Weinstein Company Want Tarantino’s ‘Inglourious Basterds’ Cut By 40 Minutes?

The Weinstein Company is in serious financial straits. This is obvious. Who’s their showpony this summer that could help even out their woes? Quentin Tarantino’s $70-million costing WWII saga, “Inglourious Basterds” which played to mixed reviews at Cannes (though we were big fans of the script, we were sorely disappointed by the film).

Talk of Tarantino going back into the editing room on the 2 hours and 28 minute version of ‘Basterds‘ is nothing new, as many had called the Cannes version a “test run” — though that’s damage control-speak, if it had been amazingly received, not a hair on its head would have been touched — and further discussions of added scenes (albiet a small one).

But if the Wrap is to be believed, the Weinstein Company’s problems are so bad they are pressuring Tarantino to cut “Inglourious Basterds” by 40 minutes before its August 21 release. But Sharon Waxman’s reporting is off, she says the cut of the film is 2 hour and 4o minutes and while that was supposed to be the length shown at Cannes, what we — and everyone else saw — was undoubtedly 2 hours and 28 minutes. Does that mean they actually want the film to be just under two hours? TimeOut New York are already saying, “Noooo! don’t do it!” and we’d have to agree with them for the most part. (though some overly talky scenes like the opening 25-minute monologue everyone seems to be enamored with is nowhere as engaging as everyone thinks it is; trim that). What ‘Basterds’ could use is some nips and tucks to rambling dialogue, but any major cuts — like 40 minutes worth — would seriously undermine the cohesion of the narrative (that can be clunky enough, see the reason why they’re potentially adding a scene).

But does TWC have any leverage over Quentin who has final cut under anything that runs less than 2 hours and 40 minutes? In a interview from Cannes with the Hollywood Reporter, Tarantino suggested that the ball was in his court this time and that he took ‘Basterds’ to TWC because he wanted to support them as they had supported him in his early days.

“I wanted to help [Harvey Weinstein] out — not help him out, but stand by him. He’s stood by me and now I’m standing by him. I could have done this movie with anyone but I decided to do it with him. But he’s also got three movies people are talking about now — this and ‘Nine’ and ‘Halloween 2.’ That’s a good thing when people are scared and are staying away from dates because of your movies.”

That doesn’t sound like someone scared that his movie is going to be taken away from him. It’s conceivable that a 40 minute cut (or 20-something) is what TWC wants, but whether they get it obviously is another thing entirely.

Btw, if you missed it, we wrote up a cheeky list of 8 ways to salvage “Inglorious Basterds,” not all the methods are even possible, but we still think #7, re-scoring the picture, could seriously help. Meanwhile, Nikki Finke posted a story yesterday suggesting that TWC’s money woes could hurt ‘Basterds’ badly and the company might not have the funds to sufficiently promote the film. Apparenty the company is “hoarding whatever cash they have left to be able to release ‘Inglorious Basterds’,” says one of her sources. Other TWC films set for the fall, “Shanghai” (September 4), “Youth In Revolt” (October 30) are expected to be bumped back once again.