Little seen and infrequently discussed, it's easy to forget Ridley Scott made this humble period film, based on Joseph Conrad's short story, The Duel. It's also easy to overpraise this picture because of its obscurity. Spectacularly beautiful, influenced heavily by Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon, the film suffers from Scott's stolid pacing and a palpable disconnect between style and substance, recurring critiques in many of Scott's later work. That said, this movie is essential for any film buff's collection, as it shows the early development of Scott's prevailing visual aesthetic, which, for good and bad, has made him a populist auteur.

Hannibal (2001) dir. Ridley Scott
Starring: Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore, Ray Liotta, Gary Oldman

***

I remember really digging this film when it first came out. Sir Ridley Scott, recently resurrected after his success with 'Gladiator', with 'Hannibal' seemed an unusual follow-up film to that Best Picture Oscar winner. Even more peculiar was the Pulitzer Prize-winning working class scribe, David Mamet (with help from prolific Hollywood writer-for-hire Steven Zallian) who adapted the screenplay.

It still is a weirdly peculiar product of Hollywood. Clearly Thomas Harris was lured by Hollywood to write another book featuring his Lambs protag Clarice Starling chasing after the escaped criminal Hannibal Lecter. While his two previous efforts, Lambs and Manhunter were brooding psychological and procedural police-cum-horror films, ‘Hannibal’ is made into a comic book superhero with a kind of grotesqueness meant to better the atrocities and vileness of the Lambs with an over-the-top sense of black comedy.

Anthony Hopkins, more aged, a little stockier, doesn’t quite have the controlled physique and thus quiet menace of the 1991 version. And the inability of the producers (and not even the revered Ridley Scott!) to bring back Jodie Foster hurt its credibility. Julianne Moore is good actress though and tries her best, but that Southern drawl accent never quite fits her and Scott’s attempts to continue the exploration of her insecurities in the police force are peppered throughout but never manifest in a substantially effective way.

‘Hannibal’ works best as a disposable but elegant B-thriller. The middle act is jumpstarted with the introduction of the film’s best character, (Giancarlo Giannini), the broken-down and corrupt Italian police inspector who wants to claim the private ransom money. Driven with a great music pulse from Hans Zimmer, act 2 sails along with a brisk pace. Scott's always been a slower paced director, but by cutting to characters in a number of locations and different characters in the US and Italy creates a heady momentum. And the inclusion of bombastic performances from Ray Liotta and Gary Oldman should be taken as black comedy.

If anything, the film suffers from the flaws which have plagued Sir Ridley in films' past. Fans of his might welcome the application of his familiar baroque and extravagant visual design. Others, like myself well attuned to his body of work, may only see more long flowing drapes, smoke-filled atmospheric and overly decorated interiors. And the opening drug bust sequence is typical of his new methods of filming action scenes – a multi-camera simultaneous coverage approach which results in dull television look.

"Hannibal" is available on Blu-Ray in MGM Home Entertainment's 'Hannibal Lecter' Collection, along with 'Manhunter' and 'Silence of the Lambs'. The Blu-Ray transfer is atrocious and indistuingishable from the DVD. For shame.

Kingdom of Heaven Dir Cut (2005) dir. Ridley Scott
Starring: Orlando Bloom, Liam Neeson, Eva Green, David Thewlis, Jeremy Irons

***

In 2005 Ridley Scott directed one of his biggest films he’s ever been involved with – film about the Crusades and the Christian fight with the Muslims for control of Jerusalem. The film was cut down to 145mins from an original length of three + hours. Theatrically the film was a very big flop, which came as a total surprise, considering the man had just come off three successful films in five years – “Gladiator”, “Hannibal” and “Blackhawk Down”.

But in hindsight Scott’s Kurasawa-influenced Middle Eastern epic never even had a chance to succeed at the box office – no matter how long it is, it’s an anti-dramatic film, without the genre-satisfying heroism of its competitors, “Gladiator”, “Braveheart” or “300”. It’s a shame because in many ways, “Kingdom of Heaven” is more complex and intriguing character and political study. But is character and politics enough for a film about medieval knights and the crusades?

The hero of the film is Balian (Orlando Bloom), a blacksmith who becomes knighted by his absentee father (Liam Neeson) and travels to Jerusalem to cleanse his soul after the suicide of his wife.When he arrives in Jerusalem, he discovers he has inherited several acres of land, which are occupied by a peaceful mix of Christians and Muslims. But the peace is threatened by the Muslim armies at the gates and the warmongering Christian military from within.

Balian doesn’t have the chutzpah of Maximus in Gladiator. He’s a humble, reluctant knight, who resembles the virtues of Jesus – a selfless man, who fights not for land, title, or even women, instead for the peace of his people. He doesn’t even care that his people live in their home Jerusalem. And in the big finale, Balian actually surrenders and gives up the land to the Muslim army.

In any other epic Balian’s surrender would be seen as uncourageous, or selling out, but for Balian, there’s more honour in saving the lives of his people and their families, than dying for one’s beliefs.

Of course the Holy Land is still being fought over almost 1000 years later. Balian lives a secular life and attitude, and though he fights in the name of God and wears the cross, he’s pragmatic about his religion – which is perhaps not reflective of the times, but certainly reflecting a modern attitude.

In 2007, the fully realized 196 mins version was released on DVD with an unprecedented 45 mins of added material. The film is certainly a better film. The key additions include more time spent in France with revelations about Balian’s father and his half-brother, and lengthy chunks of material devoted to Balian’s relationship with Sybille (Eva Green).

Both additions I welcomed. More quality time with Liam Neeson in France deepens Balian’s decision-making in Jerusalem, and I could always use some more quality time with Eva Green. She is simply stunning in the film. I don’t know if her now trademark smoky eye shadow was in style in 1150, but who cares. Seriously though, her character additions fit in well with the theme of the corruption of power. In the Director’s Cut her character is more sinister than the theatrical, and which provides one of the most unexpected twists which has Balian rejecting her advances and offer of kingdomship. I can see why her dramatic downfall was cut out of the picture – it’s even more audience-unfriendly than our hero surrendering to the enemy. Her advances to Balian are rejected, and she kills her own child because he is a leper.

Despite the welcomed changes, it's still no masterpiece.

Pacing is a still a major problem. Mr. Scott is in love with his flickering candle-lights and flowing flags and gorgeous picturesque frames. But there's a consistent and unnecessary slowness, which never ramps up in intensity - even during the battle scenes. There's also a familiarity to the material. The epic battles are technically proficient it in depiction of medieval war, but it's little different than the army vs. army sequences in the LOTR movies, "Braveheart", "Gladiator", "Troy" and others. And Harry Gregson-Williams turns in a score of recycled choir chanting and indistinctive orchestral melodies.

In “300”, “Braveheart” and “Gladiator” each of their heroes died honourably in combat. Is Balian cowardly? Not at all. In fact, he makes the most sophisticated and morally complex decisions of any of the above-mentioned films – but it results in an audience-unfriendly but neverless thoughtful conclusion. Unlike other Ridley Scott movies, this one is a true 'Director's Cut', which results in a different and better film than the original, unfortunately it still doesn't rise far enough to become one of his 'great' films. Enjoy.

Other related postings:
The Multiple Visions of Ridley Scott

The following essay is a unique collaboration of Daily Film Dose and A Penny in the Well – two bloggers and Ridley Scott fans with strong opinions about the notion of the so-called ‘Director’s Cut’.

Last week Ridley Scott released yet another "Alternate Cut" of a film he’s directed—the extended version of "American Gangster". With the release of “Blade Runner: The Final Cut” last year, this becomes the 8th alternate version of a film directed by Mr. Scott, possibly making him the king of the director’s cut.

Can Ridley not make a movie that he’s satisfied with? Well, yes he can. But even the films with which he is completely satisfied get tinkered with over and over again. Is nothing sacred?

First let's get out of the way the meaning of a "Director's Cut". After a film is shot, it's edited by the editor under the guidance of the director. But remember, it's the executive producer or investor who ultimately has final say on a film (unless a director is given "final cut"). Under this 'traditional' method of post-production a director works with his editor producing a number of rough cuts with advice and notes from the executive producers, after which time he produces his ‘Director's Cut’. If this cut pleases everyone, the picture is 'locked' and it moves into the sound edit. If it doesn't, there's usually some head butting—sometimes peaceful, sometimes not—and hopefully some compromises are made to everyone. Sometimes the director is too stubborn and is forced to leave the project; sometimes he leaves in protest. But often times the Director's Cut differs from the Final Cut.

It wasn't until the 1980's/90's when a public demand emerged for these 'Director's Cuts'. The new home video market saw an opportunity to repackage popular old titles to market as new. I.e. Warner Bros could sell more tapes of "Blade Runner" if audiences thought they were going to see something different than they saw 10 years before.

Thus the Director's Cut became a marketing tool, not a form of protest for grumpy directors and rarely the realization of an artist’s true uncompromised vision. After all, video rights are usually held by the distributor or executive producers who had ‘Final Cut’ rights in the first place.

Ridley Scott has been victim of both a compromised vision and a marketing tool. Seven of his films have been re-cut after the fact—sometimes with his approval, sometimes without. But only three of these films represent the preferred version of Mr. Scott—the one he has on his DVD shelf.

Here's a breakdown of the Multiple Versions of Ridley Scott:

ALIEN
Original Cut (1979) 117 mins
Director’s Cut (2003) 116 mins

Scott’s 1979 sci-fi/horror classic about a space salvage crew that find themselves the victims of an insect-like alien that seems created for the sole purpose of consuming any being it can get its multiple jaws on is perhaps the best example of the director’s thinking on the so-called “Director’s Cut. ” In the DVD liner notes to the 2003 released “Director’s Cut” he admits that the ’79 version of the film is his director’s cut and the new release was cooked up by the studio to insert some scenes that found their way to the cutting room floor. Perhaps the most unique detail of the 2003 version of “Alien” is the fact that, unlike most ‘director’s cuts,’ it is actually shorter than the original film. The new cut was most likely inspired by fans clamoring to see the film’s most famous deleted scene in context. The scene explains the alien’s life cycle—which was originally revealed theatrically in James Cameron’s 1986 sequel “Aliens”—and depicted the fate of the ship’s captain, Dallas. The scene itself is fascinating, but in context becomes a stumbling block for the storytelling. It comes at the climax of the story and brings the film to a dead stop. Scott was justified in cutting it from the film originally.

BLADE RUNNER
Original Cut (1982) 116 mins
‘Director’s’ Cut (1992) 116mins
Final Cut (2007) 116mins

There have been 3 or 4 versions of this sci-fi noir that follows a bounty hunter searching for rouge cybernetic criminals known as replicants in release at various times. The four key differences between all versions are 1) the graphic violence including the famous close up of Roy Batty pushing his thumbs through Tyrell's eyes, 2) the Unicorn Dream sequence that suggests the bounty hunter Deckard is also a replicant, 3) the so-called "happy ending" which shows Deckard and Rachael driving off into the sunset (using b-roll from “The Shining”!), and 4) the noirish hardboiled voiceover from Harrison Ford that explains minor details of the film audiences understood anyway. Each of the versions are essentially different combinations of these 4 variations. It’s hard to choose a preference for any one of the versions over the others. No matter which you see, it's still the same film—a great existential sci-fi masterpiece.

LEGEND
Original Cut (1985) 89 mins
Director’s Cut (2002) 114 mins

More unicorns, but no masterpiece; though it's not as much the stinker it was labeled back in 1985. At times it's a beautiful and elegant film set in a fantasy world where the elements of purity and innocence struggle against the forces of corruption and evil. The extended cut adds 20 minutes of some new and extended footage, and perhaps most significantly the original Jerry Goldsmith orchestral score that was famously replaced in the North American version for a more “modern” sounding Tangerine Dream. Both scores are fantastic though. Another key change is the introduction of Tim Curry as the wonderfully made-up Devilish creature ‘Darkness’. He is introduced in the opening minutes of the original, but in the Director’s Cut he isn’t seen until the third act—a much stronger build-up to his menacing character. Though we don’t have Mr. Scott quoted anywhere saying so, this appears to be his preferred cut.

Click HERE to continue to Part II at Andrew D. Wells’ A Penny in the Well

American Gangster (2007) dir. Ridley Scott
Starring: Denzel Washington, Russell Crowe

***1/2

“American Gangster” surprised me by setting itself apart from “Carlito’s Way”, “Casino” and “Goodfellas”. Ridley Scott's film is more like Michael Mann’s “Heat” than anything else. It’s set in the 70’s but it’s not about the 70’s. The film is also worthy of the starcasting of Crowe and Washington as adversaries on opposite sides of the New York heroin drug war. Ridley Scott directs a surprisingly lean and focused film about the exploitation of American capitalism. Despite its simple title, it’s a smart film about a complex business.

The film takes place between 1968 and 1976. Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington) is a bagman for a local Harlem mobster who dies at the opening of the film. A number of other gangsters quickly assemble to fill the void. Lucas sees his opportunity and sets off to become top of the food chain in the drug business. Lucas is as smart a businessman as he is a thug and Ridley Scott shows us in detail Lucas’s passionate dedication to creating his empire. Lucas is an early globalist and actually makes a trip into the jungles of Thailand to buy pure heroin at the source. Meanwhile, the cops led by an undercover agent with Serpico-like scruples named Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe) frantically searches for the supplier of Lucas’s new brand of potent Heroin. The film becomes a cat and mouse game between the two characters over the course of 8 years. And in the end they find out they have more in common than they realize.

The underlying theme of the film is capitalism - how Frank Lucas used all the skills and experience from his lifetime of crime to exploit the economic system of supply and demand. He establishes a personal set of rules which allows him to quickly replace the boss of Harlem (like Tom Peters' "In Search For Excellence" adapted to the drug trade) 1) show strength and confidence. 2) Bypass the wholesaler and buy straight from the source 3) Sell a good quality product and low prices – watch Lucas’s confrontation with Nicky Barnes (Cuba Gooding Jr.) for a wonderful scene demonstrating his firm grasp of this pricing principal. Lucas’s fourth rule may only apply to drug dealers – keep a low profile.

Lucas indeed keeps a low profile and uses race to his advantage. Lucas goes about his business with little flair and flash as his competitors- the Italian mob. In a city where the Italian mob rules the streets Lucas, as a black man, stays off Roberts’ radar for a long time. There’s a scene midway through the film where Lucas loses concentration and slips up. It’s a minor moment with drastic ramifications. When Lucas realizes his mistake it’s a great moment of acting for Denzel.

Russell Crowe matches Denzel’s chops in the acting department but writer Steve Zaillian is a little sloppy in fleshing out his character. Roberts has a child with his ex-wife Laurie (Carla Gugino) and is going through a custody hearing. The contradiction for Roberts is that for a man so responsible in his job he shows a remarkable lack of responsibility in his family life. This is all in the script, but it’s told to Roberts (and us) in dialogue. Roberts doesn’t learn it for himself. In the end Roberts makes a sacrifice to do the right thing, but it's too much of an aside to affect his life and his work.

Aside from a few songs and one music montage “American Gangster” stays away from being a nostalgia-fest. Films about the 70’s usually feature the songs of the era to put the audience in the period ie. De Palma’s disco-Godfather tale “Carlito’s Way” or Scorsese’s Rolling Stones-heavy “Casino”. Scott creates his own path in the genre by limiting his use of period music. In addition Scott’s colour palette is dark and muted. The film is rooted in the New York City grey, as opposed to the disco colours of the other aforementioned films. As such “American Gangster” doesn’t look like a film about the 70’s, which allows it to exist on its own.

“American Gangster” is a refreshing take on the cinematic world of New York mobsters. Ridley Scott is certainly more than comfortable with action, but his film is heavy on character and procedure and low on action. The film works best as an enlightening essay on the economics of drugs and how well it adapts into American big business. Enjoy.

American Gangster Denzel Washington

Blade Runner: Final Cut (1982) dir. Ridley Scott
Starring: Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, Sean Young, Joe Turkel

****

Congratulations to the Regent Theatre in Toronto and all other theatres around the world that are hosting the re-release of “Blade Runner”. It’s being billed as “The Final Cut” after many other cuts that have circulated since 1982. The marketing and hype around this would make it seem like we’re watching a brand new version. For me it’s still the same “Blade Runner”, with differences I barely noticed from the previous versions. In fact, it’s basically a re-editing of the various elements cut out or edited back in over the years. Whichever version it is it’s still a fantastic film and one of the all-time great sci-fi pictures.

Personally, I liked all the versions. I don’t mind the much-trounced noir-ish voiceover from Harrison Ford, and I don’t mind the so-called ‘happy ending” which has Deckard and Rachael driving off together away from Los Angeles, nor do I mind the unicorn subplot which implies Deckard as a Replicant. All of these elements are peripheries to the main themes of the film, which are profound examinations of the nature of humanity. If Replicants were created by humans does this give us the right to exert absolute superiority and authority over them? Do they have the right to freedom?

In the backstory Eldon Tyrell (Joe Turkel) created a series of artificial intelligent robots called Replicants that look and act exactly like humans. They are so real only through a series of electronically monitored psychological tests can they be differentiated from normal humans. Tyrell gave his creations a life span of only four years, after which time they die. When several of the Replicants revolt aboard their spaceship and return to Earth illegally, they are immediately targeted for termination. A Blade Runner named Deckard (Harrison Ford), whose specialty is in tracking down these robots, is assigned to this job.

I remember back in the ’82 my Dad and my older cousins were talking about the film with exuberance. Though it wasn’t successful commercially there was a buzz about the film. When I saw the film on video as an 8-year old I was disappointed (with any sci-fi film I always expected “Star Wars” or “The Black Hole”). Even for adults, it’s a tough film to crack. The pacing is intentionally slow; in fact listen to the slow-motion speed of Roy Batty’s dialogue; and the cinematography and production design, though brilliant, is dark, wet and moody.

But on subsequent viewings “Blade Runner” quickly grew on me, specifically once the existential themes seeped into my skin. The final cat-and-mouse chase between Batty (Rutger Hauer) and Deckard is a classic Ridley Scott scene (remember the ending of “The Duellists”, or “Black Rain”?), but Rutger Hauer’s speech at the end is even more important. If the film were from Batty’s point of view, he would be the hero. His description of the pain and suffering he has experienced over his four years of servitude puts the entire film into a different context. Think of relativity. What would you do if you were born into obscene slavery, forced to fight wars against your will and then be told your life has clock-ticking expiration date? Great films show the shades of grey of their lead characters. And by the end of this film, the seemingly sadistic bad guy becomes a tragic hero. And his heroism in saving Deckard, his final act of redemption, proves he, like his human counterparts, are capable of forgiveness.

Even if these thematic elements seem weak (as they did with Roger Ebert), there’s always the awesome auditory and visual experience of the film to enjoy. The special effects by the legendary Douglas Trumbull are still phenomenal. As the creator of the optical effects in “2001: A Space Odyssey” and “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, Trumbull is true master of light. His work is complimented by the lighting by cinematographer Jordon Cronenweth – who underlights his interiors, but blasts harsh spotlights through every window. And in the Regent Theatre, the awesome sound system added a new level to the film I had never experienced on VHS, Laserdisc, DVD or late night television.

Each and every version of “Blade Runner” is special. The mere fact there are 4 or 5 versions of the film is a testament to the fact that the little additions don’t really change the grand scope of the film. It’s greater than the sum of its parts and a classic. Please see it in the theatres if you have the chance. Enjoy.

Buy it on DVD in December: Blade Runner (Five-Disc Ultimate Collector's Edition)