A Few Words About A few words about...™ Heaven's Gate -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Allansfirebird]

I disagree. Final Cut remains a valuable document providing essential information about the making of this film. Those decades of reconsideration have been about the film, not about the accuracy of Mr. Bach's book.

Hell, I think Final Cut should be required reading for anyone interested on film history and production. It's a guide book on all the wrong ways to make a movie: the warning signs of a prima donna director, how inept producers can be, how easy it is to push a production past the point of no return. It's an unendingly intriguing and fascinating story, and it absolutely needs to be told in connection to the film.

Like Joe Mankiewicz's "Cleopatra," the behind-the-scenes stories on the making of the film will always be a part of the experience. It can't just be about the film anymore.

 

[Bob Cashill]

Yes but it was those stories that blotted out the film for decades. I'm not saying that the book is inaccurate, but I am saying that for years more people knew the film from the book and the subsequent documentary than from the film itself, a situation that repertory screenings and the Blu-Rays from Criterion and from France (both outstanding in their own, well-supplemented ways) are helping to correct. To say that there's nothing left to say about the film and its production that the book left unsaid is blinkered.

 

[Vincent_P]

I disagree. Final Cut remains a valuable document providing essential information about the making of this film. Those decades of reconsideration have been about the film, not about the accuracy of Mr. Bach's book.

Actually the accuracy of the book is directly questioned by the later FINAL CUT documentary, wherein David Field recounts a completely different version of the story of casting Isabelle Huppert compared to the version in the book.

Look, I do love the book, in fact it's what made me want to actually watch HEAVEN'S GATE in the first place. But, in the introduction even Bach admits that both Field and Cimino would probably have very different versions of the events portrayed in the book (neither Field nor Cimino co-operated with Bach during the writing of the book), and this is borne out in the documentary when Field recounts his version of the battle surrounding the casting of Huppert and it's completely different than the version Bach wrote about in his book.

Vincent

 

[Robin9]

Yes but it was those stories that blotted out the film for decades. I'm not saying that the book is inaccurate, but I am saying that for years more people knew the film from the book and the subsequent documentary than from the film itself, a situation that repertory screenings and the Blu-Rays from Criterion and from France (both outstanding in their own, well-supplemented ways) are helping to correct. To say that there's nothing left to say about the film and its production that the book left unsaid is blinkered.

Your perspective is unbalanced. No-one has suggested that other points of view and other information should not also be taken into consideration. We are saying that Final Cut provides central information about the making of Heaven's Gate, and that to dismiss it because it throws an unflattering light upon Michael Cimino is foolish.

 

[Robin9]

Actually the accuracy of the book is directly questioned by the later FINAL CUT documentary, wherein David Field recounts a completely different version of the story of casting Isabelle Huppert compared to the version in the book.

Look, I do love the book, in fact it's what made me want to actually watch HEAVEN'S GATE in the first place. But, in the introduction even Bach admits that both Field and Cimino would probably have very different versions of the events portrayed in the book (neither Field nor Cimino co-operated with Bach during the writing of the book), and this is borne out in the documentary when Field recounts his version of the battle surrounding the casting of Huppert and it's completely different than the version Bach wrote about in his book.

Vincent

First, Mr. Field's memory of that incident is certainly different but is - as far as I know - as unproven as Mr. Bach's. In other words, we don't know for sure that Mr. Bach's version is wrong.

Second, as Mr. Bach recognised and acknowledged, people's memories of any event or series of events always differ. This is one of the most frustrating aspects of police detection. This does not invalidate an honest point of view. It merely means that anyone trying to arrive at the truth needs to cross check that recollection with undisputed facts and other honest opinions.

I am not aware of any other parts of Mr. Bach's narrative being challenged.

 

[Bob Cashill]

It's only recently that other narratives, be they books or interview segments, have surfaced about the film, due in part to the film being more widely available. Thus, rather than being viewed as the "last word" on the subject, as I wrote before, the book should take its place among other narratives regarding its tumultuous production, its critical reception and non-release, and its reappraisal.

 

[Wade Sowers]

This is, of course, why we have forensic evidence at a trial and give it more weight than we do an eyewitness, everyone sees the same event differently, as, apparently, Mr. Bach realizes. We will probably never know "for sure" what took place. As someone said above, this does not discount or diminish the value of Mr. Bach's perceptions, his memory, or his reasons for seeing events as he did, it is just that we now have other's input to consider, as well as the film itself (which has its own voice that is, to me, the most important). All of this recent commentary about HEAVEN'S GATE is welcome and important, another piece of the puzzle that is this great movie. We should celebrate a growing body of work and the level of continued interest in a film that was mutilated and tossed in the garbage a few decades ago.

 

[Bob Cashill]

Mobians united! (Only Wade and Vincent will understand this. )

 

[Malcolm Bmoor]

I have no special knowledge of Final Cut but from reading the late Steven Bach's other books - biographies of Marlene Dietrich, Moss Hart & Charles Lindbergh - I have complete respect for his research accuracy. How could he be wrong on the matter of Isabel Huppert's casting or anything else when he had daily close involvement? And kept notes.

Recent contrary views waited a very long time to emerge and in some cases represent people who refused to contribute to the book. It's impossible to prove but I vote for Mr Bach.

I saw the first release of Heavan's Gate in London (the shortened version in 70mm) and despite some confusions arising from those trims enjoyed the experience and admired the picture.

When the long version arrived I saw it at the NFT in 70mm and understood the initial reaction. Without wishing to cause controversy or offence I decided then that I'd seen it for the last time and that it was indeed vastly overlength and inflated into self conscious grandeur by an indulgent director assured of his own divinity.

Yes, some of the imagery remains clearly in mind but so does the folly of his production methods, story expansion and interference in the sound that rendered much of the dialogue incoherent. No competent dubbing mixer would have delivered that mix and when it happens it's always the fault of the director. I realize that the Blu-ray has improved upon that fiasco and maybe one day I'll yield to curiosity and buy it, but although I reccommend that everyone sees Heavan's Gate once I doubt its classic status. I'll reserve that category for productions on a scale in keeping with the scope of the narrative.

I wonder how many people are viewing the Blu-ray as a straight through cinema experience (one Intermission) rather than in sections with breaks. It's that solid viewing that results in sensory overload and a desperation to escape.

Full Circle Re-evaluation anyone?

 

[Wade Sowers]

I wonder how many people are viewing the Blu-ray as a straight through cinema experience (one Intermission) rather than in sections with breaks. It's that solid viewing that results in sensory overload and a desperation to escape.

Full Circle Re-evaluation anyone?

Well, I saw HEAVEN'S GATE the week it was first released (before trashing) and loved it, intermission and all. I have since seen it on laser disc, twice at film festivals (both times in 70mm), then once again on the new Criterion Blu-ray - no "sensory overload", no "desperation to escape". This is not to imply I am right in my response and you are wrong, this just speaks to my point above that people do not necessarily see the same thing when they experience an event, and this certainly applies to our response to art. To restate one last time, that is why, in my opinion, it is wonderful to have different people now writing about this film and its creation, whether or not they wanted to be interviewed by Mr. Bach. However, I doubt any of this additional discussion (written or otherwise) will change my initial and subsequent response to this movie; after all is said and done that is what really matters, and both of ours are perfectly valid.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I can only say that I think what people say about the film, the process of making it, and the people involved to me remains totally separate from the film itself and has nothing at all to do with the experience of watching Heaven's Gate.

Watching the film for me, personally, is a fantastic experience. It is beautiful to look at, the acting is quite good, it is an engrossing story that probably is even more relevant now than when the film was made, the sets, locations, costumes, props are all magnificent, and you can see that the money that was spent on the film is definitely up there on the screen.

Now the one major error with the making of the film I would certainly agree was always the sound mix that buries the dialogue...however the blu-ray has improved this situation to a great degree.

All of the fuss over the cost overruns on the film I put solely and completely on United Artists and their executives that oversaw the picture. I've read Mr. Bach's book (in fact reread it last summer) and I think it is a fair account. The one guy in the whole mess that to me comes across as a snake and the one that could not and should not be trusted is absolutely without question David Field. I would not trust that guy as far as I could throw him. In Bach's book I think he comes across as sneaky and backstabbing and out only for himself. Seeing him in the documentary made me think even less of him as his "game changing moment" story about the casting of Huppert rings so hollow and false it is ridiculous and does not jibe with anybody else's account. Basically, I don't think he is "remembering it differently" I think the guy is just plain dishonest.

Bottom line is I think Cimino attempted to deliver the picture everybody wanted but by the time they got to putting it out nobody would stand behind it anymore. To me Cimino was made the fall guy and was an easy target. He was publicly crucified because he spent the money that United Artists threw at him...which is in itself a giant joke. Every time he asked for more they backed up another dump truck of cash and gave it to him all while telling him they wanted some sort of masterpiece from him. So he did not end up making a masterpiece but you can see from what is up there on the screen he tried like hell to get there.

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

Didn't Cimino also keep the land for himself that he purchased for the big battles scene? A few hundred acres in Montana? Not that he's the only one who's pulled that stunt.* I also remember I was working in the industry in Hollywood at the time and heard the supposed cocaine budget figure ($300,000) from other sources in addition to the Bach book, (if not in it).

I re-approached the film more recently on the Criterion BD with a completely open and blank slate mind that happens to adores western. I still don't adore this one. It looks beautiful, but the story is a poorly paced mess infused with the director's delusions of self importance, as if every scene was sacred. (A well-documented symptom of too much you know what). They weren't. And neither is this attempt at an artistic western.


*(Another famous story is Blake Edwards building a big house on Malibu beach for S.O.B. with the intention to keep it, but then seeing it later torn down for a zoning violation.)

 

[ljgranberry]

HTF members in Dallas - the Magnolia Theater will be screening the film as part of their Big Movie series March 10 at 7:30.

 

[Vincent_P]

Didn't Cimino also keep the land for himself that he purchased for the big battles scene? A few hundred acres in Montana? Not that he's the only one who's pulled that stunt.* I also remember I was working in the industry in Hollywood at the time and heard the supposed cocaine budget figure ($300,000) from other sources in addition to the Bach book, (if not in it).

Not quite. The "scandal", as I understood it as written in the FINAL CUT book, was that Cimino bought the land, then "rented" it to the production for use as the battle scene location, and also did improvements to the land on the company dime (i.e., clearing rocks and installing an irrigation system). But- as I understand it from Bach's book- he bought the property himsef, and when he was caught trying to write off improvements on it to the film's budget, he was forced to change the location for the final battle scene in the end.

Vincent

 

[Robin9]

I've read Mr. Bach's book (in fact reread it last summer) and I think it is a fair account. The one guy in the whole mess that to me comes across as a snake and the one that could not and should not be trusted is absolutely without question David Field. I would not trust that guy as far as I could throw him. In Bach's book I think he comes across as sneaky and backstabbing and out only for himself. Seeing him in the documentary made me think even less of him as his "game changing moment" story about the casting of Huppert rings so hollow and false it is ridiculous and does not jibe with anybody else's account. Basically, I don't think he is "remembering it differently" I think the guy is just plain dishonest.

Harsh words. I don't want you to indulge in character assassination, but I would be interested in the details of how you formed that opinion of Mr. Field. I know nothing about him or his career other than what I gleaned from the book and the documentary.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Hi Robin, no character assassination intended. Basically if you take the two most well known examinations of the film --Bach's book and the documentary-- and take a close look at how Bach portrays him in Final Cut and then how Field's own comments in the documentary do seem to be out of line in comparison to other accounts...particularly his big damning moment of Cimino over the casting of Huppert...I think a picture of a guy playing all sides to his own advantage is what emerges. In Bach's book Field ends up being dishonest with Bach, bails on UA and the film leaving everything in Bach's lap, it appears he was blowing smoke at Cimino and Carrelli, plus he was the one actually in charge of getting them reeled in and failed to do so all while giving answers to people that seemed only to serve him and not who he was working for or the production of the film. To me Field just seems the weak link.

Cimino was an easy target, an odd man with a huge ego that he failed to keep on a leash that rubbed the press the wrong way and he did push as hard as he could to get everything he wanted to make the film...but you can see in the film itself he really tried to get great things up on the screen. He just could not make choices as he made his film and also often made bad ones when he did...but I think he was greatly helped by the studio people overseeing the film in being indecisive and making bad choices...and Field looks like the prime culprit.

 

[Robin9]

Hi Robin, no character assassination intended. Basically if you take the two most well known examinations of the film --Bach's book and the documentary-- and take a close look at how Bach portrays him in Final Cut and then how Field's own comments in the documentary do seem to be out of line in comparison to other accounts...particularly his big damning moment of Cimino over the casting of Huppert...I think a picture of a guy playing all sides to his own advantage is what emerges. In Bach's book Field ends up being dishonest with Bach, bails on UA and the film leaving everything in Bach's lap, it appears he was blowing smoke at Cimino and Carrell, plus he was the one actually in charge of getting them reeled in and failed to do so all while giving answers to people that seemed only to serve him and not who he was working for or the production of the film. To me Field just seems the weak link.

Cimino was an easy target, an odd man with a huge ego that he failed to keep on a leash that rubbed the press the wrong way and he did push as hard as he could to get everything he wanted to make the film...but you can see in the film itself he really tried to get great things up on the screen. He just could not make choices as he made his film and also often made bad ones when he did...but I think he was greatly helped by the studio people overseeing the film in being indecisive and making bad choices...and Field looks like the prime culprit.

I watched the documentary again last night, with your opinion of Mr. Field in mind. I'm still undecided about him and I'm now going to read Final Cut again.

Whatever character faults Mr. Field may or may not have, what I noticed from the documentary is some people who are sympathetic to Michael Cimino made really damaging remarks about his way of working. The assistant editor with the English accent spoke candidly about Cimino's attitude to the studio and Brad Dourif talked about taking fifty takes because they were experimenting about which approach to a scene worked best.

No matter how stupid and incompetent Messrs Field and Bach were in giving Michael Cimino a free hand, that formula had worked well for the company for a long time and not been abused by, for example, Harry Saltzman and Cubby Broccoli. It was Michael Cimino who abused the system, not Mr. Field and Mr. Bach.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Well, I'd say there is no question Cimino's way of working was hugely flawed and UA knew his attitude toward studio oversight going in because they knew all about how he behaved on The Deer Hunter. Those things I don't think have ever been in question. Cimino did take way too long shooting Heaven's Gate and wasted loads of time and miles of film in the process. So, I think it is 1000% fair to say Cimino's process in making the film was way too overindulgent. However, it seems that the people that worked on the film with him, including Dourif enjoyed working with him. Also in his dealings with the studio there is no question Cimino's behavior was detrimental to the film and he was no gentleman. So, I am in no way saying Cimino is not at fault for the film failing...he owns a huge part of that...but there is also no question he worked very hard to make the best film he thought he could make...he just had nobody around to tell him that he was not making a great film.

Here's a compare and contrast for you if you go back and read Bach's book. First, obviously, look at Bach's explanation of the Huppert situation and also look at Bach's portrayal of Andy Albeck and Norbert Auerbach...particularly Albeck. Bach paints Albeck as very bright, incredibly shrewd, and as a good, decent, and very fair man that very carefully examines every situation. In the documentary Field paints Albeck and Auerbach as bumbling Abbott and Costello types that act like total morons in the face of Field's hero--himself--openly telling them that Cimino can't be trusted and he can't place a number on the final cost of the film. This does not sound like the same Albeck that Bach describes and it is notable that Field's claims are based on a closed door meeting that included only he Albeck and Auerbach. The Albeck in Bach's book would have immediately stopped things in their tracks if Bach or Field told him that they had no idea what the film would cost and that the cost would likely escalate to over $24 million. The Albeck in Bach's book knew not to trust Cimino and did not trust him but did trust both Bach and Field. The Albeck in Bach's book was obsessed with collecting information and attention to the details...because that was all he had to use to judge where a picture was going.

So, are we to buy Field's story that behind closed doors in this meeting Andy Albeck acted in an asinine manner claiming Albeck thought any budget up to 20 million dollars or more was "NO PROBLEM" when in Bach's book Albeck is not at all happy EVER with the possibility of having an open sliding escalating budget nor is that something his behavior would ever indicate he would ever embrace in the idiotic manner Field describes. Field describes Albeck taking his information that "Cimino can't be trusted and I can't tell you what this film will cost." by sitting in his chair smiling and saying "What's the problem, David, Norbert says we can cover that in foreign."

That does not add up.

Bach seems like a gentleman and he takes it easy on everybody in his book including Cimino and Bach wrote his book in the early 1980s closer to the actual events. However, Bach's descriptions of Field's behavior seem to show Field was angry, insecure, secretive, manipulative, unhappy and likely to either say nothing or just tell people what they wanted to hear. He does not judge these things or really call Field out on these things (but he is careful to mention them) until he expresses both his shock and disappointment toward the end of the book when Field abruptly walks out on UA and Bach (going back on a deal they had to warn each other if they get an offer to leave UA) dumping the whole mess into Bach's lap.

 

[JoeDoakes]

Remarkably fascinating interview with Michael Cimino : https://www.yahoo.com/movies/jon-voight-jane-fonda-and-michael-cimino-attend-111486364587.html. Read it!

 

[ljgranberry]

HEAVEN'S GATE will screen in Dallas at the Magnolia Theater on March 10 at 7:30.