ABSTRACT
Film buffs are familiar with the phenomenon of the director’s cut: famed directors restoring the prerelease version of a movie that had been distributed years, if not decades, earlier. The term evokes a fight to preserve the integrity of an original vision. It suggests precious footage on the cutting room floor, victim to studio insistence that exhibition constraints should take precedence over directorial intentions. It is “time is money” in the crudest sense of the phrase: Money buys tal-
ent, and talent must obey the dictates of money. There is nothing new about the struggle between creative artists and their backers. Creative artists always want the freedom to create without financial or market constraints, whereas their backers want to maximize returns on their investment. One side appeals to artistic freedom, the other points to financial risk (Glynn, 2000).
