2005-
filmed
2011- released to
festivals
2012- released to
Blu-Ray/DVD in two
versions
This essay includes a
recap of my previous
notes.
A
bright but callow
teenager from a
prosperous Manhattan
family is looking
for a cowboy hat for
her upcoming
vacation with her
dad. She has no
luck, but she
suddenly spots a bus
driver wearing the
kind of hat she
needs. Hoping to
find out where to
buy such a hat, she
tries to get the
driver's attention
as the bus pulls
away, distracting
him just enough so
that he runs a red
light and hits a
pedestrian. The
girl's mental state
steadily
disintegrates after
the fatal accident,
and the rest of the
film deals with her
attempts to cope
with her feelings
and to bring this
chapter of her life
to some kind of
closure.
This
film was lensed in
2005 and was
scheduled to be
released in 2007.
Some people felt it
would be an Oscar
candidate, and no
less an industry
luminary than Martin
Scorsese declared it
a masterpiece.
Unfortunately, it
became the subject
of bitter litigation
between the
producers and the
director, Kenneth
Lonergan. Lonergan
was contractually
required to create a
film with a running
time less than 150
minutes, but could
not figure out how
to do so. He had
been given "final
cut," but only if he
could comply with
the 150-minute
clause. When he
failed to produce a
short enough version
in a timely manner,
the studio hired
other people to take
the footage and
produce a marketable
movie. Lawsuits and
counter-suits
followed (
story
here), and the
film languished in
distribution
purgatory.
The
film has finally
been released on
Blu-Ray and DVD in
two versions, one of
which fulfills
Lonergan's legal
requirements (it
weighs in at 149
minutes, 53
seconds), the other
of which is the
longer version
Lonergan wants us to
see. I bought the
set, which I
consider a rip-off.
The price is very
high to begin with,
and I thought
(admittedly without
reading carefully)
that it included
four versions of the
film: Blu-Ray
extended, Blu-Ray
theatrical, DVD
extended, DVD
theatrical. That is
not the case. The
set includes a
Blu-Ray of the
150-minute cut and a
DVD of the longer
version. Period. For
me personally, that
means my one goal in
buying the set, to
get a Blu-Ray of the
longer version, was
never achieved.
As it relates to
the Fun House, that
doesn't matter. The
nudity is exactly
the same in both
versions. One of the
things we missed
because of the legal
wrangling was Anna
Paquin's first nude
scene. She was 22 or
23 at the time, and
was playing a high
school girl.
The movie itself?
Well, most
important, the
prolonged legal
brouhaha over this
film illustrates why
directors should not
be given final cut,
especially if they
consider themselves
100% artists and 0%
businessmen. Not
only is the 3-hour
version unbearably
long, but even the
150-minute version
could be cut.
Considerably.
During the legal
impasse, Lonergan
supposedly called
Mark Ruffalo, a
confidante and one
of the film's stars,
into his editing
room and screened
the film for him. As
the story goes, he
asked "What could I
possibly cut?", and
Ruffalo supposedly
could find nothing
to trim from the
work of perfect
genius. I'm not sure
exactly how Mark
drew that
conclusion, and I
don't even know if
the meeting really
happened, but I'll
tell you this: the
film should be cut a
lot more, and many
places where it
could be trimmed are
extremely obvious,
even if no
individual scenes
are excised from the
movie. At various
times in the film,
people walk down
aisles and corridors
in real time.
Elsewhere, people
watch an opera and
we see an ungodly
amount of the actual
opera-within-the-film.
If an editor did
nothing more than
trim all that sort
of fat, another 20
minutes could be
lopped off.
But that's just the
tip of the iceberg.
If Lonergan were to
give the footage to
me and let me do
what I wanted with
it, I would
eliminate or shorten
many tangential
scenes or scenes of
peripheral
importance, and
would probably trim
the film down to
about 90 minutes.
That would not only
make it a properly
paced film,
("proper" only in my
opinion of course),
but would also
increase the
relative
significance of the
scenes which are
truly important and
powerful. Perhaps
just as important,
if such a trim had
been made six years
ago, the result
might have been a
limited theatrical
run in commercial
theaters in 2006 or
2007. Had that been
the case, the people
involved in the film
would have benefited
financially in two
ways: (1) the film
would have grossed a
few bucks,
especially if it
could have cooked up
some Oscar buzz,
stimulated by
Scorsese's
admiration; (2)
everyone involved in
the litigation could
have kept all the
money they paid to
lawyers when they
were suing each
other.
"Would this be a
great film at 90-100
minutes?", you
wonder.
You know what? It
just might be. If
Lonergan were to
give the film to
somebody like Paul
Greengrass and his
great editor
Christopher Rouse,
who together managed
to turn the awful
script for The
Bourne Ultimatum
into a very
watchable and
commercially viable
movie, this film
might realistically
have been an Oscar
candidate. It has a
solid premise, an
excellent cast,
weighty ideas, and
some very powerful
scenes. Atom Egoyan
got nominated for
the best director
Oscar for a film
with a similar
premise (The Sweet
Hereafter). I don't
know if there is a
money-making film to
be assembled from
the Margaret
footage, but that's
not the point. There
has to be a great
artistic achievement
in there somewhere.
But Lonergan
couldn't find it
===============
Nudity:
Here
are some captures
from the Blu-Ray
version of the
150-minute cut.
There's nothing to
get excited about.
The J. Smith-Cameron
scene is too fuzzy,
and the Anna Paquin
scene is in Stygian
darkness.
