Dark City: Two versions compared

The so-called "director's cut" of Dark City has several changes, a few of which improve the film, a few that detract. Here's a list of the things I can recall.

1. The film starts without the voice-over. That explanation is given later, in the rowboat scene.

2. There is no tuning at the beginning. The first hint of the supernatural, aside from the ghostly visage of the strangers, is when Murdoch is confronted by them on the scaffold. (I'm not sure if they put the conscierge to sleep before that. Perhaps)

3. Murdoch, while dressing, turns his shoe over and sees that it has not been worn.

4. Murdoch's fingerprints are shaped like a spiral, leading Bumstead to question whether someone is "joking."

5. Jennifer Connolly's actual voice is used in the songs instead of a professional singer. You can access the two on "youtube." I prefer the actual voice, which is less polished, but more sultry and atmospheric.

6. She sings a lot more of the second song. Detracts, I think from the mood.

7. The prostitute has a small child hiding in the room, the sight of which causes Murdoch to flee. She is later found by Emma and Bumstead after her mother's murder, and has drawn a picture of the three strangers, further leading Bumstead to accept that Murdoch is innocent. Film is better without her in it, I think.

8. Several scenes are just longer, with more dialogue. Frankly, I think the lack of dialogue in the original is better.

9. Murdoch is present, though hiding, when Mr. Hand goes to see Shreber in the pool. He learns more about the whole situation than we are led to believe in the original version. Also, the weakness of the Strangers in not detecting his presence is revealed.

10. Bumstead, while drinking capuccino, sees the swirl in his coffee, leading him to question his reality further.

11. During the the scene where Murdoch tells Emma that it's probable that they have never met before, she says, "I had that same feeling when I saw you at the apartment." But then she says, "no, I've loved you for years and we've been married for years etc." Only the second part is shown in the original. Her doubts are left out.

12. A longer speech is given by Mr. Hand at the harbor when he sees Emma and uses Murdoch's own words from long ago. The shorter version is better.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't prove it unless I watch the two versions side by side, but it seemed to me that they used a number of alternative takes or out takes in the director's cut, for no other reason than to just show an alternative version. I may be mistaken on this. However, if I am correct, the effect is not an improvement. Some of the takes seem inferior. However, it may simply be that they have been made slightly longer. In film, less is often more when it comes to dialogue. Much can be conveyed through gesture, a facial expression, etc. Supposedly, the scene in Citizen Kane where Kane first meets Susan was shortened in this way. At one point, Susan says, "you know how mothers are." The original screenplay supposedly had Kane launch into a speech. In the final cut, he merely mumbles Hm-mmm, with a very meaningful look on his face. We capture it all.

Dark City

Stealing again, from my blog from my film class in 2009. 


I remember vividly seeing Dark City in the theatre on Staten Island when it came out back in 98 or 99. The year before, a big hit was 12 Monkeys, and everybody ooooh'd and aaaah'd about Brad Pitt's performance, which I thought overdone and no more (or less, mind you) than a great imitation of Dennis Hopper in Apocalypse Now. The problem with 12 Monkeys for me was that the riddle was kept up for so long that I started to not care what the answer was. In other words, the director kept the audience in the dark for too long.

For this reason, I thought that Dark City was what 12 Monkeys wanted to be, but failed. I thought we were kept sufficiently in the dark, (pun recognized) for just exactly the right amount of time. Then, once we had a fairly good idea of what was going on, the suspense only heightened. I really loved this film, and I hope that today's beginning whetted your appetite for more.

Along this same line of discussion, however, I have always disliked the opening scene, where the voice-over of Dr. Shreber basically gives the plot away. Fortunately, I have a terrible attention span, and am a really bad movie viewer (the first time around) so I forgot most of what he said.

I was very much tempted to delete that scene today, but I didn't because the cut was not seamless, and I just decided not to. But, lo and behold, I should have, because I looked the film up on Wiki, and found out that Proyas was forced to add that scene by a nervous studio exec who worried that audiences would be turned off without it. The fact that voice-over of this kind is endemic to film noir somewhat mitigates the crime, but the director's cut, which is available, apparently, starts teh film diffferently.

I also read something else that confirmed a statement I made today in class. (It is gratifying to hear that one's independent analysis is backed up by statistics). Apparently, this film has the shortest average cut time of any film on record at 1.8 seconds. This means that the average time between cuts is less than 2 seconds. During the scene where Detective Wallenski rushes in I think we had about 20 cuts in 5 seconds.

The Asphalt Jungle

I've always been a huge fan of "film noir," the gritty crime dramas so popular during the 40's and 50's. And the modern updates on the genre always interest me also, though many of them are worse than pulp, instead they are bad remakes of pulp.

The problem for me in the class, however, has always been that students do not share my love of these early noirs. The Asphalt Jungle is one of my all time favorites, but students dislike it for some as yet undivined reason. So, this year I am going to solve the problem beforehand.

It's very simple: You either love "The Asphalt Jungle" or else. I am not threatening anyone, of course, but the last film should suffice as a "word to the wise." So, should you trash this film, either in class or on your blog, and should you subsequently find yourself standing across a saloon from me begging for mercy because you are unarmed, because you "ain't drunk," because you're "building a house," because you brought me a pony, because you "ain't given to wickedness in a regular way," because you "ain't like that anymore" because you "don't deserve this" then I will respond with two actions. First, I will say, "deserve ain't got nothing to do with it." And then I will... er, hmm ...

We'll leave the second action unmentioned, because, after all, "The Asphalt Jungle" will prove absolutely riveting and immensely entertaining to all.