criterionforum.org

Well, the old theatrical release of Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid turns up on Irish television from time to time and it is interesting to watch, and the shorter version of Dawn of the Dead is far superior to the slightly longer version...

...getting back to Heaven’s Gate.

I don’t think this ever had a UK DVD release which I often wondered was due to the cuts the BBFC would surely be compelled to make to some of the horse fall scenes. You wouldn’t imagine MGM would be so fussy about a minute’s worth of cuts, but the film has been released in Germany and Holland (and Australia, where I got my copy) so it’s something of a mystery...

Wes Moynihan wrote:the shorter version of Dawn of the Dead is far superior to the slightly longer version...

Yes, but that's Romero's preferred cut as well, so it's a different situation.

I don’t think this ever had a UK DVD release which I often wondered was due to the cuts the BBFC would surely be compelled to make to some of the horse fall scenes. You wouldn’t imagine MGM would be so fussy about a minute’s worth of cuts, but the film has been released in Germany and Holland (and Australia, where I got my copy) so it’s something of a mystery...

Wasn't it Heaven's Gate specifically that led to the American Humane Association gaining much greater influence on film production?

The film was never released on UK DVD, but it had a pan-and-scan VHS release in 1986, and the BBFC website confirms that both the theatrical and video versions were cut, the video version by over a minute. No reason is given, but animal cruelty is overwhelmingly likely: even in the James Ferman era, the BBFC was generally reluctant to cut films by important Oscar-winning directors unless they were legally problematic.

Interestingly, the BBFC website doesn't list the full version as having been submitted prior to 1986, although the famous NFT premiere of the longer cut was in in 1983. That played theatrically at the ABC Shaftesbury Avenue London's West End shortly afterwards, but BBFC classification still wouldn't have been compulsory, and Camden Council was pretty laid back about these issues.

So much ballyhoo has grown up around the film but I recall a story that a reporter was on set as an extra and leaked stories of animal mistreatment during the production. I don't know enough about the legislation the BBFC would have to comply with, but the film's cockfighting sequence might prove contentious as well. So still a troublesome film all these years...

Wes Moynihan wrote:So much ballyhoo has grown up around the film but I recall a story that a reporter was on set as an extra and leaked stories of animal mistreatment during the production.

I don't have my copy of Final Cut immediately to hand, but that rings a pretty loud bell. There was certainly a huge row about animal mistreatment during the film's production - this was the other big story besides the runaway-budget one.

I don't know enough about the legislation the BBFC would have to comply with, but the film's cockfighting sequence might prove contentious as well. So still a troublesome film all these years...

The Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act of 1937 essentially bans the distribution of footage of genuine animal cruelty that was inflicted specifically for the purpose of the film. I suspect the people who drew up the legislation intended it to be more draconian than it turned out to be, but in practice the BBFC has deliberately interpreted it as narrowly as they can get away with - for instance, passing footage where the cruelty has been faked, where actual killings are instant (so no infliction of pain), where the cruelty would definitely have happened regardless of the cameras' presence, and so on.

But Heaven's Gate was precisely the kind of film that the legislation was designed to crack down on - if I remember rightly, it was the mistreatment of horses in the 1936 Charge of the Light Brigade that led to the Animals Act being passed in the first place. So it's very unlikely that the film could be passed uncut for DVD/BD distribution in the UK even today.

Thanks Michael. The Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act is a fascinating topic and is best done elsewhere but I've never understood how the UK DVD edition of The Abyss had to have that awkwardly reframed shot of the submerged mouse, while Apocalypse Now's bull-slaughter scene has never been tampered with (I've never really bought the whole it-was-gonna-happen-anyway-so-we-just-filmed-it)

Getting back to Heaven's Gate once again... I could easily watch an even longer version of the film if it was made available. I've seen the 219min version 5 or 6 times over the years and certain parts of the film are a little incoherent at times, at least to me. Still a mesmerizing experience nonetheless.

Cold Bishop wrote: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.

F.X. Feeney says the intermission is indeed gone, so that's roughly one minute and 45 seconds. I'd guess that the additional changes (just over a minute, perhaps) are just trims and tightening here and there.

zedz wrote: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!

I suspect there's actually some truth to that. Cimino's name, though usually in a lighter font, is the same height as the title on original posters, the MGM DVD cover, and other promotional material. He also gets the possessive credit on all material related to the film. I suspect it was all a condition of his original contract. You'd think with all the work he's had done they could have shrunk the size of his head.

Wes Moynihan wrote:Thanks Michael. The Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act is a fascinating topic and is best done elsewhere but I've never understood how the UK DVD edition of The Abyss had to have that awkwardly reframed shot of the submerged mouse, while Apocalypse Now's bull-slaughter scene has never been tampered with (I've never really bought the whole it-was-gonna-happen-anyway-so-we-just-filmed-it)

I'm assuming that it was because it was a clean kill - the BBFC interprets that as being OK.

MichaelB wrote:

I don't know enough about the legislation the BBFC would have to comply with, but the film's cockfighting sequence might prove contentious as well. So still a troublesome film all these years...

The Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act of 1937 essentially bans the distribution of footage of genuine animal cruelty that was inflicted specifically for the purpose of the film. I suspect the people who drew up the legislation intended it to be more draconian than it turned out to be, but in practice the BBFC has deliberately interpreted it as narrowly as they can get away with - for instance, passing footage where the cruelty has been faked, where actual killings are instant (so no infliction of pain), where the cruelty would definitely have happened regardless of the cameras' presence, and so on.

But Heaven's Gate was precisely the kind of film that the legislation was designed to crack down on - if I remember rightly, it was the mistreatment of horses in the 1936 Charge of the Light Brigade that led to the Animals Act being passed in the first place. So it's very unlikely that the film could be passed uncut for DVD/BD distribution in the UK even today.

It should probably be pointed out that Heaven's Gate is available on iTunes UK with the running time listed as 3:39:13 and the rating as U.

Jeff wrote:

zedz wrote: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!

I suspect there's actually some truth to that. Cimino's name, though usually in a lighter font, is the same height as the title on original posters, the MGM DVD cover, and other promotional material. He also gets the possessive credit on all material related to the film. I suspect it was all a condition of his original contract.

This was undoubtedly the case. Because his fall from grace was so abrupt, it's hard to recall just how huge Cimino was at the time Heaven's Gate was greenlit.

Some of the reviews of the day were spectacularly vicious. This one of my favourite ones...

"It fails so completely that you might suspect Mr. Cimino sold his soul to obtain the success of The Deer Hunter and the Devil has just come around to collect"
Vincent Canby, New York Times.

Wes Moynihan wrote:Some of the reviews of the day were spectacularly vicious.

Pauline Kael began her review with "While watching the three-hour-and-thirty-nine-minute Heaven's Gate, I thought it was easy to see what to cut. But when I tried afterward to think of what to keep, my mind went blank."

John Cope wrote:

fasozupow wrote: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.

Yes, I've been told repeatedly today that the cover art was artwork for one of the original posters, Cimino's favorite out of the original posters, and the best of the original posters. All things I well know and agree with. But, that doesn't mean I have to like the artwork or feel it does the film any particular justice.

No comment on my disappointment over the apparent lack of Robin Wood's essay with this release? It is still the only writing about the film that truly understands and fully defends it. (If you know of others, link away, please.) Robin Wood went to his grave hoping that someone would challenge his reading of the film and engage him in discussion.

His essay is far more valuable for those wishing to re-evaluate the film than either version of Final Cut (documentary or book).

Calvin wrote: It should probably be pointed out that Heaven's Gate is available on iTunes UK with the running time listed as 3:39:13 and the rating as U.

Yeah, most likely the running time on the CC site is in error.

I completely agree with everything you're saying, fasozupow. The only reason I can think of for why they wouldn't want to include that great essay is its length. They seem to prefer short pieces, and Wood's essay in its final form (which I believe he expanded somewhat from its original form in Movie) when typeset for a blu booklet would take up roughly 20 pages or more (it also goes hand-in-hand with the earlier part about The Deer Hunter, which they surely wouldn't have wanted to include). They also may not have been able to get permission to reprint an excerpt that long, but who knows.

fasozupow wrote:

Calvin wrote: It should probably be pointed out that Heaven's Gate is available on iTunes UK with the running time listed as 3:39:13 and the rating as U.

Yeah, most likely the running time on the CC site is in error.

I don't think so, the Criterion homepage heralds it as "Michael Cimino's never before available cut"

Calvin wrote:

fasozupow wrote:

Calvin wrote: It should probably be pointed out that Heaven's Gate is available on iTunes UK with the running time listed as 3:39:13 and the rating as U.

Yeah, most likely the running time on the CC site is in error.

I don't think so, the Criterion homepage heralds it as "Michael Cimino's never before available cut"

Oh yeah. Good point. I guess now I only hope that Cimino hasn't tinkered his way into a whole new mess.

And damn, I guess I do need to keep my old DVD.

Calvin and fasozupow, in case you missed it upthread:

Jeff wrote:

Cold Bishop wrote: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.

F.X. Feeney says the intermission is indeed gone, so that's roughly one minute and 45 seconds. I'd guess that the additional changes (just over a minute, perhaps) are just trims and tightening here and there.

I doubt three missing minutes—over half of which is an intermission—means Cimino "tinkered his way into a whole new mess."

med wrote:I doubt three missing minutes—over half of which is an intermission—means Cimino "tinkered his way into a whole new mess."

I guess something that would create a whole new mess for me would be if he decided to include the bits of voiceover from the short version in the long version. But I haven't seen any evidence of this so I'm probably worrying about nothing. It all would depend on the nature of the tinkering which could be all sorts of things besides tiny trims.

I suppose Cimino could have re-sequenced the whole thing and substituted alternate takes, etc. but kept the running time relatively the same.

Seriously, does anyone know if Cimino had access to original elements and if there was any funding available for a new edit? Given the running time, I think Cimino loaded the transfer of the original long edit into an Avid and had Criterion do a little nip-and-tuck (play on words fully intended) to shorten a few shots.

Criterion doesn't often fund exclusive "Director's Cuts" themselves, do they? I know they allowed Gilliam to add two scenes and the alternate effects take of the final shot to their release of BRAZIL (and one line was trimmed as well). The "Comprehensive Version" of MR. ARKADIN was funded as well (although that was simply an HD assembly of a rough edit produced independently). Are there other examples where Criterion allowed a director to go back into an edit suite to significantly change a film they were intending to release?

Roger Ryan wrote:Are there other examples where Criterion allowed a director to go back into an edit suite to significantly change a film they were intending to release?

Peter Weir cut several minutes out of Picnic at Hanging Rock, though if I remember rightly the surgery itself was very straightforward.

I believe Ride with the Devil has some minor alterations thrown in.

Wes Anderson went back and substituted a single shot in Bottle Rocket—the close-up of the book Anthony grabs off the shelf during the bookstore robbery. Kicking and Screaming used a different title card.

knives wrote:I believe Ride with the Devil has some minor alterations thrown in.

It had whole new sections thrown in, better explaining motivations and the central conflict. I hadn't seen the film in years but a few scenes stood out as new, like a big scene with Mark Ruffalo, and according to the commentary the opening and the massacre later on were expanded upon. I was never fond of the film but I definitely think the cut on the Criterion edition is far better. My dad, a big Civil War buff (if that's the appropriate title) does consider the version on the Criterion release one of the better Civil War films he's seen.

I believe that the new print of BRAZIL that Universal struck after their vault fire is identical to the Criterion version as well. I don't know why Gilliam couldn't have just left it alone; I've always thought that the 1985 American cut was perfect as is.

To me, the most interesting things about F.X. Feeney's latest dispatch about the Criterion cut are (1) his speculation that the sound mix may have been improved to make the dialogue more audible, and (2) a description of a scene that appeared in the original cut but isn't in the long version (or, presumably, the Criterion cut). Which lends weight to the argument that the theatrical version should've been included.

(Most of that is in the comments section, not the body of the post. And I apologize for giving Jeffrey Wells's site more traffic.)