The author never suggests that director’s cuts are motivated by marketing or that they have no artistic value. He just thinks that there’s more to authenticity than simply restoring films as directors’ cuts.

The author never suggests that directors’ cuts can never meet their goal. As far as we can tell, the goal is restore films “as they supposedly were when originally produced.” The author doesn’t consider whether or not that goal is achievable.

The author never suggests any opinion on how authentic directors’ cuts actually are. He just thinks that there’s more to authenticity than simply restoring films as directors’ cuts.

The author says these cuts are presented as “authentic” because they’re accurate restorations of the films themselves. But he thinks that when talking about authenticity, we need to consider not just the films themselves, but the context in which they were watched. The point of the passage is that this context is extremely important. So he’d likely agree that if we don’t pay attention to context, the effort to create an “authentic” director’s cut won’t succeed at conveying that film in an authentic way.

The author doesn’t suggest whether directors’ cuts are a better way to experience films.