A Few Words About A few words about...™ Heaven's Gate -- in Blu-ray (12 Viewers)

[TonyD]

Maybe Moe wasnt referring to you.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

I'm more referring to several threads about this film over the last few months, not just you Vincent.
If you legitimately think this is a well structured film with a compelling story then more power to you, but when anyone points out the flaws they seem to be attacked.
The film has virtues but major flaws as well.

 

[Vincent_P]

Maybe Moe wasnt referring to you.

Moe was responding in this thread, and the only "pro" HEAVEN'S GATE comments in this thread since he had previously posted were mine, so yes, he was referring to me.
Vincent

 

[Vincent_P]

I'm more referring to several threads about this film over the last few months, not just you Vincent.
If you legitimately think this is a well structured film with a compelling story then more power to you, but when anyone points out the flaws they seem to be attacked.
The film has virtues but major flaws as well.

I do legitimately think that and so do many others. If anybody is being "attacked" it seems to me it's the folks who "legitimately" admire the film, as we have folks like you calling us out in a condescending manner, i.e. your comments re: AIRPORT-
Moe Dickstein: "I love Airport. It's not a great film, its kinda hokey and trashy, but I love it. But I don't deny what it is"
So you're saying that those of us who love HEAVEN'S GATE are denying what it is? What kind of condescending bullshit is that?
Vincent

 

[TonyD]

Vincent you're doing exactly what Moe was taking about. Jeez
Heaven's Gate = Serious business.

 

[TonyD]

I like Heaven's Gate.
Not because i think its good but because its a spectacle to watch. I can't look away when it's on the screen.

 

[Vincent_P]

Vincent you're doing exactly what Moe was taking about. Jeez
Heaven's Gate = Serious business.

No I'm not. I accept that he doesn't like the film. He wrote condescendingly towards folks who do like it, that's what I have a problem with.

I like Heaven's Gate.
Not because i think its good but because its a spectacle to watch. I can't look away when it's on the screen.

And I have no problem with this even though overall I disagree with you. I'd also have no problem if you said you utterly hated the film to the core of your being. But if you were to write a post suggesting that me and others who legitimately love the film and think it has intrinsic artistic value are somehow "denying what it is" like Moe did, well, yeah, I'd have a problem with that.
Vincent

 

[JoshZ]

I think maybe part of the problem is that Cimino either a) can't write dialogue or b) doesn't think it's important. I'm not sure which. Every line of dialogue in this film is either perfunctory of so vague that it doesn't really matter wether you can hear it or not.

If that's the case, he shouldn't lock down his camera on characters talking for such long periods of time. If he doesn't want to be the type of filmmaker who relies on dialogue to tell his stories, then he needs to find another way to tell the damn story.

 

[JoshZ]

Maybe Cimino dislikes ADR for the same reason many other filmmakers and even some filmgoers dislike it- because it tends to suck the life out of the performance for the sake of "clean" dialogue. I'll take some technical flaws and a performance that actually seems real, thank you.

If he doesn't want to use ADR, then he shouldn't film scenes of characters talking in noisy environments that drown out the dialogue. He can't have it both ways.

I also think you're being rather hyperbolic re: the sound mix. Yes, there are some burried lines of dialogue (much less so on the Criterion Blu-ray, though), but to claim that entire sequences of dialogue are unintelligible is a stretch to say the least. My first ever viewing of this was the long cut on VHS and aside from a few lines here and there I had no problem understanding what was being said even back then.

The scene where Averill first arrives in Wyoming and runs into his buddy the train porter goes on for four to five minutes of solid conversation, all drowned out by the noise of the train or the hustle & bustle of the city. I caught the word "citizen" a handful of times, but I'll be damned if I could make out any of the rest of the dialogue without subtitles. And as Scott points out, even when you can hear (or read via subtitles) the dialogue, it's totally perfunctory. That scene relays almost no significant information that isn't reiterated later in the film. What's the point of lingering on it so long?
Yeah, I get that Cimino wanted to show off his amazing sets and production design. He could have easily accomplished that by staging the scene in a way that doesn't involve characters standing around in front of the sets and yakking. Have them do something. Have them acknowledge that they can't hear each other over the noise and try to interact in other, non-verbal ways until they can find a quiet spot. There are countless possible ways to make that scene work without forcing the audience to watch two characters talk while everything they say is obscured by background noise.

 

[Peter Neski]

I never had any trouble understanding that scene,yeah there are bits here and there where I can't understand a line,nothing like Heat

 

[Kevin EK]

I've heard the same complaint about ADR from actors I've worked with who hated doing it. That it "sucked the life out of the scene."

I don't buy that as a general argument. There are too many cases where good ADR work was just as much a part of the performance as what was shot on location. Jaws and Apocalypse Now are but two examples of that.

I agree that bad or rushed ADR work will sound tinny and jarring - for example, most location scenes on the original Star Trek series where there simply wasn't enough time to make it sound or play any better. Michael Cimino certainly didn't have the problem of not being able to do ADR or do it properly. He simply chose not to do it. Some might view that as an artistic decision - I see it as a lazy and indulgent one, and one that's in line with the unfortunate decisions he made throughout the production.

 

[rsmithjr]

I've heard the same complaint about ADR from actors I've worked with who hated doing it.  That it "sucked the life out of the scene." 
I don't buy that as a general argument.  There are too many cases where good ADR work was just as much a part of the performance as what was shot on location.  Jaws and Apocalypse Now are but two examples of that.
I agree that bad or rushed ADR work will sound tinny and jarring - for example, most location scenes on the original Star Trek series where there simply wasn't enough time to make it sound  or play any better.  Michael Cimino certainly didn't have the problem of not being able to do ADR or do it properly.  He simply chose not to do it.   Some might view that as an artistic decision - I see it as a lazy and indulgent one, and one that's in line with the unfortunate decisions he made throughout the production. 

I guess I am a little tired of the use of terms like "indulgent" with respect to this film.
All reports from the set were that Michael Cimino worked very hard on this movie and took it all quite seriously. One can disagree with some or many of his decisions without believing that he was acting in a way that would merit such descriptions as "indulgent'. Did we waste money? Of course he did. Did he do so with willful deliberateness or wanton neglect? I don't think so. He was trying to achieve perfection and he gave it his best shot.
I also think that, after 32 years, it is time to just look at the film itself for a while.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Trying to achieve "perfection" in every shot is the very height of self indulgence.
The prologue was shot with respect for schedules and budgets. It is every bit as beautiful as the rest of the film which was shot with complete disregard for schedule and budget.
What is the difference?
Self indulgence.

 

[rsmithjr]

Trying to achieve "perfection" in every shot is the very height of self indulgence.
The prologue was shot with respect for schedules and budgets. It is every bit as beautiful as the rest of the film which was shot with complete disregard for schedule and budget.
What is the difference?
Self indulgence.

I agree about the prologue and I agree that a lot of money was wasted. One can cite many examples, and Bach's excellent book has a lot of details as well.
I disagree that there is any evidence that Cimino thought that he was being "indulgent". I think his intentions were honorable if misguided.
I am just tired of this film being dismissed because of accusations against the filmmakers. They created a masterpiece and have all had to live it down. I do find it impressive that the filmmakers mostly still defend the film and the director.

 

[Kevin EK]

Not sure how Cimino's attempt to make United Artists foot the bill for the irrigation of land he bought in the area falls under anything other than indulgence. And this was certainly not honorable behavior. The published account that came off the set of the tremendous indulgence on display there was devastating, both for the movie and for the filmmakers.

My point regarding ADR is that it's an easy excuse to say that the filmmaker doesn't want to do it because it doesn't help the scene. The great ADR work done for Apocalypse Now proves that to be false. It can be done, and it can be done well. Cimino chose not to do that work, thus leaving multiple scenes literally incomprehensible to an audience that didn't have a script in hand. On the one hand, this is lazy - meaning that the director didn't want to do the work required to finish the movie. On the other, this is indeed indulgent, as it leaves the audience to have to puzzle through what is happening without any help from the director.

I'm happy that Criterion has given us a good quality Blu-ray of this movie - it allows us to see in the best possible condition what all that money bought. It gives us the best glimpse of what Michael Cimino was attempting to do and the best view of how far short the picture actually was. There are some extremely valuable lessons here, and if DVD/Blu-ray is to be considered a "Film School in a Box", this movie provides fertile ground for many a classroom discussion about what to do and what not to do in telling a story of this kind.

 

[Vincent_P]

Not sure how Cimino's attempt to make United Artists foot the bill for the irrigation of land he bought in the area falls under anything other than indulgence.  And this was certainly not honorable behavior.  The published account that came off the set of the tremendous indulgence on display there was devastating, both for the movie and for the filmmakers.

No argument here regarding the "land irrigation" issue that Bach recounts in his book. I love the film but agree that it would have been incredibly unethical for Cimino to try and write off improvements on his own land to the film.

My point regarding ADR is that it's an easy excuse to say that the filmmaker doesn't want to do it because it doesn't help the scene.  The great ADR work done for Apocalypse Now proves that to be false.  It can be done, and it can be done well.  Cimino chose not to do that work, thus leaving multiple scenes literally incomprehensible to an audience that didn't have a script in hand.   On the one hand, this is lazy - meaning that the director didn't want to do the work required to finish the movie.  On the other, this is indeed indulgent, as it leaves the audience to have to puzzle through what is happening without any help from the director.

That good ADR exists doesn't "prove" anything. Some directors simply do not like ADR. I certainly don't, and I don't think that makes me "lazy". I don't think Kubrick was lazy, either, and he rarely if ever used ADR for his later movies aside from voice-over. Re: HEAVEN'S GATE, I don't think Cimino was being lazy at all re: the sound work, rather I truly believe he made an artistic decision re: the dialogue that didn't work for many viewers. Aside form a handful of lines, I personally never found "multiple scenes literally incomprehensible", even when viewing this way back in the day on VHS. Also it should be noted that film critic (and Cimino friend) F.X. Feeney has written about how when viewed at the MGM theater where HEAVEN'S GATE was originally mixed, the dialogue was much more intelligible than it turned out to be in most other cinemas. For whatever reason, the particular acoustics of that theater were very different than most theaters, and that combined with Cimino's particular approach to mixing with such a "thick" layer of natural ambiance led to the dialogue being hard to discern for many viewers.

I'm happy that Criterion has given us a good quality Blu-ray of this movie - it allows us to see in the best possible condition what all that money bought.  It gives us the best glimpse of what Michael Cimino was attempting to do and the best view of how far short the picture actually was.  There are some extremely valuable lessons here, and if DVD/Blu-ray is to be considered a "Film School in a Box", this movie provides fertile ground for many a classroom discussion about what to do and what not to do in telling a story of this kind.

I'm happy for this beautiful Blu-ray, too, but for entirely different reasons of course
Vincent

 

[rsmithjr]

Not sure how Cimino's attempt to make United Artists foot the bill for the irrigation of land he bought in the area falls under anything other than indulgence.  And this was certainly not honorable behavior.  The published account that came off the set of the tremendous indulgence on display there was devastating, both for the movie and for the filmmakers.

Obviously this sort of behaviour cannot be justified. Unfortunately, it is part of the culture of Hollywood it seems.

 

[Kevin EK]

Vincent, your point of view is understandable.

There certainly are some directors who don't like ADR, and I can add to it that there are certainly actors who have more than a dislike for it. But it can be necessary, and when done correctly, it can not only clarify the information in a scene, it can enhance the performance we see onscreen. And we'll just have to disagree about how the great ADR work done in movies like Apocalypse Now absolutely proves that ADR is not automatically a bad thing. Yes, there are some directors and some actors who don't want to do the work that it requires, but that doesn't mean the work can't be done and can't do good things for a scene.

You're correct that Cimino chose not to do this work, and it's correct to note that he has properly been held responsible for that by viewers who could not understand what was being said onscreen in the scenes in question. I personally view that as both an indulgent choice and as a lazy one. I hear you that the latter evaluation doesn't seem fair. I only take that position since the problem was evident to multiple viewers, even in the MGM theater, where Bach and the other executives famously attended the 5 1/2 hour screening at which one of them kept repeating afterward: "I couldn't HEAR anything!" Regarding Kubrick, I wouldn't call his work lazy at all. He was very particular about the work he did, including the ADR work. I recall Malcolm McDowell's comments about the extensive voiceover and ADR work done for A Clockwork Orange and the amount of time he and Kubrick spent both doing the work and playing ping pong.

BTW the published account of on-set indulgence to which I referred was the LA Times article by Les Gapay, which served as a major body blow to the movie and Cimino before the opening. Gapay, for those readers who haven't followed the whole sordid story, was trying to write an article about the production and when he got stonewalled, decided to work on the movie as an extra and get his story from the inside. The result was devastating to everyone involved.

Finally, Cimino's bold attempt to get UA to irrigate his land was indefensible, but I can't say it's a given part of the culture of Hollywood. It's one thing for a creative person to insist on doing something that will cost a lot more time and money for not much of a result, which happens all the time. But it's something else entirely to insist that the studio provide a personal indulgence that has nothing to do with the production except perhaps tangentially. That pushes it to a level where it's flabbergasting. Cimino is not alone in this, of course. Plenty of other people have tried to play that game, including Val Kilmer when he was acting in "The Man Who Broke 1000 Chains". But I can't say that such a level of hubris is so widespread that it's part of the culture. It's more that there are always some people in any business whose heads swell when they get to a certain level in their professions.

 

[JoshZ]

Even without behind-the-scenes tales of his behavior, one need look no further than the movie's title for proof of Michael Cimino's indulgence. As seen in the opening credits, the film's title is not "Heaven's Gate." It's "MICHAEL CIMINO'S HEAVEN'S GATE."

 

[Peter Neski]

Thats because he wrote it