Geeking Out: The New STAR TREK

Contains spoilers.

Let me start by stating that yes, I am a STAR TREK fan. Particularly the original series. However, I have never been to a convention, never dressed up as any of the characters, and I do not speak a word of Klingon. That said, as a kid, I would have LOVED to have done any and all of the above.

My point? While I count myself as a fan, my fanaticism has its limits. There are those who can talk STAR TREK circles around me. And I welcome their input and observations. I say this because I truly enjoyed much of J.J. Abrams’ new STAR TREK film. I also had some issues with the film that keeps it from being a favorite. Or even as great as its first half promised. And my problems with the film are, in part, fan-based and, in other part, common sense-based.

There’s nothing more frustrating to me than a really good film that allows sloppy moments to intrude on the world of the story and characters. That said, I should state here that I am all for re-imaginings. It seems to be the thing these days. No longer is the sequel king. It’s the remake. And I’m all for it if it can do something new and unique with the material and characters. And this STAR TREK movie does that. Much the same way CASINO ROYALE re-started the Bond franchise and re-imagined our ruthless hero. Is it the Bond from the novels? Not really. Is he still highly watchable and exciting? Yes. The Bond series needed a breath of fresh air and they got it. Sadly, the second installment forgot about character development, but that’s another film and another post… Back to TREK.

J.J. Abrams’ new take on the old series is almost terrific. In fact, the first half of the film held me lovingly in its grip. True, I went in fearing the worst, but the filmmakers had some great ideas on how to re-invigorate these characters and films and they managed to pull off the near-impossible: take these much-beloved characters –an institution, really– and give them over to an entirely new cast in an entirely new environment. Changing the timeline, as they did, is quite brilliant (and keeping within the rules of the TREK universe) and have single-handedly set us up for a whole lifetime of new adventures that do not require most of the facts and circumstances of the original series or any other offshoot, be it television or film.

The casting is near-perfect. Even if these aren’t exactly the characters as we knew and loved them, they’re pretty damn close; close enough to remind us why we loved them and make us yearn to love them again. And here is where one of my problems with the film rears its ugly head. It’s an issue that may very well be insignificant to anyone but a lover of STAR TREK. The casting and direction of the actors was so spot on, so fun to watch, both nostalgic and new all at the same time, that it’s that much more disappointing when they get one of the characters wrong.

I initially saw the film in the theater and had some reservations and issues, but all films deserve a second viewing (at least) and so I rented the Blu-ray and sat down for another look. And sadly, the same issues remained for me. The first being the casting of Simon Pegg as Scotty, originally played by the late James Doohan. As an actor and comedian, I think Pegg is great. But his (and the filmmakers’) take on Scotty basically mocks Doohan’s character. In fact, I would go as far as to say, with the exception of the accent, there is little-to-no similarities between the two. Pegg’s Scotty is a wise-cracking goofball from another movie. Whenever he’s on screen, the kids in the audience may be entertained, but the rest of us are stuck with a cartoon character. The filmmakers worked so hard to get all the characters right, why did they abandon this one?

Anyone who watched the original show knows that Scotty was never the comic relief. Not any more or less than any other character. But in this STAR TREK universe, he serves little else. His very presence undermines all the tension Abrams worked so diligently to build up throughout the film’s first half. Abrams might as well have cast Jim Carrey and let him run around the bridge talking out of his butt. It’s all very silly and out of place in a world where entire civilizations are wiped out and intimate family members murdered. But someone somewhere seemed to think that the film might be getting too dark and that they should dip into sitcom-land for a little while lest anyone get too tense or, god forbid, think the filmmakers where taking this seriously.

At one point, Scotty accidentally transports himself into an engine cooling system while our beloved Kirk has to watch him zip through transparent water tubes a la WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY. Now you don’t have to be a STAR TREK fan or know any of these characters to recognize the tension all but completely disappear as the film veers off into an odd comic nether-sphere.

Add to that Scotty’s little alien friend –his cute little buddy that follows him around– and we have an episode of GILLIGAN’S ISLAND on our hands! Perhaps in their attempt to incorporate the many different elements of the TREK universe, the filmmakers thought this would be fitting. Sadly, for me, it completely took me out of the film and made me hyper-aware of the folks behind the scenes trying to make a few more “commercially-minded” choices. So, in effect, they took a beloved character, placed him in a rather riveting story, and then decided he should be more like Bill Murray in MEATBALLS.

But Pegg’s Scotty is really the only major character that completely missed the boat for me. There are a few instances where I thought the filmmakers were trying a little too hard to incorporate now-famous phrases or actions, like Karl Urban’s McCoy stating “I’m a doctor, not a physicist!” at a point where it really doesn’t make any sense in the context of the conversation that’s taking place and just ends up standing out like a sore thumb. But that I can more easily forgive because it is all in the line of trying to make the characters more like the ones we know and love. You can’t get everything right. Especially on the first outing.

But now comes the clincher; the moment in the film when logic and character motivation are replaced by a weak plot necessity resulting in what feels like blatantly lazy writing. In one fell swoop, the writers (or whoever made this decision) have Spock decide that he wants Kirk off the ship so badly that he actually has him ejected onto a dangerous ice planet. Whoa, hold on here, cowboy… Now while the filmmakers may have written themselves into a corner in needing to get Kirk and the older Spock together, they unfortunately resorted to an act that I do not for one second believe any captain or character (not to mention a logical Vulcan) would enact. Not on a ship with a brig. Lock Kirk up. Done and dealt with. Or why not simply sedate him as they had done previously? No, it makes no sense to the story or characters and ends up making me aware of the writers struggling. What’s odd is that this STAR TREK feels like a film where the filmmakers DID actually care and were hyper-aware of the characters and their motivations. So what happened here? Why a moment of such unnecessarily lazy writing?

Unfortunately, this unbelievable moment leads to one of the film’s most extraneous sequences where Kirk is chased by some wild beasties across the frozen landscape. This feels like the effects determining the story and not the other way around. It’s gratuitous and not particularly interesting. It’s an aversion from the story. For this viewer, the entire sequence and the clear unmotivated plot manipulation that preceded it took me out of the film and gave me a slight sinking feeling in my stomach. Mostly because, up until that point, they were doing such a bang-up job and I was so completely IN the world of the film! And of course, this sequence leads us directly to the introduction of Scotty, adding insult to injury.

The good news is, though it takes a while, the film finally finds its footing once again and is pretty damn entertaining straight through to the climax. Yeah, Bana’s Nero is not all that interesting or developed, but he is serviceable in a film that has chosen to spend the bulk of its time reintroducing us to these beloved characters in their new skins. And rightfully so. The film (and the franchise) depends on this.

So, for me, the filmmakers made some crucial mistakes in the second half of the film. They allowed themselves to get lazy as well as give in to some overly commercial elements that, in my opinion, had no place there and, in fact, disrupted the flow and integrity of the story.

But perhaps it’s a small transgression given the task they set for themselves and the amount they actually did get right. Still, all in all, what they got wrong brought the film down enough for me that it just doesn’t sit in my gut as comfortably as I would like it to. And that’s a shame. Because all I really want at the end of the day is good storytelling and rich characters (and yeah, these days that makes me a demanding audience member). And for the first half of the film, they delivered that in spades. But once they stumbled, I was never quite able to shake that feeling that this film was almost terrific. But these days, almost is more than we can usually expect from any film produced and developed by an American studio. So by that gauge, STAR TREK is still way above average.

What Would Palin Do?

My love/hate relationship with the extreme conservative right continues. Yes, I love how fascinatingly absurd they can be –beyond anything I could have imagined– and I hate the fact that there are people in this country ignorant enough to take them seriously. Well, let’s hope conservative Canadians are a smarter lot than our American conservative faction.

Canadian comedian Mary Walsh of This Hour Has 22 Minutes fame, visited Palin on one of her book-signing tours. Disguised as her conservative character Marg Delahunty, Mary tried to ask Palin a question during the book signing:

“I just wanted to ask you if you have any words of encouragement for Canadian conservatives who have worked so hard to try to diminish the kind of socialized medicine we have up there.”

Walsh was instantly surrounded by security and escorted out of the bookstore, even as Palin attempted to answer her question. Walsh’s response?

“We’re in a bookstore, at a public event, in a place one would think was a bastion of free speech. And no one was allowed to ask questions. What are they afraid of?”

Luckily, Walsh caught up with Palin outside (she had to hide in a loading dock) after the book-signing where Palin freely answered the question:

“Keep the faith because common sense conservatism can be plugged in there in Canada too. In fact, Canada needs to reform its health care system and let the private sector take over some of what the government has absorbed.”

Yeah. Canada needs to stop offering affordable health care to its citizens and start making Health Care a for-profit industry. Cause that’s gonna save lives, right? Because the American Health Care system is, like all things American, morally and economically advanced.

So what do Canadians think about Sarah Palin’s dream for their Health Care system? Well, according to The Raw Story:

A recent study (PDF) found that 90 percent of Canadians support universal, single-payer health care. A poll taken last summer shows 82 percent of Canadians believe their health care system to be better than the US’s, despite constant grumbling about waiting times for treatment of non-life-threatening conditions.

Cheney’s Need To Man-Up

Cheney has some serious problems with President Obama bowing respectfully to foreign leaders. And yet he expects Americans to lay down before him and be trampled over by his corporate cronies. This is a man who has taken advantage of more people to get what he wants than any other American figure in recent history. There is a thorough and complete brainwashing that goes on here. And it’s brainwashing through fear, which has always been America’s greatest enemy. And now he’s at it again trying to convince his incurious hordes that Obama needs to “Man-up” or “step-down.”

Commenting on Obama’s bow to the Japanese Emperor during the president’s trip to China, Cheney commented that:

“”There is no reason for an American president to bow to anyone. Our friends and allies don’t expect it and our adversaries perceive it as a sign of weakness…

“I think it’s fundamentally harmful and it shows in my mind that this is a guy, a president, who would bow, for example, who doesn’t fully understand or have the same perception of the U.S. role in the world that I think most Americans have.

“What I see in President Obama is somebody who bows before foreign leaders and spends his trips aboard primarily apologizing for U.S. behavior. I find that very upsetting.”

Really? Cause Lord knows the world openly embraced our macho posturing during the eight years of the Bush Administration. Why, we were seen as parent figures, protectors, the good guys, right? Thank God for an evolved America. Leading by example, and all that. You know, like the Bush Administration’s charming,  jingoistic vision of  ”cowboy diplomacy.”

No, the truth is Cheney’s view of America has something to do with carrying a gun and shooting your friends in the face. Accident or not, it’s the perfect metaphor for Cheney’s approach to heroism, manliness, and American strength. And anyone who goes “hunting” with this man has what’s coming to them.

What was it Ghandi said?

“The science of war leads one to dictatorship, pure and simple. The science of non-violence alone can lead one to pure democracy…”

Here’s Cheney commenting on war:

“It will be necessary for us to be a nation of men, and not laws.”

Well, that’s never been more on display than in Cheney’s attitude toward war and interrogation. According to journalist/author Mark Danner (Stripping Bare the Body: Politics, Violence, War):

“According to the Bush administration, the Convention Against Torture allows waterboarding; allows confinement in small boxes; allows sleep deprivation for up to eight days; allows beatings; allows the use of insects and various other things to terrify detainees; allows the use of heat, light, severe cold, prolonged nudity.”

Danner also goes on to describe some other “ineterrogation methods” supported by Cheney:

“[They] threatened detainees with drills, that they were going to drill into their heads, threatened to shoot them in the head or threatened to rape their daughters or rape their wives.”

And now Cheney (and his daughter Liz) are systematically attempting to undermine our current president by suggesting he is “weak.” Danner continues:

“Republicans, in the person of the Cheneys, Kit Bond and others, have criticized the Obama administration nonetheless for starting a witch hunt of Bush administration officials, which clearly isn’t the case.

But as you saw in this lobbying group that Cheneys have now set up, the Republicans see rich political ground to be harvested in these issues. And this goes back really to three months after the attacks of 9/11, when Karl Rove stood up before the Republican National Committee and said, “Americans trust us to protect the country. You know, we can win on this terrorism issue.” And indeed, for two elections, they did win. And the Cheneys are now really trying to set up the Obama administration as an administration that’s weak, Democratic weakness, renouncing torture, renouncing the techniques that supposedly are needed to protect the country.

And I think there’s a very calculated strategy at work here, particularly in the event of another attack. That is, the Obama administration is being put in a position where if there is an attack on the country, it can be very vigorously blamed by the Republicans for leaving the country open to the attack by its supposed refusal to torture detainees.”

Liz Cheney commented on Obama’s bow versus her  father’s own stiff meeting with the Japanese Emperor back in 2007:

“You could also look at the comparison and think, Cheney 2012.”

Eek. Is Cheney really the reigning example of American “strength?”

If you ask me, I think Cheney’s values are now, and have always been, on display for anyone who wants to see them:

“We have to make America the best place in the world to do business.”

“The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world’s oil and lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies.”

Even Cheney’s comments on Saddam Hussein sound more like another country talking about America’s past and the recent Bush/Cheney’s present:

“Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression… and had built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction.”

Even in talking about the “terrorist agenda,” Cheney continues to make oblivious comparisons to his own “agenda”:

“Given the nature of the enemy we face today, and the fact that their ultimate objective is to force us to change our policies and to retreat within our borders, the last thing we need is to convey the impression that terrorists can change our policies through violence and intimidation.”

How about that Gandhi fella again:

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?”

Choose your leaders wisely.

New DSO Guitarist Soars

As some of you know, I was quite upset to read that lead guitarist/singer and founding member of the amazing jam-band Dark Star Orchestra, John Kadlecik, was stepping down. Not since Jerry Garcia and the Grateful Dead have I experienced such a solid, transcendent and moving live musical experience as DSO. Given that, I felt that anyone who would try and step into John’s shoes would be as disappointing as all those who have attempted to fill Jerry’s.

Well, those shoes are being filled by Zen Tricksters and Donna Jean Godchaux Band lead guitarist/singer Jeff Mattson. Now while Mattson’s singing voice isn’t as melodic (or as Jerry-like) as Kadlecik’s, his playing is simply startling. Or at least that would seem to be the case judging by his first gig with DSO (see below).

Mattson’s guitar soars, cries and rages with the best of them. Like Kadlecik and Garcia before him, this guy seems to have that magical potential wherein the guitar becomes an instrument capable of turning one’s emotions and thoughts into the purest of sounds that lift the music far above that place of commercial comfort and allows it to burst through the clouds to that mysterious place bordering the heavens. Or at least he manages to do so on this first night. I’ll keep listening and will certainly be checking out their next live gig in my area. I’ll reserve full judgement for that time. But it’s safe to say, for the moment, that this musical experience I was already starting to mourn (again) may be far from dead. Or is that “even more Dead”?

Check out Mattson’s intro show HERE. I highly recommend the Sugaree, Deal, I Need A Miracle and Eyes Of The World as terrific samples.

DSO Founding Member Kadlecik Resigns

This is sad news indeed for those of us who have come to love the experience of seeing Dark Star Orchestra perform live. Their recreations of specific Grateful Dead concerts –right down to set list, equipment, stage set-up and style– have managed to bring back an experience gone since the death of Dead founder Jerry Garcia in 1995. And anyone who knows me or reads this blog knows that I was (and am) a recent newcomer to the DSO scene, though I have been part of the Dead scene since the mid-seventies.

It seems just as I embraced DSO as my current refuge and re-energizer in the world of live music, the band is now going through a life-altering change. DSO founding member and lead guitarist John Kadlecik announced that after 12 years, he would be resigning from the band. From John’s own web site:

Howdy folks-

Well, its been twelve years since Dark Star Orchestra performed its first show, so I’d like to start off by taking a moment to thank all of you that have given us the chance to play for you. You have made the last twelve years possible for DSO! There have been over twenty musicians and even more crew members and “home office” staff who have helped make DSO what it is today. I am grateful to each and every one of you and it has been an honor working with all of you. Thank you – thank you – THANK YOU!

And now to the matter at hand…

Most of you know by now that Phil Lesh and Bob Weir have asked me to play with their new band: Furthur. Needless to say, this was a great honor and the first three shows were A LOT of fun! However, I cannot in good conscience divide my time and energy between DSO and Furthur and I feel it would be a disservice to all parties involved. So after careful consideration, I have resigned from Dark Star Orchestra and my last performance as a member of DSO will be December 5th in Buffalo, New York. I am fully supportive of and honored by the remaining members’ desire to continue and I wish them all the best in their future endeavors. To all of you: “I love you more than words can tell…”

Sincerely,
John Kadlecik

While I wish John all the best and plan to see him as often as possible with Further, I will miss the small venue experience of those DSO shows. They were, quite simply put, the best and most powerful live musical experience I’ve had since my early years of following the Grateful Dead. And in many ways, the shows DSO recreated from the Dead’s latter years were, in truth, better and tighter than the Dead themselves performed them.

DSO’s new lead guitarist will be Jeff Mattson of the Zen Tricksters and the Donna Jean Godchaux Band. While I fully expect Jeff to be a stunning guitarist, I am concerned that he may not have the musical “voice” that both Jerry Garcia and John Kadlecik managed through their playing. I have found it to be a rare talent indeed and not one that can be learned, but seems to come from some innate inner place. So while I have no doubt that DSO’s musical experience will continue to be a good one, I wonder if it will ever reach the transcendent heights it did with Kadlecik at the helm. We’ll soon see.

And I hope that this incarnation of Further continues on for some time to come and that John’s magic lifts this new band to heights unseen and unheard. And while two of the Grateful Dead’s original members (Bob Weir on rhythm guitar and Phil Lesh on bass) will be playing alongside John, the music will be less a throwback to the past and more a rediscovering of the music as the band members grow and mature. For me, this combination of musicians shows more promise than any other I’ve seen in the Grateful Dead universe, with the exception of the Dead themselves. As for DSO, I’ll be listening closely. I’m just not ready to give this experience up all over again. There were so many people I was excited to turn on to this musical journey. And then it was gone…

Or not.

Scorsese Talks Blu-ray

Martin Scorsese was the head speaker at this year’s Blu-Con 2.0 symposium in Beverly Hills. And he seconded what those of us already hooked on Blu already know:

“Blu-ray is going to extend the lifetime of a movie… I have a daughter who’s 10, and she can’t tell the difference between old films and new films. [That makes me] very excited and optimistic as a filmmaker and a film lover.

BD’s potential to replicate the original theatrical experience is the best I’ve seen in forty years of [movie] collecting. Blu-ray offers the ability to see the film as it was intended.”

He also added that Blu-ray has the potential, when mastered correctly, to offer:

“a film grain texture which I think is very important in recreating the film experience.”

He then went on to praise Criterion for their hi-def remastering of the brilliant and sumptuous 1948 Powell/Pressburger film THE RED SHOES, due for upcoming release on Blu-ray:

“It’s like experiencing the film for the first time again. It’s not just the details of the eyes or such; it creates a completely different experience.”

Scorsese talked about how a poor presentation can greatly alter a movie-watcher’s experience of a film:

“There are subtle things, like not being able to see the actor’s eyes. With Blu-ray, you don’t have that problem.”

As a Blu-ray collector and filmmaker myself, I can personally attest to just how incredible Blu-ray is. When used correctly. There are a few Blu-ray discs out there that don’t live up to the potential of the medium, but the majority of films I’ve watched and own are simply outstanding. It is genuinely a very different experience from watching standard DVD or, lord help us, video.

Criterion’s new release of Wim Wenders’ WINGS OF DESIRE is a revelation. I owned the previous DVD release and I can tell you right now that these are two very different film-watching experiences. Same goes for the newly remastered Blu-ray edition of the Hitchcock classic NORTH BY NORTHWEST, which was given a stunning new 8k transfer. The detail and texture now possible in the Blu-ray format has opened a door to allowing people of all ages to experience films, both new and old, in ways not possible since the time of a film’s original theatrical release. For anyone who loves film, or simply enjoys watching a movie now and again, Blu-ray is the only way to go. Unless you own a 35mm projector and a damn good print of your favorite film.

Silly Sarah: The Answer To Palin’s Coin Question

Last week, Sarah Palin raised her newest conspiracy theory while speaking at a Wisconsin Right To Life fundraising banquet. During her speech (in which she also managed to continue her insistence on the existence of Health Care death panels), Palin suggested something was amiss of late in Washington, citing the move of “In God We Trust” to the edge of American coins.

“Who calls shots like that?” Palin demanded. “Who makes decisions like that? It’s a disturbing trend.”

Turns out, George W. Bush and a Republican Congress. Despite Palin’s none-too-subtle subtext in suggesting this “disturbing trend” was a direct result of the Democratic White House trying to secularize our American money, it seems the new coin design was commissioned in 2005 under a Republican controlled Congress. It was then approved by President George W. Bush.

Ooops.

Again.

The Art Of Film Editing & The Plague Of Ego

The below video comparisons and text contain massive spoilers. Do not read or watch if you have not seen either cut of “The Plague”.

As anyone who knows me or has read my blog knows, I wrote and directed a film called THE PLAGUE which was taken away from me in post-production and re-cut by the various producers involved into a film that barely resembled the film we had actually made. It was structurally, tonally, and artistically altered beyond recognition. And unlike most studio cuts of films which are merely shorter versions of the director’s vision, THE PLAGUE was re-cut from first frame to last. Not a single edit was used from my cut of the film. The producers decided they knew best and had the artistic sensibility to put the film together on their own without the participation of the writers, director or veteran cinematographer (Bill Butler of JAWS and THE CONVERSATION fame). “We own this now and see no reason for the writers and director to be involved.” That’s verbatim. The result was a characterless mess devoid of tone, style or meaning. It was not, in any way, shape or form, the film we had made. And yet, our names remain as the film’s creators and visionaries. For good or ill.

In discussing this with folks, I discovered that it was quite challenging for some to grasp just how different two cuts of the same film could be. As a filmmaker and editor, I was used to the inner workings of post-production and understood intimately just how powerful the art of editing was to a film’s success. And I’m not talking commercial success, but its success as a story, to dictate what type of an experience the filmmaker hopes to impart on his/her audience.

And in this age of fast moving films with high-tech budgets, audiences have grown accustomed to a certain pace. Gone are the slow-moving films of the past; particularly in the horror genre which has been relegated to gore effects targeted at teenagers and young adults. For example, it would be impossible for a studio to make a film like ALIEN today. They can make another sequel, sure, but it would have very little in common with the tone and pace of the original. Ridley Scott’s long tracking shots of the ship, the eerie, unsettling tone of the entire opening sequence, the static shots of people searching for the creature would be all but removed and Scott would be told with misguided certainty that “Nothing is happening in this shot. Get rid of it” If I had a nickel for every time producer Jorge Saralegui said that to me, I’d have enough money to buy the rights to my film back.

Because I’ve been asked on numerous occasions to give folks an example of some of the differences in tone and style between my cut of the film known as THE PLAGUE: WRITERS & DIRECTOR’S CUT (openly backed by the cast and crew) and the producers’ cut known as CLIVE BARKER’S THE PLAGUE, I’ve decided to offer side-by-side comparisons of a few choice scenes. Now, while this will show you how editing can make a huge difference in storytelling, pacing, tone, tension, etc., it will not show you how proper editing can suck you in and involve you in the characters’ stories and allow you to invest and care. For that, you would have to watch both films in their entireties. Something I hope to one day be able to offer you with an official release of my cut of the film.

As for the image quality of the two cuts you are about to see, the producers’ cut was taken directly from the 35mm negative and has gone through the full and expensive post-production process to make it look “professional.” My cut of the film is from my workprint. It was assembled from DVD dailies and not the original 35mm elements. It has not gone through ANY professional post-production processes and therefore looks like a work in progress. In other words, the image is not as sharp and clean. The music is a temporary score that mirrors my desires. The music in the producers’ cut is, like the editing itself, not at all what I would have gone for or intended.

So, while the producers’ cut is more “polished”, I ask that you take into consideration that THE WRITERS & DIRECTOR’S CUT will, when officially released, be even sharper, cleaner and richer than CLIVE BARKER’S cut of the film as it will not only be from the original film elements, but it will adhere to the specifications laid out by Bill Butler and myself as to quality and color-timing, which was done incorrectly in the producers’ cut.

One of the main things consistently altered from the Writers & Director’s Cut was cross-cutting between story lines. It was my intention, both visually and thematically, that we would cut back and forth between events and characters to connect those events and to build tension. The producers chose to show each sequence in its entirety before moving on to the next. For me, that not only dramatically reduced tension, but it avoided making necessary connections between characters and themes. The style of editing therefore also changed as the producers put these sequences together in an order they were never intended to go in. The earlier scenes in the movie move back and forth between the world of our main characters, and the world of the kids. And both worlds were meant to have unique and different styles. Much like two cars heading on a collision course, one car moving quietly and straight forward, the other swerving and careening. The two different styles were intended to create an inevitable tension and dread of what would happen when these two elements collided.

The following examples are from an early scene when the catatonic kids are strapped into their hospital beds and go into a twice-daily seizure. This was meant to be intercut with David’s son, Eric, who was going through the same seizure back home. The scenes were designed to be visually and thematically intercut as you will see here in THE WRITERS & DIRECTOR’S CUT:

Now take a look at the producers’ version of these scenes. You will notice that in removing the inter-cutting story lines and adding digital “zooms” that were not meant to be there, both the mood and tone of this sequence is very different:

Next we have a scene of the kids turning and looking toward an unsuspecting nurse. We’ll start this time with the producers cut. Notice the transitions at both the beginning and end of this sequence. They are different from what you will see later in the Writers & Director’s Cut. The intended connections between earlier and later scenes have been completely removed. You will also notice the placement of shots within the scene is completely different. For example, the long push-in shot on the nurse is placed in a completely different part of the scene, thus greatly reducing the tension and altering the pacing of the scene:

Now for the Writers & Director’s Cut. Notice the transition out of the previous scene between Tom and Sam. We pan away from Sam and the image seamlessly dissolves on the same movement into the nurse. It should also be stated here that the shot of Sam that starts this sequence was a pivotal one for me as it gave us a silent moment to see Sam’s inner workings and vulnerability. It is one of those great shots and performance moments that many producers never see or understand. How much is told through expression and body language. And since one of the reigning themes of this film is silent communication, it is more than a little appropriate. Unfortunately, producer Jorge Saralegui’s goal as he stated it to me was, “We’re going to cut out the characters and turn this into a killer-kid film.” And that is essentially what he and the other producers systematically did. Remember, the kids’ scenes were meant to move and feel differently from the character scenes. And this scene was intended to move directly into a scene revealing Kip and Claire and not a shot of Tom at home watching TV. While the TV news report does connect these two scenes in the producers’ cut, it does not connect the characters in any way. Nor does it work toward the eerie feeling or slow build inherent in the Writers & Director’s Cut. And while the producers chose to put a scene on the TV that tells you about how the world is reacting to the kids, my intention was to show a scene of familiar violence that I felt was current and an example of how we unintentionally show kids that violence is a means to an end. Even when we think they’re not paying attention!

The visual transition at the end of the scene with the kids turning was meant to tie Kip and Claire directly to the kids in the school, kids whom they feel emotionally connected to, and to allow us to –at first glance– believe Kip and Claire to be just two more catatonic kids. Until someone speaks. We disappear behind the head of one kid, and come out from behind Kip’s head. Here’s how the entire scene was intended to play and feel. You’ll notice the editing choices throughout are completely different:

Here is how the intro of Kip and Claire was presented in the producers’ cut. It not only makes no attempt to connect the characters to anything else in the film, but they also changed the Sheriff’s dialogue to something simpler and more “direct” for those audience members clearly incapable of thinking for themselves:

One of the most crucial moments in the film is when the kids awaken. It is the moment the entire first act has been building up to. As a result, it should work on many different levels. Here is the scene as the producers put it together. It is almost completely devoid of mood, tone or purpose:

In the Writers & Director’s Cut, this scene is introduced through a montage of all the main characters engaged in very ordinary human moments, but moments that tell us about each and every individual and relationship. These wordless snippets are the calm before the storm. This montage is accompanied by David reading a passage from the Grapes Of Wrath with Tom’s voice-over. What is said here is essential to not only what is happening in the film, but to Tom’s attachment to the book. Many answers to many of the film’s mysteries lie in this passage. It brings us closer to the characters, gives us crucial tools for the story, and builds the film to this very important moment.

The intention of the above montage was that the camera would dolly left to right across our main characters. That is a comforting direction for the camera to move. But, when we fade up on the kids in their beds, the camera is now moving right to left, a much less comforting direction and in opposition to what we’ve just seen. It is a contrast and it works to make us uncomfortable.

Next up is another prime example of building tension through cross-cutting. I structured the script and film to cut back and forth between Tom’s journey in the air ducts and Sam’s journey in the laundry chute. Unfortunately, the producers once again chose to re-edit these sequences into individual scenes that play out in their entirety before moving on to the next. For me, this greatly reduces tension and, as stated earlier, no longer makes connections between the characters and what they are experiencing. Here is how the producers chose to cut these scenes together, greatly reducing the intended visual style of the film:

And here’s how those scenes were intended to play out and still do in the Writers & Director’s Cut:

If you noticed in the above scene, when the nurse looks down the laundry chute into the darkness, we expect to see a kid. But it is Tom that emerges as we seamlessly inter-cut with the next scene. For a moment, we are afraid of Tom, until we realize it’s him. The line between the kids –the monsters– and Tom is blurred for a moment. They are us. We are them. This connection is absent both visually and thematically throughout the producers’ cut. This is unfortunate since this is what the film is about. Without these elements, it’s just a “killer-kid film”.

One of the “biggest” sequences in the movie was the escape from the school. My intention here was not only to create a rousing and scary action scene, but to connect our main characters to the kids. The idea of the story is that the kids are, essentially, us. They are doing what they are doing because of us. The violence they learned is directly linked to the violence we teach and set by example. Notice in this next scene how Jean’s violent action is visually linked to the kid banging on the doors. Jean’s hands are bloodied and so are the kids’. As Jean punches and loses control, so do the kids. This builds to the kids eventually breaking down the doors and attacking. Connecting these elements visually is critical to both the story itself and the ultimate impact of this scene. Here is the Writers & Director’s Cut version:

Notice here in the producers’ cut that, instead of cutting to the kids’ hands pounding on the door, the producers chose to insert out of focus shots of the bloody face of the girl Jean is punching. This was not a shot I was involved in shooting. It is a gratuitous moment and works only to make us perhaps sympathize more with the kids than with Jean, the antithesis of what I would want the audience to feel at this juncture in the story. I chose to give us a quick glimpse of that with Deputy Nathan shooting the boy in the shoulder and the boy’s reaction to it, but any more actively works against the story, as you will see here. You will also notice that the producers had actor Josh Close ADR a line of unscripted dialogue as he calls, “Claire…” while watching the kids behind the doors. Another example of the producers assuming the audience is stupid. Overstating the obvious. Also notice how different the rhythm and tone of the entire sequence is from what was initially envisioned. It is sloppily put together, awkward, and not nearly as tension-filled:

Notice how the producers felt the need to add in unscripted dialogue of the characters saying at the end of the scene, “Go, go, go! They’re coming!” when it is pretty obvious to anyone watching that the kids are coming! Once again, the producers don’t trust the basic intelligence of the audience.

Here’s another scene that was meant to be shown without a word of dialogue and was, again, an example of story and character cross-cutting. The moment between Jean and her brother Sam as she gives him the morphine was scripted and shot wordless. In the producers’ cut, it contains dialogue added in post. The producers’ mantra: “if they’re not saying anything out loud, then nothing’s being said”. The most basic understanding of character and theme are lost with such a notion. If you repeat it throughout a film, then the film itself is lost.

The kids in THE PLAGUE communicate silently. We, as a people, communicate with one another beyond the words we use. How do the kids learn to be violent? Through us. How is that done? Did we tell them directly to be violent? No. We showed them through examples we set: hate crimes, police brutality, domestic violence, capital punishment, war… Quite often we relay this message in silence; in actions without words. And therein lies the importance of Jean and Sam communicating silently. The following scenes were designed to cross-cut back and forth between Sam/Jean/the Sheriff, and Tom/Alexis. Once again, that was not the approach taken by the producers. Here is their version:

And here is the Writers & Director’s Cut version as it was written and shot:

Dee Wallace is an extraordinary actress who was all but completely removed from the producers’ cut. Here is a scene that adds tremendous character to both Dee’s Nora and the horror and anger she feels. This moment, however, not only serves her character, but Kip’s character as well as he is the focal point of her anger and hatred here. It is a sample of what Kip (and Claire, for that matter) have been living with all their lives. It draws us closer to those characters; makes them human. We then see the impact this has on Tom and Jean in what is also a crucial moment in the growth of their relationship AND more silent communication through looks and glances that tell us more than words ever could:

And here is the truncated, characterless interpretation by our beloved, clueless producers:

Sometimes even the smallest alteration in cutting can have a profound effect. In this scene when Jean finds her brother Sam dead, it was important that we, as the audience, lose Jean here. By that I mean she goes to a place we cannot follow. It is through Tom that we witness Jean’s actions. He must be our eyes here. So when Jean enters the room, notice that we don’t cut to what she sees (or know yet if Sam’s alive or dead), until Tom enters and we push in on him and THEN we see what’s happened. Through HIS eyes! It’s a crucial delineation and essential once again to the flow of the film and the perspective the filmmaker wants us to have. It is NOT something that can be changed effectively in post. The film would need to be designed and structured differently from that point on. We are also witnessing Jean’s emotions and reactions, not through her face or words, but through the sudden rigidity in her shoulders and all around body language. Here is that scene from the Writers & Director’s Cut:

Now the producers’ cut. Notice how the producers cut to Sam and Nathan on the floor off of Jean’s entrance and don’t wait for Tom. Also notice how anti-climactic that moment is without the restraint and patience that was meant to be on display here. You may also notice that the producers added Jean whispering “Sammy” as she kneels down beside him. Once again, as if the audience didn’t know who it was lying on the floor there!

And finally, the end of the film. An ending that clearly makes little sense in the producers’ cut. Here is the “let’s get this over with” version the producers threw together:

Now you will notice in the Writers & Director’s version of this scene how important the kids’ faces are. How important it is to connect the boy in the red sweater with Jean and THEN introduce the other kids and finally see them as KIDS and not monsters, which is the whole point of the film. In the producers’ cut, the connection between Jean and the boy seems directionless, empty. In the Writers & Director’s Cut, more time is given to connect these two in a profound and necessary way. And, once again, in utter silence. What they’re feeling, how they react, is there for all to see and interpret. Nature works its way into this closing scene, a peacefulness, an understanding, an open door to things to come. And our boy in the red sweater may very well be Tom or, we feel, some part of Tom. And we feel that Jean senses this as well:

Well, there are hundreds of other examples throughout both versions of these films that are as important as the ones I’ve shown here. Like I said earlier, they are truly two completely different films. It’s obvious which one I prefer and, hopefully, it’s obvious why.

Editing can make or break a film. And poor editing and a lack of creative insight destroyed the story of THE PLAGUE that we worked so hard to bring to an audience. What was delivered via DVD was intended for a lowest-common denominator audience. The notion that the audience is dumb seems to be rampant in Hollywood today. And usually from folks who are none-too-bright themselves and, sadly, have little understanding of the craft of filmmaking. Were it otherwise, examples like this would not need to be made. But as it stands, the story behind THE PLAGUE is one of many just like it. So next time you see a film that had potential it didn’t live up to, know that there may be a version out there that does. It’s just being kept from you.

To learn more about THE PLAGUE and to help get the WRITERS & DIRECTOR’S CUT released, visit our site spreadingtheplague.com, sign our petition, and join our Facebook group.