Post by Prime etc. on Nov 7, 2019 13:44:04 GMT
Often we hear that the artist is battling the unreasonable anti-artistic impulses of the patron studio or investor which is always meddling in the process to the detriment of the work.
But is this always true?
I have two examples that suggest otherwise.
VERTIGO
First time I watched it, I did not like the letter scene at all and thought it should be removed. I read Hitchcock felt the same but the studio overruled him.
But the letter scene was needed because
without it, we would not understand why a stranger would let herself be manipulated by the obsessions of this man.
It allowed us to generate a focus on her, which made his trip to the scene of the crime more suspenseful-i.e. was he losing his mind? We identify with her fear--we can understand why she is so concerned and not be distracted her willingness to go with him.
It made the tragedy more profound since we had time to feel some sympathy for her--if there was no letter scene, then we would be surprised to learn her role in the crime and be hit with the surprise ending too quickly right after.
ARMY OF DARKNESS
The original ending has Bruce Campbell miss his time (in a contrived manner) and end up in the future, moaning about his error.
The studio-imposed ending has him return home and encounter a deadite in the S-Mart.
Why is the studio ending superior?
Well,why even have any reference to S-Mart? It's such a pointless inclusion at the start UNLESS we see him back in the store at the end--the S-Mart is spoofing "there's no place like home" from the Wizard of Oz. Unless there was a plan to do a sequel, it makes the film incomplete-and as the biggest budget sequel which functions as a standalone anyway, there's not much point in leaving it open ended.
In both cases you have the artists making a decision and the studio acting as a constructive critic--which does happen all the time in art-making.
