Why is "studio interference" have such a negative connotation?
 

I keep hearing about how a film had to be cut down from what the director wanted because of studio interference or the producers interfering, as it was put.

But why is this always a bad thing? Sometimes maybe the producer might be able to judge a movie for it's audience more objectively, as the director may be too close to the material, which isn't always a good thing, is it?

There are times when I have liked the director's cut better than the theatrical cut. But there are movies where I have seen the director's cuts released later, and I will think it's actually not as good as the theatrical cut.

So I think that studio interference is certainly not as bad as many times as the stigma has made it out to be. What do you think out of curiosity?

Re: Why is "studio interference" have such a negative connotation?
 

Its not always a bad thing I'd agree as some directors probably do benefit from pressure to keep a film to a certain length but very often it has been.

Re: Why is "studio interference" have such a negative connotation?
 

One person I know for example, said that Paul Thomas Anderson could use a lot more studio interference cause his movies are too long and need to be cut down, and they give him too much free reign. Not sure if I agree with him, but maybe he has a point that some directors need it (shrug).

Re: Why is "studio interference" have such a negative connotation?
 

Because most of the time, the people who work within the studio aren't filmmakers.
They aren't directors, actors, writers... they're account managers who went to uni or college to study business. They've never seen let alone touched a camera... but because they've been around actual filmmakers they think they can edit movies so that they can make money.
The end results are movies that are incoherent and shoddy.

Re: Why is "studio interference" have such a negative connotation?
 

But they still watch movies, and probably have some experience as producers as to what the audience likes, in order to become successful as producers, don't they?

This.
As the joke goes, a camel is a horse designed by commitee.


Sure, but if it does make a successful movie, it doesn't mean that it will be a good one.

Re: Why is "studio interference" have such a negative connotation?
 

Because people think art and commerce are in inherent conflict. They clearly aren't, and there are scads of examples of artistic freedom making people's output worse as they achieve enough success to do what they want (and scads of examples of incredible creativity in the face of budget constraints), but that's the trope. There's always some possible tension between the two, but yeah, like most of reality it's a lot more nuanced.

Good question, some of my thoughts:


It was much worse back in the golden age of Hollywood (30s-50s) when the studios tightly controlled the film making process. Back then each aspect of film making was handled by a different department in the studio and overseen by the producer. There were exceptions of course, the most famous being Orson Welles having full editorial control over Citizen Kane.


It's not always a bad thing, depends on the director and the producer who wishes to edit the film. All films are edited of course.

I almost always enjoy the theatrical cut more than the extended director's cuts. I can't think of many exceptions to that preference.

LOTR extended is definitely better.
As are Aliens and Blade Runner

Haven't seen LOTR and I don't remember the difference between the cuts of Aliens. But I hate the Final Cut of Blade Runner.

Re: Why is "studio interference" have such a negative connotation?
 

4 words. M.P.A.A.

Re: Why is "studio interference" have such a negative connotation?
 

Oh yeah, but there are times when the director's cut will not warrant an R or NC-17 rating. For example, would the extended cuts of the Lord of the Rings have been R rated, compared to the PG-13 rated theatrical cuts?

Re: Why is "studio interference" have such a negative connotation?
 

Many so called 'director's cuts' are a re-marketing attempt to sell more copies of the movie. Often it does not have to do with the director regaining artistic control of his film and making the movie he had originally wanted, but has more to do with getting fans to buy another copy of the movie, so they can see the extended footage or added bonuses.

Re: Why is "studio interference" have such a negative connotation?
 

Oh I thought that when these cuts come out that are not actually the director's cuts, were called 'extended cuts', which were different. Unless a lot of director's cuts are actually extended cuts?

You're probably right. I was using the terms interchangeably. Though often a director's cut can be just added footage so it's also extended cut. But if a director objects to the extra footage being added they refuse to have the film labeled as a director's cut.

Re: Why is "studio interference" have such a negative connotation?
 

Yep that's true. I guess one example of studio interference being a good thing in my opinion was The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. The American industry cut down the movie and I read Sergio Leone, the director, objected to it. But the American theatrical cut is better in my opinion, than the original cut, which you can get on blu ray now. The added in scenes I didn't think really added anything to the story, and it was wise to cut them out.

So that is one example where I thought the studio was right.

I think you see as well that during this period(indeed up to the mid 60's) Hollywood is not really at the forefront of cinema bar the likes of Wells and Hitchcock who did have more control. French cinema and then post WW2 Italian and Japanese cinema were pushing the medium far more and it was only with the breakdown on the studio system and Hollywood picking up the same kind of model in the 60's and 70's that things changed. You have examples like Jules Dassin being forced out of Hollywood and making his best work(Riffifi) in France with greater freedom.

The push for a shorter cut is I'd say something that most likely helps many directors forcing them to perfect the editing process making for a streamlined and focused film. Its generally when the final edit is taken out of their hands as with say the US cut of Once Upon A Time In America that results are less impressive.

Well said, and true. I forgot that Hitch had control of his own films for the most part. Orson Welles though only had control on one major studio film Kane. All of his other major studio films ended up being edited against his direct wishes which ultimately soured him on Hollywood.

What Rodent and Yoda said. The impression I get aswell with Hollywood is the studio bosses have quite an ego as do a lot of rich/high earning types which leads them to believe they can do a lot of things that they actually can't.

I think George Lucas and his prequel trilogy is the perfect example, although he started as a film maker. Very rich + ego + surrounding yourself with yes men = disaster.

That being said with the stacks of absolute horse **** being made every year its no surprise that studios worry and interfere.

Re: Why is "studio interference" have such a negative connotation?
 

Yeah that'st true, you don't want to surround yourself by yes men either. I still haven't seen Once Upon a Time in America. If I watch it, should I watch the American cut first to appreciate the original cut later, or does the American cut even exist anymore?