Is Criterion working on a blu-ray of Heaven's Gate? (1 Viewer)

[FoxyMulder]

Maybe they can have special packaging for this one, a minituire exploding horse figurine or maybe a boxset with original horse blood all inclusive.

I'd rather see Year Of The Dragon released.

 

[Paul Rossen]

Maybe they can have special packaging for this one, a minituire exploding horse figurine or maybe a boxset with original horse blood all inclusive.
I'd rather see Year Of The Dragon released.

Perhaps a copy of Joseph Cotton's speech at the 'Harvard' commencement...

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Heaven's Gate never got a fair public trial in my opinion and the fact that now it is getting a second chance through Criterion makes it one of the more important releases, I think, in the history of this blu-ray format. People have dumped on this film for years and used it and Cimino as a scapegoat for what were really the failings of and influence of many other people in the movie industry. I think as is always the case when looking at something complex--in this case why the motion picture industry radically changed when the 70s ended--it was easier to lay blame on one person and this one film than it was to look at the big picture.
Far fewer people will point fingers at films and directors that were financially successful and their influence on why the way films were made and how funds were dispersed to make them changed than will point at a guy like Cimino and say blame him. It was easy to publically crucify Cimino and his film in the wake of other filmmaker gone mad stories--Coppola running amok in Philippines making Apocalypse Now--and reports of cost overruns that amounted to more than some people make in a lifetime. The thing is though Cimino was not stuffing his pockets with other people’s money, he was putting that money to work in the service of his film, a film the studio wanted, and he did not hold a gun to anybody's head to get that money. The end result was he suffered more for his excesses than anyone, taking the full blame, the public outrage, and sending his career into a death spiral.
Cimino now appears the perfect image of the eccentric recluse. His face is a plastic surgeon's mask, expressionless, which seems intentional to hide the fragile man behind it who for years has been dogged by accusations and branded the ultimate example of arrogance and excess. It seems to suggest nobody wants to be Michael Cimino less than Michael Cimino. You imagine that for years after Heaven’s Gate he rose each morning hoping not to see himself in the mirror.
Exiled from his former profession no one has carried the burden of failure, the blame for the death of a certain style of filmmaking, the supposed full responsibility for the failure of a movie studio, and suffered such a public tar and feathering in the film industry than Michael Cimino. Hopefully this release from Criterion gives both the film and the man a full and fair chance to be reconsidered. Obviously he is done making films but I think you could make a case that Cimino poured more of himself into Heaven's Gate and lost more because of it than any filmmaker in the history of motion pictures. Probably no filmmaker has a more interesting tale to tell about a film and his rise and fall.

 

[Peter Neski]

well Today some guys doing ESPN Highlights of the Reds game brought up The Movie "Reds" and said it was bad,then he said he was thinking of "Heavens Gate"
I doubt this bozo ever saw Heavens Gate

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Far fewer people will point fingers at films and directors that were financially successful and their influence on why the way films were made and how funds were dispersed to make them changed than will point at a guy like Cimino and say blame him. It was easy to publically crucify Cimino and his film in the wake of other filmmaker gone mad stories--Coppola running amok in Philippines making Apocalypse Now--and reports of cost overruns that amounted to more than some people make in a lifetime. The thing is though Cimino was not stuffing his pockets with other people’s money, he was putting that money to work in the service of his film, a film the studio wanted, and he did not hold a gun to anybody's head to get that money. The end result was he suffered more for his excesses than anyone, taking the full blame, the public outrage, and sending his career into a death spiral.

There is a MAJOR difference between Cimino and Coppola. Coppola put his own money and finances on the line in the making of Apocalypse. He gambled recklessly with his own well being (as he would do again with Zoetrope Studio and lose badly). Cimino was spending other peoples money in a self indulgent quest for perfection.
As someone who has studied and now works in the film industry, I cannot let Cimino off the hook, no matter what the result of his work, for his methods are deplorable. The most telling thing to me in the Final Cut documentary, and the key to his methods as a director are when they discuss Cimino's work in TV Commercials. That he would go to extreme and extravagent lengths to complete 30 and 60 second masterpieces. And truly they were, and truly this is an acceptable and given way to work - IN THAT MEDIUM.
When a professional makes the transition to a new medium (commercials to features) he must understand the differences inherent and how he must adapt his own work to the realities of this new medium. When shooting for a TV series, one has less time and must shoot more footage in a day, and that footage must be shot in a way to be best showcased on a home screen (such as not doing entire scenes in single takes with very wide masters for example).
Cimino instead brought the commercials ethos of total perfection (to the point of HUGELY diminishing returns - for example, placing each extra individually in the background of a scene? That is totally unheard of and incredibly wasteful) to bear on a feature length film which could not sustain them. A project that most any other leading director of the day would have completed for $7-12 ballooned to $45 million under this M.O.
In achieving this vision, how many other worthy projects and directors did Cimino rob of the opportunity to express their art? $33 million would make a lot of films in 1979.
And the most damning fact of all - Cimino COULD work fast with great results when he SO CHOSE TO DO. When Eastwood sat on him during Thunderbolt and Lightfoot in regards to how many takes they would do, did that film suffer for it? When Cimino himself was brought to task towards the end and had his beloved prologue held hostage, look how he cleaned up his act.
Can you look at the film today and tell me what was shot when he was "rushing" as opposed to when he was taking his time? Does the Prologue look cheap or rushed? He shot that under tight and admirable controls - and that is the Cimino that would have had a long and happy career in Hollywood.
Cimino is his own worst enemy. He had everything after Deer Hunter, but he chose to use that cachet to become a tyrant, answering to nobody and holding UA hostage. And he got his picture. But at what cost? Not just to UA but to himself.
I agree that Cimino must have a hard time looking at himself in the mirror. And it's entirely justified.

 

[Peter Neski]

Eastwood has become a fine filmmaker and made some of the best movies I can think of lately,some bombs too,but he can work fast(and Likes doing that) But to me
his films aren't the same type of film,they are never really great visual films ,and he really doesn't have that talent,he clearly has many other talents and hires talented
people
But he could never make a film like the Deer Hunter or Heavens gate because he couldn't handle the visuals,he made many fine westerns ,yet none are close to
Leone either.
So enough about him working fast,hes not Cimino and doesn't want to be,and has different goals,maybe his type of films can be made that way
heavens Gate didn't kill Cimino off,he made a very Good "Year of the Dragon" before ruining the rest of his career
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot while good looking for a Eastwood Film,isn't anything like The Deer Hunter or Heavens Gate,It seems by the time of Gate he really lost his mind
when he though he could do anything he wanted,Fincher makes commercial films in hd with as many takes,I don't get that either

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Fincher does a lot of takes, as did Kubrick and many others. The difference is that they do this within their schedules and budget.
Kubrick worked with a skeleton crew in controlled sets and situations so that he freed up money to work more days, that was the balance that worked for him.
Fincher doesn't go over schedule and budget the way Cimino did.
Heaven's Gate was scheduled for 60 days (to give persepective, a typical TV shoot would be 7-8 days for one hour. A typical theatrical feature might be 50 days), Cimino ended up shooting over 7 MONTHS. At the end of the first week he was nearly a week behind.
It is not so much the number of takes, but also the fact that he was taking hours and hours to even begin to be ready to make even one take. And taking this sort of time with every single shot.
I can think of very few examples of such wastefulness, and the problem is that you can get as good or nearly as good a result without doing it! If you allow the AD to place the extras (as is their job on every set, it is against the union rules for the Director to interact with background actors actually) while you talk to the camera department and actors, you save massive time and still have a shot with correct period extras. Perhaps they are lined up in a slightly different order - would that ruin the film for you? the placement of the extras in long shots?
This is my point. It is impossible to achieve perfection and slavish pursuit of it is folly. It is the true skill of a craftsman to realize what level of energy and time and expense best serves his art and communicates it to the public it is intended for.

 

[rsmithjr]

As a believer in the Law of Diminishing Returns, it seems that Mr. Cimino likely got very little for the extra time and money he poured into the production. Many of the posts here are saying that.
That said, what we are left with is simply the film itself. I don't think this film has ever been given a fair shake. With enough history behind us, let's just look at what is on the screen.
I have seen it several times and think that it is a very unusual and even unique film that is a near-masterpiece.

 

[AdrianTurner]

Cimino was spending other peoples money in a self indulgent quest for perfection.

So was Lean, so was Kubrick, so was . . . virtually any major director. Wasn't Coppola almost fired on The Godfather because of budget and schedule over-runs? And Spielberg with Jaws? You say you work in the movie industry. . . . must be the accounts department!

 

[Moe Dickstein]

So was Lean, so was Kubrick, so was . . . virtually any major director. Wasn't Coppola almost fired on The Godfather because of budget and schedule over-runs? And Spielberg with Jaws? You say you work in the movie industry. . . . must be the accounts department!

I'm actually a director and assistant to a director. But when I am working with other people's money and time I take that charge very seriously. Mr. Smith put the nail on the head about the law of diminishing returns, and to everything I've read and seen, Cimino was more flagrantly abusive of his perogative as a director than anyone else you mention.
Still planning to get this Blu Ray the day it comes out though. I say none of this to diminish anyone's enjoyment of this film, but I react violently to attempts to lionize Mr. Cimino as a misunderstood and victimized artist.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Moe Dickstein /t/318845/is-criterion-working-on-a-blu-ray-of-heavens-gate/60#post_3957782
Cimino ended up shooting over 7 MONTHS. At the end of the first week he was nearly a week behind.

What's the name of the movie starring Clint Eastwood where he later said they wasted a lot of time and money and it taught him to be more resourceful when he started directing his films, i can't recall his exact words, i think it could be a late sixties or early seventies film. maybe Kelly's Heroes. ?

 

[Eric Vedowski]

Sounds like "Paint Your Wagon." From a Eastwood site: "The budget originally assigned to the film was a huge fourteen million dollars; it went wildly over this and ended up costing twenty million. Eastwood was enraged at the waste he witnessed during the filming."

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Well, what I would say to you first, Moe, is reread what I wrote. I do not in any way claim Cimino is free of blame nor do I think he should be let off the hook. I do however look upon what happened as being as much the fault of the people who gave him the money and kept giving him the money even though they knew in the first week the project was troubled.
Cimino was in a way like a crack addict, only in his case his addiction was film and they not only enabled his addiction...in the crack addict analogy they backed a truck load of it up to his front door and gave him the pipe to smoke it...and when he started to smoke like a five alarm fire they said "Oh no, Mike, don't do that. You are smoking way too much!" and then they backed another truck load up to his house and said "Now don't smoke all that too!"
The other thing I would say is the money part of the equation when it comes to Heaven's Gate is mostly the fault of the people that gave it too him. They could have and should have intervened much sooner than they did...that is all on them and the truth is they were horrifically irresponsible and should bear the blame for their own gross negligence and crap business sense. Cimino's lousy behavior while making the film is all on him and for that there is only the mirror.
And when you say this:
"In achieving this vision, how many other worthy projects and directors did Cimino rob of the opportunity to express their art? $33 million would make a lot of films in 1979." -Moe Dickstein
This was not Cimino’s job or his responsibility to concern himself with other people's projects but it sure was the responsibility of the people that CHOSE to give him the $33 million. It was on them completely to sink that in Cimino's film and in doing so they made the CHOICE to deprive other filmmakers of that money. Blaming Cimino for that is pure nonsense and a perfect example of the kind of scapegoating that has gone on.
You see that argument is like saying "Hey, I don't think the studio should give Mike Bay $200 million to make a Transformers film! I think they should spread that money around to 10 smaller productions that have more artistic value!"
Well, see that's their choice to give Mike Bay $200 million even if you or I or the 10 "deprived" filmmakers that could have got that money like it or not. And if Bay's film tanks that's $200 million they wasted and in hindsight you or I can easily say "What a waste! That was stupid to spend that on that film!"
My point with Coppola was not to compare them but to point out the press had already sharpened their knives on the Coppola film so when Cimino got caught being excessive he and his film were ripe and ready to get slashed to pieces.
What I was talking about was that Cimino gets blamed for more than he deserved to get blamed for and I really think that should stop and people should look at the film without the negative hype and he should be able to tell his side of the tale...and I doubt he would ask to be let off the hook but he should not be on that hook all by himself which seems to be what some prefer.

 

[Vincent_P]

As a lover of the film, I think it's obvious that Cimino abused his power. The quality of the prologue shows what he could achieve even if working fast and under tight time and budget constraints. But I don't think the film would have been finished for the original $11.6 million even if Cimino wasn't "taking his time to get it right" during the initial shooting. I think the film would still have gone severely over budget given its scope. Maybe not from 11.6 to 35 million, but it would have easily ended up in the 20s even if Cimino hadn't been so indulgent.
Vincent

 

[Paul Rossen]

What I was talking about was that Cimino gets blamed for more than he deserved to get blamed for and I really think that should stop and people should look at the film without the negative hype and he should be able to tell his side of the tale...and I doubt he would ask to be let off the hook but he should not be on that hook all by himself which seems to be what some prefer.

Why is Cimino getting blamed for more than he deserved? Today, if the film were re-released would there be an audience for it? Is it really the near masterpiece than some writer on this board has claimed? I've seen the film a number of times including its first week in release and the one thing I look forward to is the possibility that the shortened version is a supplement on the upcoming Criterion disc. Perhaps the shortened version makes it a better film. Perhaps not. Whether the critics were ready to pounce on Cimino is immaterial. Heaven's Gate speaks for itself. And I happen to agree with the majority of critics who viewed it back when. The analogy with Apocalypse Now doesn't work as the critics were also ready to pounce on FFC but couldn't since AN is close to the masterpiece he envisioned and was an event filmgoing experience when it premiered.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

For what is on the screen Cimino should get full credit and full blame but I was talking about the things he gets blamed for beyond the film itself. Not sure if you read my earlier post, Paul, or if you have seen The Final Cut or know any of the story behind what happened to Cimino and the film. I mean we have a guy on here saying Cimino was responsible for "robbing" other filmmakers from being able to express their art because he made Heaven's Gate...that's more than a little ridiculous.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Reggie,
Of course Cimino was not responsible for what else might have been done with the money, I don't mean to lay that at his feet, but as you say that one is on Bach and Albeck so to speak. But the whole Heaven's Gate story is a bit of a perfect storm with each element having to happen a certain way for things to have gone so badly.
What could the UA execs have done? UA's history was one of creative freedom (to generally responsible filmmakers). The current execs were taking over after a massive exodus that led to the creation of Orion. If they had pulled the plug on Cimino after the first week, they'd have been as good as committing professional suicide as well as signaling to all of Hollywood that UA was no longer an artist friendly place to work.
The key moment is when Albeck declined to back up David Field (using the misguided information from Auerbach) after Cimino lied over the casting of Huppert, that Cimino had agreed they would keep looking if he couldn't convince them in Paris to agree to her casting. He reneged on this promise, and as Field states in the documentary, they no longer could trust the word of Cimino. Their wildest speculation led to the budget reaching $20M. Now if Krim and Benjamin had still been in charge, the picture might have collapsed there. If Cimino had been working instead for Universal or Paramount or Warners, that might have been the end. But with those particular execs in that particular situation disaster was inevitable.
And you also fail to acknowledge that UA did continually escalate the pressure to maintain schedules and budget. Cimino did not have a true producer but his friend and shield Carelli. They offered help of experienced producers which was totally shunned. Sending Derek Cavanaugh to Montana is hardly backing up a crack truck to Cimino's house.
The key to me is what Vincent said - Look at the prologue. That was shot under reasonable conditions of budget and schedule. Is it any less magnificent than the rest of the film? If Cimino had accepted help rather than throwing tantrums he would have saved countless millions. By what Cimino achieved at the end of production and on the prologue, I do believe it's entirely possible to have made the same film for a figure closer to $17-$20 Million in 1978-80 dollars - for sure over the original $12.5M figure, but much more reasonably so, and not out of character for other films of the time (Jaws was double budget for example - $4M to $8M)
I don't absolve the UA execs, and neither do they - Bach does not go lightly on himself. But when I look at everything, I ask - who had the power once the train started to derail? The UA execs had options for sure, but they were the equivalent of which part of your face do you want shot off. The one who was in the best position to stop the madness was Cimino.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Does no one here care about the animal cruelty inflicted on the horses by the director for this film, to me that's far worse than any faults the actual movie might have, huge stink about that at the time the movie came out but it seems no one is bothered by all that now.

P.S. Someone says they wasted $200m dollars on Transformers, well i doubt the studio saw it that way, they are making good money off those films, regardless of artistic intent, it's what the beanpoles running studio's want which is to make money. In fact the money they make from Transformers probably helps pay for some other films which might not otherwise get made.

 

[Paul Rossen]

For what is on the screen Cimino should get full credit and full blame but I was talking about the things he gets blamed for beyond the film itself. Not sure if you read my earlier post, Paul, or if you have seen The Final Cut or know any of the story behind what happened to Cimino and the film. I mean we have a guy on here saying Cimino was responsible for "robbing" other filmmakers from being able to express their art because he made Heaven's Gate...that's more than a little ridiculous.

I happen to agree with the poster who stated that other director's projects didn't materialize due to the Heaven's Gate fiasco. It's the same today. Whenever a huge picture tanks the heads of studios, bean counters etc usually go through a 'cost cutting' scenario. Many a project has been cancelled due to heavy losses because of such films. And green lighted projects end up having their budgets slashed.

 

[Richard--W]

EDIT
Never mind.