636 Heaven's Gate

[knives]

I thought that was a given too and it may very well be announced later on down the road, but considering the length of the film two Blus makes sense.

[Jeff]

Oddly, for a two-disc release, the extras seem a little light here (or is it just me?). There's no Final Cut: The Making and Unmaking of Heaven's Gate, which I thought was a given.

It's not a very flattering portrait of Cimino, who approved this release.

[Cronenfly]

Yeah, I'm guessing having Cimino on board nixed any supplements dealing in depth with the film's initially negative publicity/reception.

[knives]

Which might actually turn out to be a virtue as it gives a stronger chance to focus on the film itself and allow it to stand as its own work.

[zedz]

Yeah, I'm betting Cimino's ego got in the way. He probably also demanded that his name be as big as the film title on the cover!

[swo17]

How long was the cut of the film that was previously available on DVD?

[Cronenfly]

How long was the cut of the film that was previously available on DVD?

219 minutes, versus 216 for this version, so it's actually three minutes shorter.

[andyli]

In that case couldn't he have given a commentary track?

EDIT: I'm referring to Cimino's involvement in this project.

[fasozupow]

They describe it as Cimino's Cut. Neither prior cut was approved by him. So I'm sure he trimmed and tweaked a bit.

The only real disappointments for me are the cover art and the lack of Robin Wood's essay.

[Professor Wagstaff]

Oddly, for a two-disc release, the extras seem a little light here (or is it just me?). There's no Final Cut: The Making and Unmaking of Heaven's Gate, which I thought was a given.

Doesn't Cimino deny the validity of Bach's book? To get his approval for the release, I'm sure Criterion had to nix anything related to the book/documentary. I'm actually in the middle of reading it for the first time after years of hearing the accounts and I'm not surprised this would be slipped under the rug.

[Cold Bishop]

This is one disc where they should have just risked jettisoning the "Director's Approval" seal... especially since it doesn't seem they were able to get Cimino to do a commentary, interview or anything. Both Final Cut and the 149 minute theatrical were such no-brainers for what a Criterion edition usually is, that its staggering they didn't try for one (its possible there's right problems for the former).

[FilmFanSea]

... especially since it doesn't seem they were able to get Cimino to do a commentary, interview or anything.

New illustrated audio interview with Cimino and producer Joann Carelli

[Cold Bishop]

It better be a long and substantial one, otherwise its not worth nixing the doc.

[Cronenfly]

Final Cut can be watched in full on Youtube as of this writing, and the book is not too hard to come by, so that's no great loss to my way of thinking, but seeing as the shorter version of HG has never surfaced on home video it sure would have been nice to have for comparison's sake. And if Final Cut (the documentary) is anything to go by, Cimino himself requested that the film be pulled so he could shorten it, so I don't buy that the initial cut/shortened version are anything but Cimino's own doing, even if this new, final final cut is the only one he now feels comfortable signing off on.

[Cold Bishop]

I hardly consider Youtube a valid release. I hope it gets out there somehow. It's a fantastic documentary, one that actually improves upon and tempers the more disparaging tone of Bach's book (which I've considered more valuable for its insider's look at studio politics than as a production history of the film).

I believe it was even originally commissioned for the planned-then-abandoned Special Edition from MGM. Michael Epstein's wanted to release it solo in the past, but MGM fees for the footage is too high; this edition really seemed like the perfect way to go.

[warren oates]

I hardly consider Youtube a valid release. I hope it gets out there somehow. It's a fantastic documentary, one that actually improves upon and tempers the more disparaging tone of Bach's book (which I've considered more valuable for its insider's look at studio politics than as a production history of the film).

Like Cronenfly, I was about to chime in with "Why not just read the book," but you've made a convincing case for the documentary. Still, I can't see how Criterion could have released this film without Cimino's okay on the A/V materials and he'd have been loath to give it if there were supplements he hated. Still, I wish he or Vilmos or both had done a commentary, though with longer films commentaries often make less sense. I'm curious about the missing three minutes but not so curious that I'll be hanging onto my standard def DVD. Anyway, I love this film and am so psyched for the Criterion Blu-ray. Most detractors out there likely have only seen the butchered shorter cut.

[Cronenfly]

Just to counter some of the carping, I'll note that the new interview will undoubtedly afford the pleasure of gazing at Cimino's new face.

The interview is audio-only, sadly.

[John Cope]

The only real disappointments for me are the cover art and the lack of Robin Wood's essay.

Hard to understand the former troubling you as it's the original poster art. As to what's missing footage wise, I was under the impression that it was intermission material that Cimino had removed.

[TedW]

I actually thought Bach seemed more bitter in the documentary than his voice in the book. I preferred the book, which was more comprehensive -- and gave more context, as UA was also battling cost overruns on Apocalypse Now, disappointing numbers for Stardust Memories, etc. And Cimino doesn't really explain his side of it enough in the film for it to matter. As far as the film... well, I think I'll just turn the sound off and watch the pretty pictures.

(Actually, a new mix would've gone further to improve the picture than any editing.)

[Arthur House]

As to what's missing footage wise, I was under the impression that it was intermission material that Cimino had removed.

I just checked my copy of the MGM disc, and the intermission isn't even 2 minutes. It begins @ 2:07:25 (point of full fade out) and ends @ 2:09:10 (point of full fade in) for a total of 1:45. Also, the intermission music continues to play under the next scene after the film starts up again.

Even though I regard the film to be a grand folly, it's good to see a better edition of this nevertheless extremely important movie finally happening. The MGM is from 2000, non-anamorphic letterbox, and a fair to middling transfer to boot.

[Wes Moynihan]

I agree that the omission of the doc is unfortunate, but I'm really delighted to see Criterion put this out and should do much to reinstate the film as one of the great American pictures of the era. The film is too routinely dismissed as a disaster by people who only know the film by reputation. I'm not sure if the business of the director's cut is anything to get excited about, as I understand it the film has long been available in the 219min version, shorter versions are much rarer these days (mercifully so). Time to get a multi-region Blu-Ray player I think…

[stwrt]

How long was the cut of the film that was previously available on DVD?

219 minutes, versus 216 for this version, so it's actually three minutes shorter.

Let's hope it's either from the prologue or it's the epilogue in its entirety.

[Cold Bishop]

Let's hope it's either from the prologue or it's the epilogue in its entirety.

The film would be so much smaller without either of them. There's a reason that even UA themselves - after principal production ended, having had it with Cimino's antics, with a budget that was even then clearly unable to be recouped, and being pressured to cut their losses and drop the two shoots - buckled down and shot the prologue/epilogue anyways: the film would be a completely different beast altogether. I remember the argument, as laid out in Final Cut, was something along the lines that (the studio, and not Cimino, being the one to request them), without them, the film was just another Western; with them, it became an American epic. Definitely inaccurately snobbish towards the genre, but not inaccurate in what they accomplish for the film.

The only compromise: shooting the epilogue on a sound stage. Along with trying to pass Kristofferson and Hurt off as school boys (and for the trained eye, trying to pass off Oxford as Harvard), the obvious greenscreen background is one of the true flaws of the film. But even it has its own "accidental" charm. The beautiful naturalism of the Montana landscape being completely consumed by the artifice of a fake sea, just as Kristofferson sells out his ideals and retreats back into his money.

Honestly, I'm hard pressed to think of a single scene that could lose three minutes. Maybe the final chaos of the massacre could be tightened up, maybe he did touch-up work here and there. There's also the fact that the theatrical version, while shorter, in fact included lots of deleted footage (another reason it should have been included): perhaps Cimino was tempted to tap that. Either way, count me cautiously curious.

[MichaelB]

Final Cut can be watched in full on Youtube as of this writing, and the book is not too hard to come by, so that's no great loss to my way of thinking, but seeing as the shorter version of HG has never surfaced on home video it sure would have been nice to have for comparison's sake.

As with the butchered versions of Andrei Rublev* and Once Upon a Time in America, is there any particular reason to watch it now that longer versions are back in circulation?

(*by which I mean the significantly truncated cut that played theatrically in the early 1970s, not Tarkovsky's own shorter cut as found on the Ruscico/Artificial Eye DVDs)

[Cold Bishop]

I don't think there's much reason to watch the "Love Conquers All" version of Brazil, but I'm glad its there, as it should be. It's a significant part of the history of the film.

Hell, just a supplement outlining the differences, as they've included in past releases (The Night and the City US vs UK comparison springs to mind) would be welcome. Especially, as mentioned above, there's alternate takes and deleted footage, not to mention a completely different structure and continuity (and despite its reputation as "bloated", the 219 minute version has a very precise structure).

The short version was released in France (poor saps... they stump for the film, and then they're stuck with the butchered cut). If it's not OOP, one could bite the bullet and track it down.