Alonzo wrote:Is HEAVEN'S GATE as bad as everyone says?
My answer: not at all; it's remarkable. The reasons why it was rejected are worth looking into, in my opinion.
First, the film was called "extravagant," a "waste," and so on, because it was a very ambitious and expensive project for Cimino, who was following up the acclaimed Deer Hunter, but it failed to bring a return on United Artists' investment, partly because of Cimino's particular artistic decisions and partly because of errors in judgment by UA. It's of course a regular custom to lash back at the sophomore effort of a much-hyped artist. (Heaven's Gate was really the third film Cimino had directed, but he hadn't gotten nearly the same degree of attention for his first, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, so I believe this custom took place with his second and third films.)
Also, because the film's expense was given so much publicity, audiences were probably expecting an easily digested Western extravaganza. Instead, what they got was a harsh, atmospheric look at U.S. imperial expansion told through the story of the destruction of a group of immigrant farmers -- a story told in a way that defied many longstanding Hollywood conventions.
One of these conventions is to develop important character relationships early on in the film. In Heaven's Gate, the relationship between the characters played by Walken, Kristofferson, and Huppert is established gradually, and the viewer does not grasp all the important nuances of it until around 100 minutes into the film. I could attempt an explanation of why Cimino structured the film this way, but that's a subject that would require an entire essay, so I'll let it go at that, unless someone wants to discuss this particular point.
Another convention is to clearly establish the narrative importance of the main characters so that the viewer can easily distinguish between major characters and marginal ones. In Heaven's Gate, John Hurt's character seems to play a central role, but is nearly always removed from the film's action. But this is precisely the point: his character, while important, is marginal because of his personal demons, his cynicism, cowardice, etc. His importance to the story is abundantly clear to me, every time I think about it.
These "difficult" elements, among others, were I believe quite deliberate on Cimino's part, in order to make the film richer and more thought-provoking. However, the audience was thrown off by them. Combined with the requirement of sitting through such subtleties for 220 minutes, audiences rejected it outright. One important point when discussing the film's structure is that Cimino stated that the original 220-minute cut was not satisfactory to him, but he was pressured by United Artists to release it on the prearranged date even though he didn't consider it finished. When it premiered in three cities, audiences did not respond favorably and the film was withdrawn almost immediately and drastically shortened, making it a total mess. If we accept that neither cut fully represented Cimino's intentions, then who knows what might have been possible? As it stands, however, the 220-minute cut is easily one of the greatest Hollywood films of its era, for me.
It's reputation has been rehabilitated slightly as more and more people have had the chance to see the longer cut first on Z Channel (see last year's Z Channel: A Magnificent Obsession) and then on home video. I still don't see many critics praising it. Like many other things, the attacks were intensified by peer pressure. Talking about what a critical and financial disaster Heaven's Gate was became the fashionable thing to do, for viewers and critics alike. All I can say is to encourage people to see it (or see it again and reconsider). It'll be a cold day in hell when MGM does it, but the film really deserves a 3-disc SE, which would improve the video quality and would provide yet another opportunity for reassesment.
EDIT: After that last sentence, I should add that the current DVD is well worth the $14. There are a few reel-change marks and a little dirt, but other than that it's an excellent anamorphic transfer that does justice to Vilmos Zsigmond's outstanding cinematography. EDIT again for typos.
