I don't believe in director's cuts where you make things longer. The coolest thing was when the Coen brothers did a director's cut of 'Blood Simple,' and they made it shorter.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I'm not one of these directors, so far, that wants to have a whole separate director's cut of these things. So far they've turned out to be kind of the length that they wanted to be.
In the past I've worked with directors who saw very much their scene in their head and knew exactly how they were going to cut it.
I usually do about five cuts as a director. I haven't ever directed a film where I haven't made five passes through the movie, and that takes a long time.
I enjoy editing when I'm directing, but when someone else is directing, that's their film to cut.
The only reason for using another cut is to improve the scene.
Making a movie is difficult enough to sort of have a premeditated length that you're going for. I don't know a single filmmaker on the planet who does that.
Fundamentally, I always find that most of the films that I've put out are essentially the director's cut. Part of the process with a director's cut is the leaving behind of certain aspects of the movie that we don't feel necessary because they aren't part of the dynamic of the story.
We talked a lot about The Best Intentions and how we could shoot certain scenes in different ways with slightly different bits of dialogue and information, so that later on, we could cut the piece more easily and it would still feel complete, even though it was shorter.
The cutting room is where you discover the optimal length of the movie.
There's only one movie in my career I've had regrets with cutting it shorter, and I think some scenes maybe I shouldn't have cut.