MovieChat Forums > 54 (1998) Discussion > How is the Director's Cut better than th...

How is the Director's Cut better than the studio version?

posted 10 years ago by rorystevens
7 replies | jump to latest

Okay, I first watched 54 back in 1999. I was excited to see it because it had Ryan Phillippe and Neve Campbell and I was a big fan of Cruel Intentions and Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer back in the day. Anyway, I was really bored with 54, didn't care for it. I didn't even really remember what it was about years later.

Anyway, when I watched the Director's Cut, suddenly, it was more interesting. Maybe it's because I've developed a nostalgia for that time period? The prospect of a bisexual storyline certainly made the film more intriguing. I really loved the Director's Cut.

So, I decided to re-watch the studio version to compare. I noticed a lot of the scenes were shorter, there were definitely some different scenes, the ending was different, the relationship with Julie Black was more developed, Greg was kind of put in the background as the jealous friend. It was funny to see Shane come out crying to Anita after his "argument" with Greg (two different contexts, one makes more sense than the other). Anyway, I also liked Ryan Phillippe's narration. It was also nice seeing the epilogue, which the director's cut didn't have.

I still prefer the Director's Cut, but this time, the studio version was more interesting to me. I don't know why. What was wrong with the studio version? And objectively judging, is the Director's Cut really a better movie than the studio version? Would a mainstream audience (as opposed to a niche gay audience) enjoy the Director's Cut better?

[–] casey99 10 years ago

The studio version was too rushed, scenes were jumbled together into montages with Shane's voice over explaining plot points rather than letting us see them develop naturally. Also more time was spent out of the club with pointless scenes like the bowling alley scene and dance class rather than letting us experience all the relationships between the people who work on the club. And also I hate how Shane's bisexuality was completely excised. In the studio version he is an innocent do-gooder pretty boy whereas the directors cut portrays him as a flawed individual who really goes through a complete journey. And the relationship between Greg, Shane and Anita is really the heart of this film and that is completely lost in the studio version.

[–] Paranoid-Roegian 10 years ago

The theatrical version feels like one giant music video - and there are subplots and characters that act based on the service of those very cliche subplots.

The director's cut is more straightforward and subdued. Characters aren't one-dimensional, and they act based on realistic intention. The movie is also a little more plotless - as it should be - and focuses more on the main character's hedonistic behavior caused by a lack of identity. It's more complex and human, because it's less about plot and more about character.

[–] aGuiltySoul 10 years ago

What was wrong with the studio version? And objectively judging, is the Director's Cut really a better movie than the studio version?

Ryan Phillippe said at the Q&A after the film showed in SF that the DC let the audience behind the ropes.

Yes, there is that. The club scenes in the DC are so very well done, restoring the darkened atmosphere with the flash of dance floor lighting. But more than that, I felt invested in the three lead characters, Shane, Greg, and Anita whose relationship forms the story arc.

But I particularly like Shane's character development. He is such a needy person, willing to do anything for love or its substitutes. In the studio version he's just a pretty boy who happens to work at 54. In the DC, he and the barmen, the coat check girls, and the background people ARE club 54.

And lastly, it has often been said that Mike Meyers gave an Oscar worthy performance. I agreed and I still agree. Maybe he would have had a shot if this version of the film had been originally released.

It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it.
RIP Roger Ebert

[–] BigBadEd 10 years ago

This is very confusing:

If you compare the UK dvd with the UK blu (which has both normal/extended versions on one disc) there are three different running times. So can someone who has the Blu check by playing the disc, if the times stated for it are correct, if so then the dvd is an odd mix between theatrical and extended.

UK dvd - 97 mins (Theatrical I presume)
UK blu - 92 mins (Theatrical, according to blu case)
UK blu - 100 mins (Extended, according to blu case)

[–] metalion_sos 10 years ago

The 97 mins DVD is the same as the 100 blu but shorter due to the PAL format.

[–] Falconeer 9 years ago

There is no 97 minute version; theatrical version is 93 minutes, and the extended version is 100 minutes. The directors cut runs 106 minutes, but you actually see around 30 minutes of new scenes, as a lot of scenes were removed. Scenes like the bowling alley and dance studio segments, which were filmed after the fact, and not intended to be part of the original film, are thankfully gone, to make room for previously cut scenes.

#hands up don't loot

[–] Falconeer 9 years ago

The director's cut is better; it flows smoothly, while the studio-butchered version is choppy, and sometimes illogical. Those "additions" forced by the studio were so obviously added in to make this movie 'mainstream-audience-friendly,' which is so inappropriate for a film with this subject matter. And more than that, it's DUMB. Think about it; cutting the bisexual theme from a movie about Studio 54 is like cutting the iceberg out of the "Titanic." Why would anyone do this, and still think that it could work? Movies like this are all about the dramatic elements, and for that to work we need character development. Finally we have that here, and the three-way relationship between Anita, Greg and Shane, are at the center of the movie, as it was meant to be. Suddenly it has a soul, and deals with something the audience can connect with. Finally, the way they re-cut this movie, to make the character Shane so pure and innocent, was just ridiculous. Who could believe that a young person could go through that scene without becoming a bit jaded, and without becoming experimental, with both drugs and sexuality? His character was totally unbelievable. But now Shane is a real person, with human flaws and desires. And even though he is not so sweet in this version, he is still somehow, more likable, BECAUSE of his weaknesses. That studio cut was a total failure..for a good reason. It's sad that this director's real vision comes out 15 years too late, because very few people are going to care now..

#hands up don't loot