636 Heaven's Gate

Discuss releases by Criterion and the films on them. Threads may contain spoilers!
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Cold Bishop
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:45 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: 636 Heaven's Gate

#126 Post by Cold Bishop » Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:19 am

Since I know this forum has plenty of non-participating browsers, I feel the need to repost my brief appreciation from the Westerns Project, where it placed #2 on my list (and I'm still not sure it shouldn't have been #1). If anyone still on the fence about checking this out, wary of its reputation... run, don't walk to check it out and judge it for yourself.
2. Heaven’s Gate (Michael Cimino, 1980)
Perhaps a few of the titles below are better Westerns. Yet, what is undeniable is that I'm passionate about Cimino's tarnished masterpiece in a way none of those films can invoke. I've spent so many times defending and fighting for this film that it's difficult to keep perspective on it. Yet, one things is for certain: it comes as close to a perfect film as anything I've ever seen. Yes, it's an Anti-Western: it turns the Johnson County War into an allegory for America's own hidden class warfare; instead of a mythic self-contained West, it traces the way the Western frontier was not a clean break from history, but the complete product of the East, of Harvard elites and European immigrants. The circle - Cimino's privileged symbol of society and community, inclusive for those within it, sealed-off to those that stand outside it - dominates the film. It's stands, formal and highly ritualized, in the Harvard opening, around the Liberty Tree, its deep ancient roots corresponding to those of the American Aristocracy. It pops up later in Heaven's Gate, joyful and frenzied, around a iron stove, a symbol of the new industrial melting-pot America. At the end, we stand back as these two circles try to devour and destroy themselves, a final battle, the parody of the "flower run" at Harvard turned bloody real, situated around another tree, small, young and growing: it's a fight for the future of the country.

But Cimino's film isn't just this sort of grand allegorizing, nor is it simply Western demystification. The entire films is touched with a deep sense of disillusionment, regret and yearning for the lost West. Jim Averill wants to believe in the Mythic West, he wants to make a clean break from Eastern society, to refashion himself as an autonomous man of the frontier; he sees in Johnson County an opportunity for a classless utopia free from the foibles of the past. Yet, Kris Kristofferson's aged visage constantly registers disappointment at the reality of the West. This is a film in which the "good gone days" are constantly invoked. We jump forward twenty years from Harvard, and find Averill waking up, as if a dreaming of a past he can't escape. When the film ends, we find him on a boat looking off into the sea in deep mediation, haunted by past events that can't be changed. John Hurt's Billy Irvine drunkenly stares through a stain-glass window, at two women in a garden, and there is no doubt that for a moment he's been transported back to his Harvard days. Chris Walken's Nate Champion drifts off to sleep in mid-conversation, and it's like he's gone to some personal place in his own lost past. It is only the immigrants who are constantly looking forward, with Isabelle Huppert shrewd businesswoman, with a dream of settling down, the most persisent. But it is ultimately the inescapable pull of the past - of Eastern surveyors and capitalists hoping to preserve the status quo; of a community slowly recreating the system of class that they hoped to escape - that engulfs Sweetwater.

Critics called the film formless, but it has a very precise, bilateral structure, building on the contrasting structure he used in The Deer Hunter. The aforementioned circles frame the film, and divide it into two sections. The first half establishes Sweetwater, already showing signs of infighting and threat of invasion, but still filled with incredible promise. The second half, revisiting the same locales, shows the way those tensions undo the town and community. The Eastern bookends, instead of being gratuitous, likewise places the film in its proper context. It begins in 1870, the year after the completion of the Transcontintal Railroad, which opened the West to a flood of Eastern settlers and industry, beginning the last chapter of the Wild West. By the time we return to the East for the epilogue, it is 1903: the west has ended, and we finish in Newport, the palatial boomtown, the symbol of the Gilded Age, which emerged practically overnight, and whose grandeur and wealth came largely from the closing of the West. The bulk of the story, taking place in the middle of this 30 year period, represents the final last gasps of the Western frontier.

Standing in the middle of this film is the dance at the Heaven's Gate town hall, the centerpiece of the film, one of the most joyous musical moments in all the cinema. Critics loved being snide about this scene, and the seemingly arbitrary choice to name the film after it. But it's not a wasteful scene or a meanignless choice of title: it's the key to understanding the film. For one brief moment, the dream of Sweetwater seems possible, attainable, real. The key shot in this scene is, likewise, pegged as a gaffe by many of the film's detractor. Jeff Bridges, drunken and nauseous, exits the hall. When he steps outside, the shot is suddenly drowned out in a brown-tint. Such an unnatural and intense visual, in a film that's otherwise concerned with capturing the natural beauty of the landscape, hits you square in the face. But it's no mistake: in exiting the hall and vomiting, Bridges exposes the delicacy of the moment, an illusion that can easily be broken. Drowned in sepia, the shot resembles a photograph that is threatening to fade away; and in the second half of the film, that is precisely what happens. Like the proverbial "camel in a needle's eye", the future of this promised land leads to a bloody, desperate scramble. Cimino isn't out to destroy or subvert the Western Myth, like Peckinpah or Leone. He desperately, like Averill, wants to believe in it. The film's real power comes in its heartbreaking vision of a mythic West that never was, but could have been. When we find Averill at the end off the shore of Rhode Island, the beautiful landscapes of Montana replaced by the amorphousness of the sea, a man without a country, we understand what was lost at Heaven's Gate.
I'm curious whether that shot of Bridges will survive Cimino's new color-timing. I'd be very disappointed if it doesn't...
Last edited by Cold Bishop on Sun Nov 04, 2012 2:34 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Niale
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:27 am

Re: 636 Heaven's Gate

#127 Post by Niale » Sun Nov 04, 2012 1:36 am

Thats a really good analysis, thank you for that.

Ive been looking forwards to this bluray more than just about any other. I've only seen the movie in a really crummy full screen, low resolution format... And still the movies virtues were undeniable, and the criticism's against the film unfounded. Almost every single scene contains a moment or minutia that is worth the "price of admission".

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: 636 Heaven's Gate

#128 Post by swo17 » Tue Nov 06, 2012 2:47 pm


User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 636 Heaven's Gate

#129 Post by domino harvey » Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:13 am

Less than an hour's worth of bonus material is now "quite a lot"

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: 636 Heaven's Gate

#130 Post by knives » Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:26 am

It does seem something went severely wrong with the extras gathering. They're lucky the film itself is so great.

User avatar
Cold Bishop
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:45 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: 636 Heaven's Gate

#131 Post by Cold Bishop » Sun Nov 11, 2012 1:37 am

Hell, even the booklet could have been so much more.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: 636 Heaven's Gate

#132 Post by knives » Sun Nov 11, 2012 1:43 am

Right? They could have at least given a thorough outline of the various versions with an in depth analysis of how they were treated and how it changes the intentions of the film. Given that this is in many respects a rescue with much serious work already being done toward it and a large history it should have been shooting fish in a barrel to gather a satisfactory amount of extras. Hopefully if they are working on Thunderbolt and Lightfoot (though my local PBS station suggests otherwise) they do something better.

User avatar
HistoryProf
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:48 am
Location: KCK

Re: 636 Heaven's Gate

#133 Post by HistoryProf » Sun Nov 11, 2012 5:31 am


User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: 647 On the Waterfront

#134 Post by zedz » Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:09 pm

Perkins Cobb wrote:And also true regarding Heaven's Gate. I heard a funny story about how Cimino played nice with the Criterion people at first, then finally unloaded on some underling there with a screaming hissy fit, thereby convincing Becker et. al. that he was basically a jerk.
Well, to be fair, the guy was casually discussing the label's forthcoming releases and accidentally called Heaven's Gate "Heaven's Gate."

stwrt
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: 647 On the Waterfront

#135 Post by stwrt » Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:04 pm

The number of times Michael Cimino's name is mentioned during the extras on disc two of Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate must set a record of sorts. Even the 90 second teaser trailer starts off by telling us this is a Michael Cimino movie and repeats the name Michael Cimino constantly for the first fifteen seconds.

User avatar
bainbridgezu
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:54 pm

Re: 636 Heaven's Gate

#136 Post by bainbridgezu » Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:27 pm

Perkins Cobb wrote:I heard a funny story about how Cimino played nice with the Criterion people at first, then finally unloaded on some underling there with a screaming hissy fit, thereby convincing Becker et. al. that he was basically a jerk.
Watching this year's Wexner talk made me so grateful that Cimino doesn't have anywhere near the clout of guys like George Lucas. Curtis Tsui, who spoke very diplomatically of his experience producing the disc, explained that he and, I believe, Joann Carelli, talked Cimino out of one particular revision he was set on making.
SpoilerShow
Cimino wanted to add a gunshot sound to the woman's suicide at the end of the "battle"/massacre scene.
A film full of perfectly-rendered moments, and the director wants to futz around with one of the most affecting.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: 647 On the Waterfront

#137 Post by hearthesilence » Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:28 pm

"For crissakes, Cimino, everyone shat on your movie the first time around, and MGM/UA buried the restoration when they first released it, so shut the fuck up and kiss our asses for giving your film a third chance."

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: 636 Heaven's Gate

#138 Post by cdnchris » Mon Nov 19, 2012 8:44 pm

I'm really annoyed by this release. I've always found this film's production and reception fascinating, especially since I never found the film to be as bad as its reputation--nowhere near. But I'm so disappointed with the features, which should have been incredible for a film that did have an impact on the film industry. The features barely total an hour and issues with the film's production and horrendous release are barely mentioned. Other than maybe Kristofferson's chuckle about its release, if you didn't know better, you'd think the film just had a disappointing opening weekend and didn't destroy careers or receive some of the most brutal reviews of any major film. I can understand Cimino maybe not wanting to dwell on its production history (other than the basics of script, casting, filming, music, etc.) and move on, but at the same time to treat it like it never happened and never address it seems a bit ridiculous. It's especially obnoxious since the features feel like they're there more to inflate Cimino's ego; every feature is more or less about how "incredible" a filmmaker he is, even the one he appears on. What a waste.

On the other hand the transfer is really nice. I remember the VHS looking like dogshit, literally, since brown was laced everywhere. What Ebert describes in his review (and what is seen on the "before" shots in the restoration demonstration) is pretty much how I remember it looking. It was amazing to see actual colours with a much brighter picture. I'm not sure if this is a "revisionist" choice on Cimino's part, but the film is all the better because of it.

Brianruns10
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:48 am

Re: 636 Heaven's Gate

#139 Post by Brianruns10 » Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:09 pm

Hear, hear. This release is a total whitewash. I do not blame Criterion. I blame Cimino, who from the q & a session comes off as an egomaniac who can do no wrong, who casts himself as practically Christlike in his suffering.

Done right, this set should've had the theatrical release version, and the making of doc, Final Cut. As is we do not even have a discussion of the Johnson County war.

I'm glad Heavens' Gate is getting its recognition. It is a masterpiece. But I'm also glad of what Cimino went through. He brought it on himself, and he deserves it. He seems an utter bastard.

User avatar
Jeff
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: 636 Heaven's Gate

#140 Post by Jeff » Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:20 pm

I wonder if they knew the extent to which (it seems) Cimino would sabotage this release, they would have invested the tremendous amount of time and money that they did. It does indeed seem like a real missed opportunity.

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: 636 Heaven's Gate

#141 Post by cdnchris » Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:45 pm

I almost have a feeling the piece on the Johnson County War (almost typed "Howard Johnson War") was dropped because Cimino felt it took away from his film or that he somehow feels his film is the ultimate authority on the subject, so there shouldn't be the need for anything else. It's bizarre they dropped it and I feel Cimino had to be the reason. It's a shame because some historical feature on the subject matter would have been a big improvement, and something you would expect from Criterion. They even included excerpts from a documentary on Alcatraz for their DVD of The Rock FFS!

User avatar
Niale
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:27 am

Re: 636 Heaven's Gate

#142 Post by Niale » Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:08 pm

cdnchris wrote:I almost have a feeling the piece on the Johnson County War (almost typed "Howard Johnson War") was dropped because Cimino felt it took away from his film or that he somehow feels his film is the ultimate authority on the subject
I think it probably pointed out some historical inaccuracies, I cant imagine ANYONE thinks that Cimino's tale is exactly how it happened, but durring the recent New York Q:A, he insisted several times that this was the case!

In his Deer Hunter commentary, he tells one lie after another, "I would do that all the time when I went hunting", "Oh when we had beers we would do that". Those two comments refer to the gang speeding off and leaving their friend peeing on a tree in the woods, and to them back at the bar, shaking their beers up and spraying them all over the pool table. What's funny is the guy interviewing him, can tell he is bullshitting him! And instantly gets, audibly, nervous. He also breaks down and cries like THREE times durring the film. And even vaguely accuses Animal House of, copying the Deer Hunter's "Food fight"... A lone piece of baloney thrown.

I like how at every showing of his film, he insists that it is the first time he has seen it since the New York Premiere, now we KNOW thats not true! There is even a great story on the Home Theater Forum, about him attending a screening in the 90's and saying, "This is the first time I have truly seen this film". Given that the man refuses to tell the truth, is deeply delusional, and emotionally unstable... I think Criterion should be commended for making this release as good as it is! Thats crazy about the gunshot sound being almost put back in, another example of Criterions good judgment, and proactive approach!

Tuco
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:57 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

Re: 636 Heaven's Gate

#143 Post by Tuco » Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:36 pm

It was lousy then. It's lousy now. I am now heading down into my bunker...

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: 636 Heaven's Gate

#144 Post by knives » Tue Nov 20, 2012 3:05 am

So does this mean we have to change the title of the thread?

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: 636 Heaven's Gate

#145 Post by MichaelB » Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:20 am

Jeff wrote:I wonder if they knew the extent to which (it seems) Cimino would sabotage this release, they would have invested the tremendous amount of time and money that they did. It does indeed seem like a real missed opportunity.
A DVD producer friend of mine told me that by far the easiest filmmakers to work with were the dead ones.

User avatar
Cold Bishop
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:45 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: 636 Heaven's Gate

#146 Post by Cold Bishop » Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:54 am

I'm probably Cimino's biggest booster, but he's a guy whom you can't, absolutely under any circumstance, allow to be contractually in charge. I don't know if this was a case of Criterion unwisely pursuing the "Director's Approval" signature, or if they truly felt they couldn't conduct a proper restoration without him (I'm sure they could have tapped Zsigmond, who's long defended the film... that is if Cimino didn't burn that bridge with his rant against cinematographers a while back), but it's a mistake.

You put yourself in charge, you try to be a benevolent dictator, try to simply keep him from slitting his own throat, and he will buckle and rise to the occasion. If Criterion was a little wiser, a little more clever, I'm sure they could have got his participation without kowtowing. But alas...
Last edited by Cold Bishop on Tue Nov 20, 2012 6:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Cold Bishop
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 9:45 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: 636 Heaven's Gate

#147 Post by Cold Bishop » Tue Nov 20, 2012 6:44 am

I'm about to do something you never see on the internet after a grammar correction:

Thank you for your constructive criticism, davidhare. :)

stwrt
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: 636 Heaven's Gate

#148 Post by stwrt » Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:39 am

Because we have so little on disc about Heaven's Gate, what little there is is still good to have. And he is entertaining when speaking about the movie ( as he also proved to be on the commentary track for the UK Deer Hunter).

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: 636 Heaven's Gate

#149 Post by Drucker » Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:42 am

Cold Bishop wrote:I'm probably Cimino's biggest booster, but he's a guy whom you can't, absolutely under any circumstance, allow to be contractually in charge. I don't know if this was a case of Criterion unwisely pursuing the "Director's Approval" signature, or if they truly felt they couldn't conduct a proper restoration without him (I'm sure they could have tapped Zsigmond, who's long defended the film... that is if Cimino didn't burn that bridge with his rant against cinematographers a while back), but it's a mistake.

You put yourself in charge, you try to be a benevolent dictator, try to simply keep him from slitting his own throat, and he will buckle and rise to the occasion. If Criterion was a little wiser, a little more clever, I'm sure they could have got his participation without kowtowing. But alas...
Judging by the comments here, it wouldn't seem wise for Criterion to release this without him and then give him the opportunity for him (Ciminio) to crap on the release, giving it bad publicity and claim "I was never consulted, don't listen to those jokers at Criterion, this isn't my intention!"
Last edited by Drucker on Tue Nov 20, 2012 9:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: 636 Heaven's Gate

#150 Post by MichaelB » Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:47 am

Yes, it's a real rock and hard place situation, and my sympathies are entirely with Criterion.

There's no wholly satisfactory answer, but on balance I'd say that an authentic director-approved restoration of the main feature trumps the inclusion of brutally honest extras. And if they're contractually bound to choose one or the other but not both...

Post Reply