking her name off the project.
Now, Roth has the contractual right to recut the film, and he’s a director himself, though his movies (Christmas With the Kranks, America’s Sweethearts) aren’t exactly as acclaimed as Taymor’s works (Frida, Broadway’s The Lion King). Plus, a shorter cut can play more showings per day. Still, who would you trust more to do right by the movie musical: the woman whose radical reimagining of a Disney movie has been running on Broadway for a decade and spawned nine road-company productions, or the Revolution Studios exec who greenlit xXx: State of the Union and Gigli?
Comments (1-17) of 17 Add your comment
Gigli?… GIGLI?!!!!…. Oh Hellll NO!!!!!
Joe Roth is on the verge of losing his job!!
Mark my words!!..
sad to say, nothing new…it’s all about the $$$ as far as the studio is concerned, to hell with art
Joe Roth is a hack
How can they do this to Julie Taymor?!
nooooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Joe Roth isn’t going anywhere. Check out the “Uwe Boll” calibur films in his resume: Tomcats, Master of Disguise, Stealing Harvard,Maid in Manhattan, Daddy Daycare, Mona Lisa Slime, White Chicks (also Wayans “gem” Little Man), Little Black Book (EW gave it an F), The Fog, and Are We There Yet (Ice Cube’s in family films?).
If not for Hellboy, Black Hawk Down and maybe Rocky Balboa, I’d ask someone to put the whole studio out of its misery.
Onto the Movie- Unless the movie is classic material from start to finish, 128 mins is long and the studio SHOULD cut out as much as possible. They can let the director get her say when the inevitable “director’s cut” dvd comes out.
BTW, the director’s not always right. The studio released version of Blade Runner is MUCH better than Ridley Scott’s unpleasant and crappy non-narrrated “holier than thou Dekkard-is-a-replicant and I’m so brilliant for pointing it out to you” Director’s Cut that is sold in stores.
I admire Julie Taymor (her grisly version of “Titus” was wonderfully raw, funny, and visceral) but as my Dad always says, “You know who gets to call the shots? The guy who pays the bills.” Taymor is right to feel that her vision is being compromised, but the studio, which put out the money for production, marketing, and distribution, ultimately should have the last word. If you don’t like it, then stay in the independent world.
128 minutes is not too long.. 2 hours and 8 minutes to be exact which is more or less the running time of almost any given movie these days, even animated films. People want to pay and see a movie that they can get caught up and lose themselves in for awhile. Having worked in a theater for the last 9 years, patrons enjoy the longer running times to balance out the rising cost of tickets and concession items. As for Julie Taymor, she’s proven herself and I think she should be given the benefit of the doubt. Let the customers be the judge. After all “Moulin Rouge” was bigger then anyone expected was it not? And what was that movie 127 minutes? I think people can take an extra minute and enjoy a film from a visionary director!
I was also gonna say Joe Roth is a hack, but looks like someone beat me to it. I will say thought that I find it ironic that people are saying it’s all about money when Revolution has a pretty terrible track record at the box office (mostly because Roth himself couldn’t direct himself out of a tin can.)
I’ve been looking forward to seeing this film for over a year now. Films like this are usually found by a specific audience and may become cult films. With a recut, who is the audience for this film?
I, too, have been looking forward to this movie since I heard about it a while back. I can’t believe they would cut it like this. 128 mins, is long for a movie, but someone in charge of such garbage films shouldn’t be allowed near an artsy musical like this. But I guess this is what director’s cut DVDs were made for. So at least there is a silver lining to this dark cloud.
I saw the re-cut version of this film last week in Phoenix, from what I understand – we were only the 2nd group to see this re-cut version. I have to say that it was really quite enjoyable! Julie’s stamp was all over it and I would not at all have known that Joe Roth’s thumbprint was on it.
Anybody else cuts this… maybe OK. But Joe Friggin’ Roth??? He’s a hack of the Joel Schumacher order! Do not let him decide what’s worthy. GIGLI?!?!! AAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!
128 minutes? Too long? Are they serious? And to let the hack that gave us Gigli make the final cuts? What an atrocity!
“The director is not always right” said Ep.
Dude, there is no right or wrong. HE”S THE FREACKIN DIRECTOR. He’s always right. that doesn’t mean he’s making the best movie possible, he’s just making HIS movie. Now studios have had final cut for decades, that’s the way it is, and yes, it sucks.
Benji, I disagree. It may be the director’s vision, but sometimes that vision can get a little blurry.
It was the director who wanted to make Apocalypse Now into a four hour movie. FOUR HOURS! And have you seen the studio cut of Blade Runner? It BLOWS the director’s cut out of the water.
Sometimes directors get a little too smitten with their story and lose perspective of a project made with someone else’s money.
I can’t say if this is the case here (as I previously stated, Roth’s track record makes Uwe Boll look like a good storyteller), but there are times when director’s need to hand over some creative license to make the product work.
Sometimes a director plays ball with the patron studio (certainly not a saint in this case) that pays (her) to take the reins to make an expensive motion picture– (and this one was alot more expensive than any press release would indicate…)– and sometimes NOT. In a case like this a studio can have no choice but create a confrontation (her publicist at work) just to do what might actually be rational for the presentation of the material, It’s Taymor’s material— just less of it — and that may be MORE as an experience for the average viewer. Personally, who gives a damn about the average viewer? I don’t but studios do. It’s Show-BUSINESS people! If she wants to make a movie for more than 50 million- she either has to play ball or take the lumps. What would you do if you were Joe Roth and the distributor said they don’t like the how long the movie is? You’d cut twenty minutes out and release it.
Taymor’s version all the way! Joe Roth has nothing on her! I really hope she wins in this battle.