https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYq_E6oZO8Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnSUNDvp6Mo



maybe it's just me, but some of the stuff Keanu was talking about in the first video above re.his character (det.Galban coming to a point of understanding/healing, det.Galban protecting Isabel through part of the film after he finds out who did do it) doesn't seem to be included in the final cut. All these being scenes which include his character.
So, it makes one wonder what exactly got 'whitewashed' at editing. :|

Yep, the movie that they, and especially Keanu. are speaking about isn't the film presented. Det Galban's role in the version being shown is MUCH smaller and much narrower - so the "whitewashing" thing is nonsense. The "whitewashing" isn't any such thing - it gives every appearance of being instead editing for the sole purpose of making a shorter movie, and removing great swathes of exposition that are really needed. Somebody literally edited that hell out of it and it seems quite obvious that it wasn't Keanu - who would clearly have wanted an intact story.

Too many producers, and some very poor decisions have been made, and somebody is scapegoating. That sucks and makes me angry.

It's not a bad film, but it is confused and often lacking in focus.

---

It's not a bad film, but it is confused and often lacking in focus.

---

my thoughts exactly.

As for the scapegoating, well. Karma never sleeps. Especially not in the movie industry.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sicario-producer-reveals-movies-original-857645

What did you learn from being a studio executive working under Lorenzo di Bonaventura? How did that prepare you for producing?

I learned that the only thing you have as a producer is your point of view, your opinion. You’re not a craftsman, you’re not a DP or editor or production designer. Your craft is your point of view and articulating that point of view. And I learned how to have empathy for the studio executive.

Why is empathy for execs important?

If someone is going to give you money, you have a responsibility. A lot of producers — and some directors — forget that. They forget that someone is investing in you and wants a return on that investment.

That being said, even if that is the case, this movie is still more ethnically diverse than 99% of Hollywood movies.

I'll stick to my guns and say that I think cuts were made for length that are probably harmful for continuity. There are a number of places where exposition is kind of blatantly missing, but mostly I find the story as it is to be rather confused. Not a bad film by any means - certainly no "worse" than Chain Reaction or The Replacements, both of which I like, but which get a little shaggy. Like those films, it could be better.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/film-score-composer-carlos-jos-alvarez-breathes-life-movies-n504476

Has Lee seen the original, director's version so that she can really make a comparison?

I'm really tired of Keanu being blamed for this, when of all major stars, who has worked with more and varied humans of every persuasion than Keanu, taking great risks with inexperienced directors and in small independent films? Is he more to blame than actors who always do the same thing with the same kinds of people? and yes, we can all name names.

The stupid and absurd petition was so clumsy that I would think it would enormously hamper any chance of the directors cut ever being released.

And this "Ana de Armas is too pretty to play Isabel" - what the fuck? And she and Keanu are "too white and not white enough"? what does that even mean?

And if the film is too "whitewashed" what does THIS mean? "the dialogue is mostly in Spanish"

And then the review, or article, or whatever the hell it is, wanders away much like the film does. I keep wondering if Linton's original script was great - apparently the initial reason for Keanu to do it - and the guy just can't direct, because I saw nothing of brilliance or even cohesion in the film as released. It's hard for me to believe that any version of the film hangs together much better.

I can't STAND Salon!

---

Has Lee seen the original, director's version so that she can really make a comparison?

---

She did.
From the article itself:
"I watched "Daughter of God," the original film that was mangled beyond recognition into "Exposed" " [...] When Linton sent me the film "

She's not blaming Keanu for anything; she's blaming Lionsgate for re-editing the movie to make it focus on his character (which in fact the Liosngate edit doesn't do; not really).

---

And she and Keanu are "too white and not white enough"? what does that even mean?

---

Exactly what she says: "Yet I kept watching, long enough to realize that the fact of their looking wrong was integral to the psychological structure of the film, as well as to the way the narrative unfolds. Isabel and Detective Galbard are both too white and not white enough, hapless misfits in communities where justice isn’t black and white, but various shades of brown." .

"Justice" in their communities is delivered by Isabel's in law family. It's her brother in law who kills Black; the (white) police can do nothing against him. Judgement is delivered to her by her in laws too; only they see it as justice...

Yes, her article wanders away just like Exposed does. I chose to post it here because it makes a few valid points about the film (one of it being about both Isabel and Galban as misfits). And the funniest part is that everything she mentions as 'special' - the unreliable narrator, the poster eyes, the scene with Galban on the phone with his son - all of that is in the Lionsgate edited, released cut.

So to her question "how much difference can rearranging a few scenes and adding back 18 minutes really make?" my answer is "not much".

The more Linton leaks his director's cut and such articles get written, the more it confirms that, well, ... "seeing is a political act"

(even though the video she linked to that phrase does not mention 'political' at all ;) )

Yes, I noticed that the stuff she claims is "special" is indeed in the cut most of us have seen. Yes, Galban and Isabel are misfits. And no, the focus is not on Galban - he's a necessary plot device - it remains on Isabel.

The "intrigue" around the film to me feels a whole lot like an avoidance of the large failings of the direction of the film - what did Linton really want it to say and do?

Yes, the question: "how much difference can rearranging a few scenes and adding back 18 minutes really make?"
It's inconceivable to me that it could make the whole thing hang together and make sense, which makes all the whining about the film feel pretty cheap.

---

which makes all the whining about the film feel pretty cheap.

---

exactly - so why not 'expose' some of it here? ;)

(in her defense, it was marketed as ' just "another Keanu Reeves cop movie" ' And for that, Lionsgate is entirely to blame. )