Runtime: 216 minutes
Directed by: Michael Cimino
Starring: Kris Kristofferson, Christopher Walken, Isabelle Huppert, Sam Waterston, John Hurt
From: United Artists
I have no idea how my epic length review of this epic movie did not get posted here sooner, but this was my last review of 2015, and I did it in a big way. If you look before this review you'll see my first one of 2016. For now, my long Letterboxd review is below:
I don't know if everyone enjoys it the few times that I write an absolute novel for a review, but considering that this is a film of epic length and excess and even now the movie not only still has the reputation of being a disaster but it seems to be a big catalyst (that and Apocalypse Now, probably) of why Hollywood changed from director driven to studio driven and even now it's a system where studios have domineering power over directors... it ended up being an important movie in the history of Hollywood, not to mention how we still don't get too many big-budget Westerns and how United Artists got sold to MGM and it was a studio in name only... only for years later MGM itself changing into something that would be gone if it wasn't for James Bond... point is, a lot can still be said about it, 35 years later.
While on vacation in Kansas I got the chance to read a book I have had for a few years. It was Steven Bach's Final Cut: Art, Money and Ego in the Making of Heaven's Gate, the Film That Sank United Artists. Bach was a high ranking executive during the entire long protracted making of HG, so not only do you hear all about that but you also get details about other projects going on at the time and such personalities as Woody Allen, Francis Ford Coppola, and Barbra Streisand. It's a great read and very informative about the studio and its history.
While it's only one opinion, it does not paint a flattering picture of Michael Cimino. He sounded like such a diva, especially for someone who had only done two movies up to that point. He wanted total control and didn't seem to care that he spent what the book said was 44 million dollars, including publicity costs (back at that time an outrageous sum of money; now, there have been many movies which are more than $100 million, which is a whole nother story I won't get into here) by being an extreme perfectionist. Lord knows that there have been other directors that demanded dozens of takes or take an extraordinary amount of time to edit things. However, some of them (I am looking in Elaine May's direction) got punished for such behavior and when it comes to people like Kubrick... it's Stanley Kubrick! The classics he did speak for themselves. If he thought that he could have the freedom that Woody Allen did at UA, that is irrational as Allen never went over budget or over schedule and again his 70's works on their own speaks for itself. Going way over the 11.6 million dollar budget with no care that it's not his money... that is not proper behavior even if you want to make “the perfect vision” of a story you wrote years ago or “the epic Western”. Talk about hubris.
To clarify, while I'd love to see this on the big screen, who knows if that'll ever happen. So, it was watched by me via the Blu Criterion put out a few years ago. Various tweaks were done to it by Cimino-including make it more Technicolor instead of the almost sepia tone it had-and it's 216 minutes in length. I am fine with movies of that length (I know that some aren't). I wish that the 2 ½ hour theatrical edit that made it to the big screen for a short amount of time would have also been on the Blu as it'd be nice for comparison's sake, but alas. Then again there are several other versions, such as the FIVE AND A HALF HOUR workprint that sounds so excessive, and then there's a “Radical Cut” that MGM put together in '05 that restored it by using quite a bit of alternate footage, that only screened in a few places and never made it to disc. Who knows if we'll ever get any of those. Also, I kept an open mind and my opinion wasn't tainted by all the bad press concerning the troubled production, which I know was a big reason why at the time there were many critics who ripped this to shreds.
With all that explained, let me talk about the movie, independent of anything outside of the motion picture itself. It's about the Johnson County War, a real life situation in the Wyoming of the 1890's. That period of time was more complicated but the movie simplifies it; it's not an accurate telling of what happened aside from some legit names... as it's Hollywood that is no surprise. It is painted as a situation where new immigrants are pouring into the area and besides taking up land, some of them steal cattle just so their families don't starve to death. Well, the Wyoming Stock Growers Association that is in charge does not like that and they'd love that land so with the support of the government they are about to kill 125 people they deem “anarchists” but are nothing of the sort. “Anti-immigrant fears”... well, the more things change... but I won't say anything more about the current climate as talking about politics could open a whole can of worms that shouldn't be opened in a place like this.
Anyhow, county marshal Jim Averill (Kris Kristofferson) has to deal with that and a romance with a madam he's known for a long time, Ella Watson (Isabelle Huppert; the book explains that UA really did not want to cast her; fears about her speaking English, that is understandable; but, harsh comments were made about her looks and that was cruel; at least Mr. Bach later in the book apologized and said that she was a highlight and they shouldn't have fought so hard against her casting), who is in a love triangle with Nate Champion (Christopher Walken), who works for the WSGA; it's awkward as Averill and Champion are pals.
With all the time and effort put into this, it should be no surprise with all the talent involved that there is a lot of skill present. The cast is full of famous faces in Kristofferson, Huppert, Walken, John Hurt, Jeff Bridges, Sam Waterston, Geoffrey Lewis, Terry O'Quinn, Tom Noonan, Joseph Cotten for a scene and even Mickey Rourke. Behind the camera, I'll note that the direction is real nice and with the attention to detail and making it look authentic to the time period, that and all the extras you see in many exterior scenes does make it seem authentic and you get enveloped into the setting. Many different native tongues were heard, demonstrating how the United States was a melting pot where many cultures were and are present. The cinematography from the legendary Vilmos Zsigmond is great, aided by many thrilling pan shots of what I found to be beautiful Montana and Idaho scenery. I enjoyed the warm score from David Mansfield, who appears in the movie as the youthful fiddle player.
To me, the highest compliment I can give this is that despite the protracted runtime, I usually did not feel like the film lasted as long as it did. I was fine with the movie taking its time telling its various stories and presenting several different themes. I guess I got wrapped up in a story I found to be quite interesting, with a love triangle that isn't as cliché as you might expect it to be.
I have said a lot already so I'll wrap things up. I enjoyed watching the movie for sure and considering that I thought it was an easy watch, I shouldn't have put it off for so long. Even with that it wasn't worth all the trouble it caused or the damage it did to American filmmaking, but Michael Cimino paid for all those sins he did when it comes to this motion picture and a promising career was ruined. I do not know if he thought it was worth it, this one epic film causing him many years of grief and derision. It sounds like I have to do a lot of apologizing for this by saying you should ignore all the bad press and when it comes to the charges of animal cruelty, I definitely can't defend that although at least since then such things are more closely monitored to try and prevent such abuse.
I can recommend the Final Cut book and I can also recommend Heaven's Gate; the movie is not for all tastes (it is not the cheeriest of tales, for sure) but if you never gave it a shot due to its history and the loud cries of ridicule, I believe that even if you need to slot out about 4 hours of time if you want to see it all at once, it is worth a shot as you may fall in love with Cimino's magnum opus.
No comments:
Post a Comment