Now, on to the differences in the original theatrical release and the Director’s Cut. Other than the aforementioned lengthening of the film, there is the loss of the opening voiceover by Kiefer Sutherland. Proyas and the other members of the creative team all think this improves the film, but since we learn of what is stated in the film’s voiceover within the first twenty or so minutes, and it bears little on the film’s ending, the voiceover is really a non-issue, dramatically. In Blade Runner, for instance, the cheesy voiceover at film’s end adds to the film by leavening many of the trite and mawkish scenes that are viewed with an almost PoMo and unwitting self-deprecation. That’s not true, in this instance. In short, its loss does not remove any of the pop from the film’s ‘mystery.’
In fact, one could argue that the opening voiceover actually does more to make the film ambiguous than does the Director’s Cut. Why? Because Sutherland’s voice actually notes that The Strangers took these people from our small, blue world, meaning Earth. Thus, the surprise when Murdoch and Bumstead bust through the brick wall into outer space is more of a shock, because we have seemingly been told we are on earth. In the Director’s Cut, sans that statement, there always seems to be something ‘off’ and artificial about the city, so the notion that it is a large spaceship is not quite as dramatic. Some opening scenes that show the city asleep during a tuning are moved to later in the film, and, again, this is a non-issue, since the tuning at film’s opening only makes sense if the voiceover is there. The effects showing Murdoch’s ability to tune are not as glaring from early on in the film any longer. This makes it seem as if Murdoch is learning his powers as he goes along. A slight plus, possibly, but, since the early evidence of his tuning ability comes in uncontrolled moments, wouldn’t a fierce burst be evident?
There are other minor effects enhancements, and more of an insistence on featuring the spiral motif of the killer persona Murdoch was supposed to get. Also, Bumstead seems more equivocal in the added scenes we see of him. Finally, during the singing scenes, Jennifer Connelly’s real voice is used, not Anita Kelsey’s. Finally, the changes seem more akin to those made in Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now/Apocalypse Now Redux recut — the film is longer, but still of the same generally high quality. Had Proyas not held on to his pet peeves, no one would have uttered a complaint about anything missing from the original film.
Technically, the film makes much of a relatively austere budget; it looks much more high tech than it was. The screenplay, by Proyas, David Goyer, and Lem Dobbs, is superb and in the DVD commentaries and documentaries each man does a good job of delineating his touch. It is claimed that Dark City has one of the shortest cut lengths in film history — less than two seconds per cut, yet it is a tribute to the actual tale the film tells that these cuts are not a major factor in the film, unlike so many action films where MTV-like ADD editing substitutes for quality. It also reinforces the idea that film is, indeed, literature with pictures, because if such an accentuated feature of the visual element of the film has so little impact (pro or con) on the tale told, then, surely, the tale told is the heart of the film and, naturally, of all good and great cinema. In short, editing, while in the hands of a master, can be a good tool in shaping a film, in the overwhelming majority of cases it has as much bearing on the final film as the choice of font and type size does on the actual wording and content of a piece of writing. That stated, Dov Hoenig’s obviously serves a purpose without intruding into the tale.
Article comments
1 - Kevin
Jesus H Christ; I thought it was good that someone reviewed the director's cut of Dark City, but SEVEN FUCKING PAGES?? Think anyone reads all that besides you? Fuck no; learn how to write for an audience brainiac.