MCN Blogs
Ray Pride

By Ray Pride Pride@moviecitynews.com

Unkind cuts: Ed Norton on Fox and Kingdom of Heaven

30yearoldboy3457.gifMike Russell culturepulps Edward Norton, who knows a few things about recut movies. They’re chatting up Down in the Valley but Norton offers up a word or two about the release version of Kingdom of Heaven versus the cut released on DVD last week: “That should have been a much longer movie. If you want an example of fear-based decision-making in Hollywood… You know, Alexander is just this incomprehensible, turgid thing, and Fox looks at it and has the most incredible rationale: “Let’s look at someone else’s failure as the rationale for how we cut our film.” Instead of saying, “We’ve got Ridley Scott and a great script,” they say, “Well, ours can’t be 2 hours 45 minutes long”—which, in the case of Kingdom of Heaven, it really should have been. So they cut it down based on someone else’s failure, and ended up taking a really great director’s film down to a really pale shadow of itself.”

Be Sociable, Share!

One Response to “Unkind cuts: Ed Norton on Fox and Kingdom of Heaven”

  1. Judith Shipstad says:

    The “director’s cut” DVD is now on sale. It’s being said that the film’s integrity has been completely restored in this whopping 3-hour version. Can’t wait to get it!

Movie City Indie

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon