>The Right Cut: Why Spider-Man 2.1–While Better Than 2–Is Really Spider-Man 1.9
Spider-Man 2.1 is clearly the movie the way that Sam Raimi wanted it to be. Compared to 2.1, 2 has some continuity problems. It’s clear from 2.1 that a better assembly of the film existed before the film had to be shortened prior to it’s original release.
Okay, before going any further, who came up with this 2.1 concept?! Does this mean that there’s going to be a 2.2? 2.3? 2.4?! Will Spider-Man 2 ½ be a story that takes place between the two films? Honestly, 2.1 is a very poor title for this project.
We’re in a time when the ‘Mighty Dollar’ rules the world. Unfortunately it also can ruin the edit of a movie, for financial gain (i. e. Lost World: Jurassic Park). It can either force a film to be shortened to allow for an additional daily showing–or in its worst case–the film can be re-edited just to sell another copy of the film on DVD. Rarely, there’s a pure motivation behind the recut of a film… completing it the way it was originally intended. What a unique concept.
As a storyteller and someone intimately familiar with recutting a motion picture, I always find myself jarred by the familiar over-cutting of a movie for time or ratings. It’s all too common for you to perfect your film, tighten the edit, get the flow and continuity down, and reach that satisfying point where you can proclaim…â€It’s done!†and begin to show your final work cut (with unfinished effects and sound mix) to your friends and colleagues (often to insure that you truly aren’t going crazy by being so close to a project for years and that you’re actually achieving the results you want). You’d be surprised by how many times you’ll reach this point, and the studio suddenly says “it’s great! But if you could cut it down just about another 10 minutes we’ll all be happy!†Groan… So… Do you fight, or go back… You work until the film is the best it can be under the circumstances and requirements of collaboration, and wish that you’ll have the chance to get it exactly the way you wanted in the future.
Thanks to the DVD market, there have been many opportunities for filmmakers to return to their films and iron out some of the issues that occurred during production. In a number of cases, studios have chosen to simply restore excised footage without the filmmakers involvement. We’d hope that this occurs with the filmmakers blessing, but that isn’t always the case. In general, when I hear about a ‘recut’ or ‘extended’ cut of a film, I start to look for information from the Director about what he/she did. When I can’t find a word, I get suspicious… and concerned. A trusted filmmaker’s unique vision of a film should never be compromised.
A perfect example of a recut for the purpose of revenue was Ridley Scott’s ALIEN Director’s Cut. This version of the film is wrong even in title. Not only did this recut betray the remarkable edit of the original film, but Ridley stated the following in his letter to the viewers included in the video release: “I felt that the original cut of ALIEN was perfect. I still feel that way… [then] Fox decided to re-release ALIEN…It was their hope that I would see fit to include several of the deleted scenes…in order to give moviegoers additional incentive to see the film [again].â€
The most notorious case of this was when Universal Televsion—a group that would often recut a film without any filmmaker involvement to have a unique presentation for syndication television showings—recut David Lynch’s film Dune. While it was nice to see these excised scenes, the mixture of artwork, use of incorrect/out of context footage, and other inconsistencies turned the film into a mess that even Lynch couldn’t watch. That recut of the film no longer stated that it was Directed by David Lynch, that version was Directed by Alan Smithee. (When a Director wishes to take his name off of a picture he made, the Directors Guild’s replacement is ‘Alan Smithee’). The worst example of a theatrical recut came from a little birdy that told me about how Basic Instinct 2 was shortened prior to release JUST so that the DVD release could contain additional footage.
There’s a third financial reason for an altered cut, and one that in many cases is understandable (especially when you are an independent filmmaker). Budgetary. You’d think that once a film is already on its way to being a great success–and they’ve invested a great amount of money to the project–that a bit more to get it perfect would be worth it. Well, as so many short-sighted studios have in the past, Spider-Man 2 was released without some of these sequences because of budgetary reasons. In the case of this DVD release, the studio purchased an expensive insurance policy by releasing the film as it was, only to technically earn the extra budget in advance to finish these sequences and reinstate them today into a 2.1 release. It’s become a marketing game that operates on all the wrong reasoning.
Happily, its clear that Spider-Man 2.1 is a labor of love over a solitary motivation for money.
When I sat down to view Spider-Man 2.1, I was both surprised and pleased by how many of the fixes and additions flowed smoothly in the overall edit of the movie, from the additional character moments with Peter Parker’s good friend and future nemesis Harry Osborne, to considerably more hand-to-tenticale combat between Spidey and Dr. Octopus. If you look at the 2 version, there are sequences, such as their fight on the building right after the bank robbery, where you can tell that a piece of the fight was missing, the cut was abrupt, and the the sequence is almost unnoticably “off.” Now there’s an excellent flow to the added sequence where they fall through a lawyer’s office window and fight in the small hallway next to research bookcases before jumping/falling back out the window! It’s a dynamic sequence and one of real conflict. It helped make the scene far more intense, and more personal and man-to-man.
Probably my favorite action change comes during the elevated subway sequence. Let’s forget that Manhattan doesn’t have an elevated subway, and jump into the fantasy: It’s always bothered me that when Spidey is thrown off the train my Doc Oc, he suddenly ends up in front of him when he gets back onto the train. Now, with what appears to be the largest and most violent additional sequence, Spidey is being forced down the side of the train as he continually smashes into the track control boxes–it’s violent, feels painful to watch, and things can’t get worse…until… a train travelling in the opposite direction hits Spidey, and rips him right off of the train. This time, Spidey makes it back on the train—saving some lives in the process—and eventually saves everyone on board. Is this sequence too violent? To me, this felt far more human because of the violence, and painful for the same reason. I usually don’t like gratuitous and unmotivated violence, but the pain expressed really humanized the fight.
There are many added character moments, one of the best additions featured Daily Bugle Editor-In-Chief J. Jonah Jameson:
As for the transfer of the film, the picture quality looks superior to the “superbit” version of 2 so to my eyes, this is the best version of Spider-Man 2 in both cut, and appearance. Without a doubt, this disc should be part of your collection.
In the end, Spider-Man 2.1 is considerably better than Spider-Man 2, (it’s clear and you should spend the underpriced $12.99 at Amazon
If you thought this was foolish, check these out: