Is Criterion working on a blu-ray of Heaven's Gate? (2 Viewers)

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Richard--W /t/318845/is-criterion-working-on-a-blu-ray-of-heavens-gate/120#post_3963797
It's not easy to get away with the flagrant abuse of animals on a movie set. There is too much oversight. The Humane association is present; legally, they can't be blocked or prevented from being there. The cast and crew are present and witness to everything that's going on. They love animals as much as FoxyMulder. People don't turn their back on these things. Insurance companies are present on the set and insist on safety or they won't insure and bond a production, in which case it don't get made and everybody gets sent home. Except for the inevitable mishap or act of god, I dismiss the accusations.

You got to remember though that things have changed now in countries like the USA and some parts of Europe but in the seventies and right up to the time Heaven's Gate was being made this stuff did go on, have you read what Sylvester Stallone did to the rats while the crew watched and laughed when he made First Blood in 1981, even now films made in the far eastern countries use horse tripwires and treat animals poorly, of course not every production, but enough, i'm not sure if Spain and Italy have improved, maybe they have, no idea but i'd love to see some sort of worldwide code on all this, that would be a nightmare to implement properly but i'd welcome it.

 

[Richard--W]

It is true that a lot has changed in the industry, but 1980 was not the middle ages.
There was as much compassion for horses and oversight then as there is now.
You can watch Heaven's Gate without feeling guilty.
Every once in a while one runs into a fanatic who thinks that to simply sit on the back of a horse and ride it is an act of abuse.
It isn't, and the notion isn't worth considering.
These are usually dorks in offices who know nothing about horses and nothing about life outside of cyberspace.
What happens in foreign countries and south of the equator is another story.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Richard--W /t/318845/is-criterion-working-on-a-blu-ray-of-heavens-gate/120#post_3963815
You can watch Heaven's Gate without feeling guilty.
Every once in a while one runs into a fanatic who thinks that to simply sit on the back of a horse and ride it is an act of abuse.
It isn't, and the notion isn't worth considering.
These are usually dorks in offices who know nothing about horses and nothing about life outside of cyberspace.

I have someone in my family who is an expert on horses, indeed they have a horse and have been into horses since they could walk, that would be my sister, i actually live in what could be called a rural place, the Scottish Borders, horse riding is common here, indeed the Jedburgh festival celebrations ( once a year ) involve horse riding.

As for Heavens Gate, well as someone earlier in the thread pointed out, these productions can feel tainted when they harm animals while filming the movie, that's how i feel about it, no reason for me to feel guilty about it though, every reason that Cimino and others should feel guilty about it.

 

[Peter Neski]

a lot written about this movie and its director isn't fact ,not saying this is fact or not(don't Know) But Cimino said this was false years ago when these was CBS Cable arts channel,and since there are plenty
of People who hate him(some justified) its not surprising fake stories about him(sex Change) and the film came out
since this upcoming BR won't be a complete look at the film ,since its Cimino's viewpoint,one has to take Final Cut for the other Part of the story

 

[Richard--W]

I'm sure Final Cut is a good book. I haven't read it, and I'm not going to. The behind-the-scenes backstory of how the movie was made does nothing for me. It was required reading for a workshop I took long, long time ago and I had to finesse it then.
The only thing that interests me is what's on the screen.
I enjoy it as a western.
The rest is irrelevant.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Peter Neski /t/318845/is-criterion-working-on-a-blu-ray-of-heavens-gate/120#post_3963890
a lot written about this movie and its director isn't fact ,not saying this is fact or not(don't Know) But Cimino said this was false years ago when these was CBS Cable arts channel,and since there are plenty
of People who hate him(some justified) its not surprising fake stories about him(sex Change) and the film came out
since this upcoming BR won't be a complete look at the film ,since its Cimino's viewpoint,one has to take Final Cut for the other Part of the story

The Final Cut book is inaccurate, it has to be since it paints a rosy picture of Rudy Ugland and you just have to take note other films all throughout the seventies that Ugland worked on which featured horse tripwire scenes and animal cruelty.

Did they have a second unit shooting some of these horse scenes in which Cimino wasn't present, maybe then i can cut him some slack.

 

[Peter Neski]

sure hope your wrong

 

[Moe Dickstein]

I'm sure Final Cut is a good book. I haven't read it, and I'm not going to. The behind-the-scenes backstory of how the movie was made does nothing for me. It was required reading for a workshop I took long, long time ago and I had to finesse it then.
The only thing that interests me is what's on the screen.
I enjoy it as a western.
The rest is irrelevant.

Final Cut is not really about the making of Heaven's Gate in the tradional sense. It's about United Artists and the story of an executive at that company who happened to be involved with Heaven's Gate - which you'd know if you read it.
I'm a big reader of any and all books I can find about filmmaking and I'm currently reading FC for the fourth time. It's that good. You will get a lot about the studio side of things, when smart people who care are forced to deal with all that entails, trying to rebuild a brand after it's been abandoned by those who re-built it (Krim & Co as they left to form Orion).
I know several people who were personal friends of Steven Bach for decades and they all recount what an intelligent, cultured and honorable person he was. I tend to believe what I read in the book, not less because there simply isn't much about "on set" of the film because he wasn't there! David Field, his west coast based co-head of production was the films direct supervisor until very late in the game, and he and Cimino are the two people who chose not to participate in the book, though Field is interviewed in the FC documentary.
I would be equally fascinated to sit down with a Cimino book about the same subject, this time from the perspective on the inside, but I don't sense any inclination for him to write such a tome.
So I would say if the machinery of filmmaking and the studios is of no interest to you, that you prefer to have no view beyond the four lines that make up the screen then perhaps you've made the correct choice for yourself, but I can't recommend the book more highly to anyone who does share such interests.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I remember when a R2 company first released CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST onto DVD I got a couple PETA people telling me they were going to have me, my mother and various other people killed if I reviewed it for a certain site. I remember one of the e-mailers spraying around all sorts of stories about countless films, including HEAVEN'S GATE and one of the stories was that the director slit the throats of the horses so that they could have blood to put on the actors. Now, I'm not sure what all really happened but I found it downright (no pun) horse shit that a SAG actor would allow themselves to be covered in real blood.
I watched at least one movie a month (including one today) where an animal is killed for the movie. I don't agree with it but it's there. People starting up controversy (as in this thread) are just bringing more attention to the film so keeping it in the spotlight isn't really going to do anything in your cause.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

PETA is almost comical in their overkill. I think they'd rather see hundreds of people die than one rabbit.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Moe Dickstein /t/318845/is-criterion-working-on-a-blu-ray-of-heavens-gate/120#post_3963925
PETA is almost comical in their overkill. I think they'd rather see hundreds of people die than one rabbit.

The point would be that no people need to die and nor does the rabbit.

I don't agree with what happened to Michael, that's nasty stuff but some of us don't belong to PETA and just hate to see animals harmed just to make a film, the Italian cannibal films are notorious for this, the director of Cannibal Holocaust says he now regrets the killing of animals and wishes it hadn't happened so at least he has remorse, anyways why make the comment that "people are starting up controversy" ( not you Moe ) i'm not, the people who made the film and the events which unfolded afterwards started the controversy so don't blame me for wanting to discuss it.

Isn't this thread about the discussion of Heaven's Gate, we should be able to discuss both positive and negative aspects of the production, plenty of positive points made earlier in the thread too.

 

[Vincent_P]

I... I remember one of the e-mailers spraying around all sorts of stories about countless films, including HEAVEN'S GATE and one of the stories was that the director slit the throats of the horses so that they could have blood to put on the actors. Now, I'm not sure what all really happened but I found it downright (no pun) horse shit that a SAG actor would allow themselves to be covered in real blood...

Exactly!
And not just SAG actors, but even extras- who the hell would allow themselves to be covered in real animal blood for a film? Aside from the "animal cruelty" issue, there's the simple sanitary factor.
Vincent

 

[Vincent_P]

John Kirk has recently been posting on the HEAVEN'S GATE Facebook fanpage (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Michael-Ciminos-Heavens-Gate/63498056944), and he gave info re: what elements he had to work with when he did the photochemical restoration back in 2004:

...Unless more footage has been found since I left MGM, the "sepia sequence" was really a B&W work print that was the only known surviving footage of several shots. Vilmos Zsigmond told me that the entire movie was meant to be in color, but with very unusual timing that only he was familiar with, I had to cannibalize film elements to make a completely-restored long version, and it would have been impossible to come out looking right without Vilmos's guidance. ...As I recall there was only one element, either an internegative or interpositive, that remained of virtually all of the long version. But even in that element one of the reels had been timed incorrectly and had a sepia look. The notorious "sepia sequence" was unintentionally that way; it was the result of the rush to get the film finished for the imminent premiere, and the error wasn't noticed until it was too late to do anything about it. That was told to me by Vilmos Zsigmond. Within the "sepia sequence" there were a couple of shots that survived only in a black and white work print. The print was very grainy, and because of the state of digital technology ten years ago, there wasn't really a whole lot that could be done to make the image in those shots look good, but with the limited budget I had (MGM wasn't really interested in the project. It never would have happened if it weren't for my own personal interest, and I didn't have a lot of money in my budget allotment to work with.), I did the best I could to colorize the shots so that they wouldn't look quite as jarring going in and out of black and white between the color shots that still existed in the sequence. There were a couple of duplicate elements of the short version, so I cannibalized the best of each remaining element to end up with the best looking results. The lab (Triage in Hollywood) did a phenomenal job of getting an interpositive that looked consistent, despite the fact that it was created from at least three or four of the different film stocks that we were working from. Vilmos was very pleased with work the lab did...

Vincent

 

[Moe Dickstein]

why make the comment that "people are starting up controversy" ( not you Moe ) i'm not, the people who made the film and the events which unfolded afterwards started the controversy so don't blame me for wanting to discuss it.
Isn't this thread about the discussion of Heaven's Gate, we should be able to discuss both positive and negative aspects of the production, plenty of positive points made earlier in the thread too.

Foxy, you strike me as passionate yet rational, no my issue is more with radical PETA types.
And since this is all being discussed under the aegis of Heaven's Gate, I'd feel like we are on topic. I'm a believer in extensive latitude as long as everyone is "keeping it professional"

 

[Moe Dickstein]

John Kirk has recently been posting on the HEAVEN'S GATE Facebook fanpage (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Michael-Ciminos-Heavens-Gate/63498056944), and he gave info re: what elements he had to work with when he did the photochemical restoration back in 2004:
Vincent

Considering that there is a new running time, I wouldn't be surprised that this is either a new cut or restoration, does anyone have any details on what Lee Kline said in his presentation?

 

[Derrick King]

The AMIA: The Reel Thing presentation is this Friday (8/24). Here is the Abstract from the AMIA: The Reel Thing website:

Restoring Heaven's Gate
Lee Kline, Criterion
When Heaven's Gate was released in the 219 minute version in 1980, it made the rounds in a few 70mm prints. As a result of the reception the film received, the prints were quickly pulled from distribution, and then a shortened 149 version was quickly released to theaters. There are few, if any, 35mm prints of the long version. The negative was quickly cut to the shortened version, but luckily YCM's had already been made. Using the YCM's was determined to be the best way to get back any sort of quality to the picture. Working with director Michael Cimino, the film has been brought back to 216 minutes, removing some sections and making various scene trims at the director's request. This was a gigantic undertaking for a small company and this presentation will focus on how to accomplish a project of this size on a tight budget.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

On the animal cruelty issue related to this film...I have to say that I despise the idea of treating animals poorly but in the case of Heaven's Gate it does seem that at least on the horse side of things the amount of animal cruelty was overblown and exists mainly as allegations. The horse that was killed in the explosion was an accident and they did not set out to blow-up a horse. It is sad to hear this stuff but in all honesty there is only one film that I can't watch, Twilight Zone The Movie, in this case it was people that were killed -- My-ca Le, Renee Chen, and Vic Morrow -- and I just can't watch the film.
Honestly, in this particular forum I'd rather just debate with Moe about the troubles that plagued the film and how they came about or discuss the film itself. I do feel with Heaven's Gate that there has always been an element of dump all you can onto Cimino and he is expected to take the entire blame for all that happened not just on his set but to the studio and to people and projects he had nothing to do with. The collapse of the studio and any projects that did not get made were entirely the fault of the people that let Cimino make Heaven's Gate and failed all through the process to intervene until it was already way too late. They made the choice to pour money into Cimino's film over other films. Cimino took what they gave him and continued to give him. It was not his job to make sure United Artists behaved in a fiscally responsible manner...and they did not. Cimino was not hired to be an accountant, they wanted him to direct a massive film that would win awards in the same way The Deer Hunter did. They knew before he exposed even a foot of film that he would run over budget and that he had doubled the budget of The Deer Hunter. They went all in on that and felt $20 million was no problem at all to give him. As far as I'm concerned UA got all they asked for...trouble, cost overruns, and a director that would spend every cent and more they gave him to get what he wanted on film...I find it hard to swallow after the fact that they whine about Cimino sinking the company.

The point is not about if he should have the ability to cast who he wants. The point is that he made a deal then totally ignored his pledge when it went against him.
1. UA had always offered major freedom in production, but that was after certain key terms had been agreed to, and one of these was always casting of the major parts.
2. Cimino should not have agreed to the deal in the first place if he knew he would never budge on Huppert.
The point is that it could have been an agreement about anything, it could have been an agreement that Cimino would only wear red shoes for the making of the film, and then he wore the cowboy boots. The point was that his actions showed that he had no respect for his partners and that was the warning sign that it would all go wrong.
It had nothing to do with Huppert herself, it had to do with his word and what it was worth.

My point is, Moe, that Field's comments about the Huppert casting are nonsense and he sounds like he is blowing smoke when he says it. There is not a thing wrong with Cimino still fighting to get Huppert after they flew to France and heard her read...it is all the normal back and forth between "creative" and the "accountants."
1. UA had always offered major freedom in production, but that was after certain key terms had been agreed to, and one of these was always casting of the major parts.
Right and at that point the part still had not been cast. Cimino still had an actress he wanted and Field and company still had nothing so there was no issue with Cimino still fighting to get Huppert. Nothing was settled and when Field took the Huppert issue up the chain they said "No problem, oh, and give him $20 million too!"
I mean come on, Moe, you really think Cimino still trying to get Huppert was a "lie" or even an issue being that they did not have an actor cast in the part?
2. Cimino should not have agreed to the deal in the first place if he knew he would never budge on Huppert.
Why not if it was the only way to get them to listen to her read and get them to consider her? I don't see that as any great deception on Cimino's part. He got them to France to hear her and now they all had a perspective from which they could debate it. There is nothing wrong with that.
You know what Cimino's actions showed...they showed he would fight for what he wanted on his film and that is what they hired him for...to make creative decisions that improved the film. I honestly can't believe Field even tried to make an issue out of this.

 

[rsmithjr]

The various controversies about Heaven's Gate have been given enormous mind share over the years. These controversies can (and will) continue to be discussed I am sure.
What I would at last like to discuss is the film itself. This requires that people start to see it, take it seriously and on its own terms and not as an example of anything else than a film.
It remains my view that Heaven's Gate is an ignored masterpiece that has its own unique style and cinematic syntax to appreciate. It is not an easy film to process, and the various controversies have created prejudices and barriers against the essentially social process of film criticism and evaluation.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Why not if it was the only way to get them to listen to her read and get them to consider her? I don't see that as any great deception on Cimino's part. He got them to France to hear her and now they all had a perspective from which they could debate it. There is nothing wrong with that.
You know what Cimino's actions showed...they showed he would fight for what he wanted on his film and that is what they hired him for...to make creative decisions that improved the film. I honestly can't believe Field even tried to make an issue out of this.

This point is very simple and transparent. If this is Cimino's way of getting them to go see Huppert, then it is a calculated risk. If they still say no, and you agreed that would be the end of it if they did as you asked, then you can't keep fighting for her after the answer is still no.
It's going back on your word.
And that was Field's point - it had nothing to do with the merits of Huppert, it was simply the fact that Cimino had made a deal and not stuck to it, Field saw this as an omen of things to come and was proven right time and again.
If you believe that a director owes no loyalty to his own word in the pursuit of his vision, well then we can come to no agreement on this point.
I agree that others besides Cimino have blame in the events of 1978-80, but you seem to want to defend Cimino at all costs to "make up" for what was "done" to him.
As to Robert's point about discussing the film itself, well personally I've always been vastly more interested in the story around the film than the film itself. I just watched the prologue sequence on Netflix and that was about all I could take in one sitting. I'll dive in again in November when the Blu-Ray hits.
I'll probably watch the suppliments more than the film though.

 

[Richard--W]

Jeez. Look, every director has to fight for his creative vision. He has fight to make a film the way he wants to make it. Every director has to fight for the cast he knows is right because producers, agencies and studio execs always have other ideas and other preferences. The director has to stick to his guns. What Cimino did is not unusual. It is very usual. When you see Huppert in the film, you know that he was absolutely right to fight for her casting.
I do wish there could be a discussion of what happens in the film instead of all this speculation and second-guessing about what happened behind the scenes.