I draw the reader’s attention to the disclaimer at the bottom of the main piece…
(USA 1980 219m) DVD1
In principle, everything can be done
p Johann Carelli d Michael Cimino w Michael Cimino ph Vilmos Zsigmond ed Tom Rolf, William Reynolds, Lisa Fruchtman, Gerald Greenberg m David Mansfield art Tambi Larsen, Spencer Deverill, Maurice Fowler cos Allen Highfill
Kris Kristofferson (James Averill), Isabelle Huppert (Ella Watson), Christopher Walken (Nathan D.Champion), John Hurt (Billy Irvine), Sam Waterston (Frank Canton), Brad Dourif (Mr Eggleston), Joseph Cotten (Rev.Doctor), Jeff Bridges (John L.Bridges), Geoffrey Lewis, Richard Masur, Mickey Rourke, Willem Dafoe, Elizabeth McGovern,
Among a host of monumental films that bombed at the box office, stretching back to Intolerance through La Fin du Monde and Cleopatra, Heaven’s Gate surely still holds pride of place. Even now the very term ‘a Heaven’s Gate’ is synonymous for financial debacles in the movie industry. For here was a director, Michael Cimino, fresh from the almost universal praise allotted to his The Deer Hunter, given carte blanche to make whatever film he liked by a studio – United Artists – that would come to regret it. For all the endless vitriol and critical mutilation (one recalls Pauline Kael sharpening her poison quill with “it was easy to see what to cut, but when I tried afterward to think of what to keep, my mind went blank”), Cimino’s film deserves placing altogether higher in the eyes of posterity. To these eyes, it’s a far better film than The Deer Hunter, for all that film’s merits.
Twenty years after graduating from Harvard, James Averill returns to Caspar, Wyoming, after a visit to the east, and finds the town crowded with poverty and an incontrollable influx of immigrants. Soon after, he meets old friend Billy Irvine, who informs him over a game of pool that there is a death list of 125 settlers the wealthy cattle barons want to eliminate. Returning to Sweet Water, Johnson County, James delivers a present to his beloved Ella, the young immigrant madam of a brothel. To complicate matters, the cattle baron’s hired gun, Nathan Champion, also loves Ella.
It’s true that Cimino’s film is not for everyone, and the history is undoubtedly dubious, but it operates on such a massive canvas that few could dream of. At the time of its release it was seen as a masterpiece in Europe, though they were fortunate enough to see the full version (it was cut to 147m in the US). The casting likewise is off kilter with the afterthought of the Harvard opening showing the actors as far too old for their younger selves, while Kristofferson, Hurt and Walken seem rather subdued (one wonders if DeNiro was approached and for what role). Yet it can be argued that it’s that very subdued nature, beyond elegiac, that makes it all the more fascinating, as they submit themselves to the director’s vision. Few films have such a mixture of fatalism and nostalgia, while whole set pieces deserve their place amongst the very best yet filmed. The opening sequence was actually shot at Oxford just prior to Granada decamping there for Brideshead Revisited, but it’s still a magnificent sequence; the speech offered up by orator Hurt rather sums up the entire film (“we disclaim all intention of making a change in what we esteem, on the whole, well arranged”), while that offered by Cotten rather sums up the eternal struggle of the director with his audience that Cimino was doomed to lose and, like Von Stroheim before him, expected to. Yet even this magnificent scene is later topped in a remarkable roller-skating dance which literally takes the breath away.
The few people who came out of it unscathed were those who worked with Cimino behind the camera – Tambi Larsen’s sets were truly something to behold, while Vilmos Zsigmond’s photography is a beautiful mixture of gorgeous colours and muted sepia like browns in the towns. Not forgetting David Mansfield’s guitar score, which is often too beautiful to concentrate on the action. Culminating in an ending as enigmatic as that for Leone’s later Once Upon a Time in America, still discussed by adherents to this day, it’s a dazzling work. When Hurt asks Kristofferson “do you remember the good gone days?”, and Kristofferson replies “clear and better, every day I get older”, it rather sums up the way the entire film proves impossible to dislodge from memory. Simply a masterpiece.
The first thing I think that needs saying is that I wrote this piece several years ago (the original MS Word file has a created date of 22/06/06), but it was not without due irony that I read Bob Clark’s piece on the site several days ago and noticed him effectively close his piece with reference to the same quoted exchange between Kristofferson and Hurt. I hope neither will be open to charges of plagiarism, just one of those ironic coincidences that Bob and I both saw significance in the same quote as to the film’s mood.
Likewise, I think some may find it strange that two pieces, and two radically different ones in terms of length and tone, if not in their conclusion, could run at the same site within the space of a few days. That’s just the way it crumbles, cookie-wise and, if anything, my piece will be the sufferer (and rightly so) as the debate on the film will rightly have taken place on Bob’s meticulously detailed thesis which will win more converts than I ever could.
Regular contributors will likewise doubtless be amazed when it transpires Bob and I are in complete agreement on something, and I did notice the irony over a week ago when Clark came out with his comment about being the only one with love for Cimino’s film and I had to keep my trap shut.
Due to all this, I have actually scheduled this piece several days in advance (which don’t normally do so close to the end of the countdown as Sam cheats and tells everyone and their squash partners). This will also explain why I have stayed silent at Bob’s piece, as I’m sure it’s quite obvious now I could do no other. Once this piece is scheduled I’ll be sure to go back and give it the praise it deserves.
Finally, the doubters, especially those who have seen only the shortended version – which is like seeing the Last Supper minus four apostles – if two people as intrinsically apposite as Bob Clark and I can agree on a film, is it not worth revisiting? In Europe thousands have and it’s seen as a masterpiece in many quarters. Don’t be left out as sheep to the hate campaign which was always a matter of money. Remember Leone’s Once Upon a Time in America suffered the same fate – butchery from studio heads to the point of incomprehensibility.
Thank you
Allan
Click on names for archives
Writers/Founders
Wonders in the Dark 
What Allan Fish and Bob Clark are telling the astute readers of WitD by naming HEAVEN’S GATE as the greatest film of the 1980’s is that scope and vision are more vital than narrative discipline, at least in this instance. Allan’s acceptance of this position is even more startling when one considers his #2 selection, Leone’s ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA is crafted much in the same mold – an epic film that pays less attention to story cohesiveness in favor of realizing a theme through some compelling vignettes, infused with nostalgia and a searing strain of tragedy. Are Allan and Bob falling victim to the adage of “more” is greater than “less?” Are both of these fine film scholars buying into the notion that overly harsh critical responses upon release should now be reverse with the ultimate poll placements? Are both being seduced by auspicious visions on the part of their directors? Bertolucci in a sense was up to same game with his reviled 1900 as well.
The answer to these questions is a resounding NO. Had I not known Allan and Bob as well as I do I would have perhaps believed the lofty positioning was to undo past wrongs, at the expense of world-class directors like Kieslowski, Fassbinder, Potter, Bergman, Scorsese and Kubrick among others. But nay, this is a genuine belief and a passion for a film that certainly deserves the most intense scrutiny, especially on revisitation.
I don’t share the enthusiasm, yet I do feel it for ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA, which unlike Cimino’s opus, conveys soaring lyricism and a stronger thematic essence. What Leone’s film has, which Cimino’s does not is one of the greatest scores in movie history by Ennio Morricone, an enrapturing elegiac underpinning that adds a new meaning to Leone’s enveloping visuals. Few may realize in this sense how overwhelming music can be in bringing out the kind of emotions (and directly informing a theme)that a director can only dream of while shooting a film. HEAVEN’S GATE is far from the disaster it was once believed to be, but I still need to be convinced that it warrants this kind of spectacular acclaim. THE DEER HUNTER to my eyes is Cimino’s greatest film, mainly because it has a far stronger emotional center. Still, Allan’s superlative capsule and Bob Clark’s stunning thesis have certainly gone a long way towards presenting a case, as well as a gifted lawyer who fights a case armed with strong evidence. For those who have either not seen HEAVEN’S GATE, or have seen it only once with a large measure of indifference, be aware that two of WitD’s most talented writers have come to bat here in a big way. At the end of the day, we really couldn’t have hope for more than this.
Again, here is Bob Clark’s monumental review, published at the site just a few days ago:
https://wondersinthedark.wordpress.com/2009/09/26/bob-clarks-spectacular-review-of-michael-ciminos-heavens-gate/
Re: Morricone– Actually, Sam, the lack of a sweeping Morricone-style score is one of the reasons I find that “Heaven’s Gate” is a superior film. I love the man’s music, but there’s a distinctive, lyrical quality to it that’s a little distracting at times, and doesn’t always make the best fit for the subject matter. It fits in Leone’s self-conscious, fairy-tale style vision of the west, but I’m on the fence on whether it works completely in movies like “The Mission”. The sentimental style of “Cinema Paradiso” makes an ideal fit for Morricone’s music, as does “Once Upon a Time in America”, though frankly I feel that latter film over-romanticizes the slums of New York, a bit.
Anyway, David Mansfield pulls off a score in Cimino’s film that is everything it needs to be– melodic and natural, at the same time. It has a hint of lyricism to it occasionally, but there’s much more of a folksy sound that makes it all incredibly real, much more than if you’d gotten a guy like Morricone to come up with his own stuff. Mansfield is mostly collecting songs from the period and finding ways to play them that are palatable to the modern listener but authentic to the time. And even with that eye (or rather, ear) for history, there’s a whole lot of ambition with the way that the music is used– need I remind you of Mansfield fiddling on roller-skates?
Morricone is good and all, but “Heaven’s Gate” doesn’t need him. The movie is that good on its own without artificial enhancements.
Bob: Morricone’s score for this film pretty much disavows the romanticism he is known for in films like CINEMA PARADISO, THE LEGEND OF 1900 and MALENA, in favor of a somber, elegiac tone, which I do feel fits the subject matter perfectly.
Still I say “touche” to you for what you say here–you back yourself up eloquently and with a full understanding of Cimino’s film and of Mansfield’s contribution. That’s more than fair enough, it’s enlightening.
Of course I would politely but seriously contest your claim here of “artificial enhancement” as music is as integral a part of cinematic artistry as any other element.
I dunno, Sam– there’s quite a lot of jazzy sentimentality in the childhood-sections. And frankly, Zamfir sounds very nice playing Morricone’s stuff, but I never buy for a single second that a kid from the slums in the early 1900’s would be able to play a pan-flute. It’s not the same type of natural fit to the setting and character as Gabriel’s oboe or Harmonica’s harmonica. It pulls me straight out, no matter how nice it sounds.
Sam– it’s artificial as in it wouldn’t fit the time-period. Mansfield’s stuff works so well because it’s absolutely indigenous to the era. Morricone can get away with his modern sound (IE electric guitars in the Old West) but not with the kind of adherence to naturalism that Cimino sticks to in this film, no matter how mythic it becomes.
Yeah, the ‘jazzy sentimentality’ there is not in a league with that majestic lead theme, nor of the sections that present variations on it. But as this is the age of prohibition, I accepted this without a problem.
Well, the mythic element opens the door to this kind of musical presentation, but apart from that the naturalism is working here with elegy.
True, the jazz fits the period enough to shoehorn it in. It’s the Zamfir that bothers me, really. If Leone had made a movie about kids who grew up in the Greek neighborhoods, or something, maybe. But where do pan-flutes fit in the lives of kids who grow up to lead the Jewish mob? The instrument sounds lovely, but it really doesn’t fit the characters or the period.
On this you do have a valid point.
Oh, and was there a need to repost Bob’s piece, we don’t all need riections to wipe our own arse!
I did not “re-post” Bob’s piece, I provided the link to it, to make it easier for people who may not have seen it when it was originally posted. Sorry for being enthusiastic with the poll’s final days.
Oh, and Fish– I think more people are likely to be swayed by your piece, if anything. I’ll be lucky if that many people even bother to read all of mine, let alone comment on it. But yeah, I can’t think of a more ringing endorsement of “Heaven’s Gate” than the fact that we agree on it. It’s like commercials seen around here every now and then which show politicians from the right and left putting aside their differences on climate change, or something. If Newt Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi can agree on the environment, it must be a good thing– so too with Allan Fish, Bob Clark and Michael Cimino.
LOL!!!!! Ha Bob, how irrefutable!
When one considers the films you praised in the 80s, Sam, I’d rather pick my reviled than your sacrosanct (for which the word should read sicklyosanct).
But as always, I will defend everyone’s right to be absolutely, stunningly misguided.
Yeah, I chose Bergman’s FANNY AND ALEXANDER as my #1, and followed it by such tripe as CINEMA PARADISO, HENRY V, LA TRAVIATA, BERLIN ALEXANDERPLATZ, DEKALOG, A TIME TO LIVE AND A TIME TO DIE, BLUE VELVET, THE COOK, THE THIEF HIS WIFE AND HER LOVER, JEAN DE FLORETTE, etc.
I thought I already defended your right above, by saying every nice thing I could about you and your choice.
That doesn’t mean I have to personally buy it, and I don’t.
I’m kinda disappointed to see most of my favorites not mentioned, especially my favorite of the decade. For the third straight decade a John Cassavettes’ film is missing from the list. Another exclusion that seems pretty disappointing, and one I’m not alone with, is of course Martin Scorsese’s great Last Temptation of Christ. Also pretty disappointed to see some great British films like Long Good Friday (my favorite gangster film of the decade) and The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover (though the review by Sam was just perfect) being placed so low while my personal favorite was totally ignored (Any love for Neil Jordon’s Mona Lisa). I wasn’t expecting anything from the newer generation like Jim Jarmusch or Gus Van Sant to appear, but it hurts so much to see the great David Cronenberg not to get a mention nor his magnum opus (and my pick for the best film of the 80s) Dead Ringers. But Allan has always had interesting choices, and Heavens Gates has risen to the top of my viewing list.
The absence of “Last Temptation” saddens me too, Anu, and I’m quite surprised that Cronenberg was shut out entirely. But I applaud Fish going against the grain with his top-spot here, and it’s enough to make me overlook his oversight.
The Long Good Friday, Anu, for all the excellent performances of Hoskins and Mirren, is rather a conventional and dated gangster movie and actually onl adequately directed. Last Temptation is a film I admire parts of but find a very unsatisfactory whole, and as for Cassavetes, only Faces among his entire ouevre do I find close to classic status, the rest of his films I find overrated to high hell. As for Cronenberg’s Dead Ringers, great central performance but not, to these eyes, a great film.
Anywy, enough from me, I can now be quite for a fortnight and take an overdue break before the 90s arguments start.
As to what I think of this film and its placement on this count-down: Allow me to impart an old philosophy my Grand-mother beat into me with a belt and a wooden spoon-IF YOU CAN’T SAY ANYTHING NICE, THEN SAY NOTHING AT ALL.
Ha!
(I kind of wish that could’ve been the first comment on the thread, but oh well.)
I hope Bob will forgive me when I say he can now call down his army of Ewoks (though we still have the 90s, 00s, and silent era to go…) Or gunguns, or whatever.
Actually, aside from the inside-baseball kicker which will thrill all readers of the site, this is an exciting, bold choice which really earns Wonders (and particularly Allan’s list) its place in the sun. Dramatically it’s a great, solid closer to what may have proved the most popular decade yet in Allan’s countdown. (Of course, I suspect the 90s will prove more popular yet.)
And of course, now it’s at the top of my queue with nothing coming along for weeks which can dislodge it, so I will see it soon.
But yes, I’m quite disheartened to see no Quays. Now that you do not have to be mum on the subject, Allan, why no Street of Crocodiles, at least? It certainly would seem to have its oneiric place in the off-of-center list which included Svankmejer and has incorporated short films in the past. Personally, SOMETHING by the Quays would maintain a place in my own top 5 or 10, and I suspect that even when I see all the films on your list it would not be nudged out of the dirty dozen, but I find their universe to be one of the richest and most intoxicating in cinema history… Ah well.
Again, MM, I have just never warmeds to the Quays. Probably just me, but as with Jarmusch, they leave me pretty cold. But that’s just me.
Same here. Jarmusch’s stuff just strikes me as self-conscious and pretentious, after a while. Like I’ve said before, only stuff of his I ever enjoyed was the first part of “Mystery Train”, and that has more to do with the cute Japanese girl in the leather jacket, than anything else. All I’ve seen of the Quays is half of their first live-action film. Perhaps I need to give their animation a look.
Fair enough. I kind of feel the same way about Svankmejer (it’s the repetition that drives me batty) though I’m hoping when I give Alice another chance, I like it more. As for Jarmusch, I haven’t seen much, and what I have seen leads me to believe he’s not my cup of tea.
Except for Stranger Than Paradise, oddly enough, which I consider a masterpiece.
Bob: “Perhaps I need to give their animation a look.” Oh yes! I have not seen their live-action work, but I’m given to understand it isn’t all that great. The animation is outstanding, as even those who aren’t really “into” it would have to admit, and utterly unique. It’s where their whole legacy rests. But you have to approach it as a dreamlike experience – it’s aggressively irrational.
And, of course, the stats, mostly assembled beforehand:
1. USA, with 13 (12 co-productions)
2. France, with 9 (1 co-production)
3. UK, with 7 (3 co-productions)
4. Japan, with 4
West Germany, with 4
5. USSR, with 3 (1 co-production)
Italy, with 3 (2 co-productions)
6. Poland, with 2
Taiwan, with 2
Sweden, with 2 (1 solo, 1 co-production)
China, with 2 (1 solo, 1 co-production)
7. Hungary, with 1
Hong Kong, with 1
Czechoslovakia, with 1
Mali, with 1
This was a stronger U.S. decade than any since the 50s, and Europe’s weakest since the same. Including the UK and USSR, Europe placed 28 films, with about a quarter arriving from the Eastern bloc. Europe was also represented by far fewer countries than it had been in the 60s or 70s: a mere 9, as opposed to 13 for the 70s and almost twice as many – 16 – in the 80s. Asia made a solid showing, with 8 films compared to 4 for the 70s. Africa made its first appearance, but the Third World choices which cascaded down in the 60s are virtually disappeared now (I’m not sure we’ll see as many on any future list).
As far as other features, short films which had a strong presence on the lists up through the 50s have not reappeared since (see above for my own thoughts on the matter). The directorial breakdown of the countdown so far – which has not been affected by the most recent picks can be found in my previous comment: https://wondersinthedark.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/the-shining-no-9/#comment-15837 . As Allan noted previously, virtually all the directors on his list came to prominence in earlier decades, some much earlier decades. The only major exception I can note is Lynch, who did not place in the 70s for Eraserhead but now has two titles on the countdown; I can safely say at least one more will be expected.
And personally, for whosoever cares, as predicted this list pretty much kicked my ass! As opposed to the 60s where (going in) I had seen 30 of the titles, or the 70s where (again, going in) I had seen 22, I had seen only 15 of Allan’s 80s picks before the countdown began. (Come and See, rented at his behest, makes it 16.) We all have our blind spots, and the 80s falls between the era of cinema which interests me most (up through the 70s) and the era in which I was old enough to see the movies as they came out. But my Netflix queue devoted to Wonders of the Dark puts the most recent entries first, so I’ll be watching a lot of 80s flicks over the next few weeks.
Thanks, Allan, it was fun. Looking forward to the 90s.
Oh, and finally, this is the first U.S. film to top the list since the 30s! Hooray for Hollywood! (Of course, if you were going to thumb your nose at Hollywood, you could hardly pick a more appropriate film to top your list…)
And of course the 1930s one Bringing up Baby was a flop, too. So Hollywood disowned that, too.
Well, first I’ll say I have not seen the film since its initial release and at that point, in time I was not impressed. Of course, this was the chopped 2 ½ hour version. What I like best about the film was the visual mood of the film, which is credited to cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond and as Allan writes “a beautiful mixture of gorgeous colours and muted sepia like browns in the towns.”
However, with such enthusiastic essays by both Allan and Bob who generally sit at the opposite ends of the table, if they are even willing to share a table (LOL), I will have take a second look, this time at the three hour plus version. This coming together of two diverse minds makes it very intriguing though I doubt I will be as passionate about this film as they both are.
John, I’m on board with you here, but it’s true that it’s a rarity to have Allan and Bob on the same page. Fine points here.
Yeah, I’ve seen the original version and the shortened version on a big screen and…are you f*cking kidding me? Not bad, but nowhere near the best of the year, let alone an entire decade.
Well Joel, I’m inclined to completely agree with you. But as I’ve stated to Bob and Allan, I of course respect their positions.
Yes, Sam, and I probably responded more passionately than I should have. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. After quietly sitting through the other Top 30 or so movies in this list and not agreeing with a number of choices, I responded with immediate disdain for the number one selection. My apologies for not being a bit more respectful of the considerable effort and hard work involved.
……….It’s true that Cimino’s film is not for everyone, and the history is undoubtedly dubious, but it operates on such a massive canvas that few could dream of……….
It’s clear that Mr. Fish understands that the film isn’t for all. But it’s equally clear to me that this choice is really pushing the envelope. Forget discipline Sam the issue here is excessive tedium. I’ve come here to praise many of the choices during this countdown, so I don’t feel guilty about voicing a major disagreement on this No. 1 selection.
Just because I hate this film (yes, I HATE this film, either version), doesn’t mean I cannot lavish a few words of praise on the guys who wrote their respective essays on it. As always, Allans piece quickly summarizes his appreciation for a film once lost and now found. Bob Clark, usually my “late-nite nemesis” and gate keeper while I watch over the site during the graveyard shift, has out-done himself with his amazing thesis. All along I had felt Bobby should “put his money where his mouth is” after months of consecutive blogging (often locking antlers with myself and, famously, with Allan), and, upon Sammy giving him what I considered “enough rope to hang himself” boggled us all with a masterpiece of critical analysis. His elaborate, detailed and passionate examination revealed a writer of great skill and ingenuity. I was telling Sam last night that I hope old Bobby has more of this in him. So, to conclude this poll, I say THANK YOU to both fine gentlemen for great work and keeping things exciting. BRAVO!!
Well Dennis, I’ve been writing “thesis-reviews”, as Sam calls them, for a while now over at The Aspect Ratio. This is just the first piece I’ve written for Wonders in the Dark. But I appreciate your support.
Well, as we’re talking about films that did and DID NOT make the final cut or were, as some argue, positioned incorrectly, I only had a few qualms. I’ll agree with Bob here that the omission of Scorsese’s THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST is a bit shocking. That film is clearly Marty’s most personal and passionate movie to date and is crafted with the same breath-taking bravura as is RAGING BULL. In my mind, a personal vision beats out a mere technical exercise every time. I also had a slight rash from RAN and BLUE VELVET placing outside the top 10. In my humble opinion, RAN is such and overwhelming masterpiece that it defies consternation of any kind. BLUE VELVET was, simply, the BEST AMERICAN FILM OF THE DECADE. Its influence is still felt and has inspired film-makers since its release. On the other hand, I say Bravo to the high placement of Stanley Kubricks immortal THE SHINING. I was glad to see Allan agreed that an old master like Stanley could infuse something special into a rather schlocky source novel.
I think Mr. Fish may have made a major mistake by not having ‘Driving Miss Daisy’ finish in his top five decade films.
Peter, you do get that this is a list of the BEST films of the decade, not the WORST?
In all seriousness, I knew this would be a controversial choice, and to be honest, there’s nothing between the first two choices, but I always feel that when faced with a toss up go for the controversial one as it’s cowardly to be safe.
I have been accused by Sam of being harsh on him, but he makes this statement…
“What Allan Fish and Bob Clark are telling the astute readers of WitD by naming HEAVEN’S GATE as the greatest film of the 1980’s is that scope and vision are more vital than narrative discipline, at least in this instance….”
I can only say, au contraire, but his idea of narrative discipline and mine are two totally different things. When faced with that decision I mentioned before, Sam, ever the diplomat, will always pick the safe choice. What I objected to, Sam, is you having the gall – no other word – than to tell everyone what we (Bob and I) were saying. Bob and I are the only ones who can say that. You can make your interpretaion, but it is somewhat wide of the mark. And you must bear in mind you are NOT a fan of revisionist pieces. You are a staunch traditionalist. You dislike Peckinpah’s The Wild Bunch and Pat Garrett, you disliked Once Upon a Time in the West until I nailed you the floor to watch it and even then only made a qualified reassessment, doubtless wishing to decontaminate your old plasma with a viewing of Shane. Likewise you hated Deadwood for presenting the west largely as it was. To you, the West is John Ford. For me, it’s not so limited a landscape, for just to see the traditional westerns is the equivalent of sticking to Italian opera. It may be easier to listen to, but something in me prefers the dark, epic Wagnerian flourishes of Parsifal and the Ring. You, as an Italian, sing along to the cornetto adverts of old to the tune of O Sole Mio and gesticulate your hands with the emotion of the old guy in Cinema Paradiso who cries enough to fill Lake Tahoe at the end of some cheesy melodrama. I like things dark and complex, it’s the Anglo-Saxon in me.
With Heaven’s Gate it aimed remarkably high. Did it quite get to the stratosphere? It’s a moot point, and it isn’t perfect, but I prefer films that aim so high to safe lower trajectory pieces that may be excellent on their own level but are less visionary. Heaven’s Gate – and Once Upon a Time in America – will be ripe for discussion and analysis decades after some other films will be forgotten. It’s a masterpiece and time will confirm as such.
While I find much of this comment amusing (the image of Sam singing along to O Sole Mio while gesticulating and weeping does make me laugh, as I hope it does him as well), I do want to stick up for Ford. No, the West should not be Ford ALONE but if his landscape is “limited” there are immense strengths – and enormously rich complexities – within those limits. Simply put, his films are consistently among the most beautiful in existence – I know you agree to a certain extent, as you included The Searchers high in your 50s countdown – but I just wanted to make sure you weren’t implying Ford was bland; he’s anything but.
Nothing wrong with Ford, MM, nothing at all, just the extreme traditionalism concept and the fact that Ford had nothing to do with the real west. I love Bill Hart and Walsh’s The Big Trail, doesn’t mean they aren’t as old-fashioned as gingham dresses and apple pie, a vision of the west of a rank sentimentalist. For the violence of the west, the harshness, you need to go forward.
Well, I still disagree – there’s blood and dust on those gingham dresses and apple pies and the sentimentalism is laced with melancholy, and not just of the limply nostalgic variety. Take Young Mr. Lincoln – cornball in aspects, all-American to its core, but at heart a portrait of a shrewd, canny man who holds all the troublesome ambiguities of the American culture in his figure – he’s democratic and demagogic, unpretentious and manipulative, for the underdog but unafraid to use power – physical and intellectual – to get his way and play the system. Plus, the film is limned with a sense of death and a feeling that human society, particularly in these surroundings, hovers precariously on the brink between anarchy and authoritarianism, with any real freedom just barely hanging in the balance, if that. Like Lincoln, Ford is “old-fashioned” and “sentimental” on the surface but there’s latent violence, harshness, and a canny ambiguity just beneath that surface, which is part of what makes the work so compelling I think. Don’t get me wrong; I like revisionist stuff too, but I think my overall preference is for seemingly traditional works which contain a seed of their own subversion within…
Though I do agree that Ford has more to do with “myth” than the “real west”. (Because it’s recent myth, it does contain seeds of the real in it, which gives it extra resonance. I.e. the romanticisations or mythifications of 19th century American experience are still romanticisations and mythifications of something that actually happened, that has roots in the American consciousness…)
This is an exceedingly erroneous response, which is filled with half-truths, exaggerations, selective quoting, generalizations, and outright falsehoods.
First of all, you quote this:
“What Allan Fish and Bob Clark are telling the astute readers of WitD by naming HEAVEN’S GATE as the greatest film of the 1980’s is that scope and vision are more vital than narrative discipline, at least in this instance….”
but then conviniently don’t print the follow-up which praises Allan’s individuality. In fact practically all of this long initial comment was effusively complimentary to Allan. I frankly don’t know how I could possibly praised him any more than I did and the thanks I get is this nasty reprisal:
“Allan’s acceptance of this position is even more startling when one considers his #2 selection, Leone’s ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA is crafted much in the same mold – an epic film that pays less attention to story cohesiveness in favor of realizing a theme through some compelling vignettes, infused with nostalgia and a searing strain of tragedy. Are Allan and Bob falling victim to the adage of “more” is greater than “less?” Are both of these fine film scholars buying into the notion that overly harsh critical responses upon release should now be reverse with the ultimate poll placements? Are both being seduced by auspicious visions on the part of their directors? Bertolucci in a sense was up to same game with his reviled 1900 as well.
The answer to these questions is a resounding NO. Had I not known Allan and Bob as well as I do I would have perhaps believed the lofty positioning was to undo past wrongs, at the expense of world-class directors like Kieslowski, Fassbinder, Potter, Bergman, Scorsese and Kubrick among others. But nay, this is a genuine belief and a passion for a film that certainly deserves the most intense scrutiny, especially on revisitation.”
In addition Allan misses the mark with these statements:
1.) Sam is a traditionalist and doesn’t like re-visionist westerns.
FALSE: The most exceeding revisionist western of the past decades was the superlative THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD (Dominic) which was one of the very best films of its year, and a huge personal favorite. Nick Ray’s JOHNNY GUITAR, another prime example of what we’re talking about here is along-time favorite of mine, as you well know! I think Altman’s MCCABE AND MRS. MILLER is a masterwork! Is that YOUR definition of a “traditionalist” western? Because I don’t care much for one single revisionist western, THE WILD BUNCH does not mean that I oppose revisionism in this genre or any other. PAT GARRETT is passable, never cared all that much for it, and yes it’s true I came around to ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST after repeated viewing. So what? You came around to this film, and to THE NEW WORLD after registering initial disdain. Also, I have a record of favoring revisionist Shakespeare in theatre and film, for one.
2.) Sam “hated” DEADWOOD
FALSE: I never, ever said that I hated it, in fact I like it, but not as much as you. I don’t feel the need to fawn over something that is fine. I’ve embraced so many films you have urged on me, yet you want 100% agreement. That’s simply not the way it is.
3.) Sam says the west is “John Ford”
FALSE: The west is John Ford, (as well it should be in large measure) Anthony Mann, Nick Ray, Howard Hawks, George Stevens, Fred Zinnemann, Clint Eastwood, Henry King, Michael Curtiz, John Sturges, Henry Hathaway, Arthur Penn, Raoul Walsh, King Vidor, Budd Boetticher (found his worth recently, this is true), Robert Altman, Fritz Lang, Ang Lee, all of whom I like a number of westerns from. So that’s limited? Yeah, right.
4.) Sam prefers the “cheesy” to the “profound”
FALSE: You have known for some time (maybe five years since we met) that Richard Wagner is my favorite composer of all-time, that PARSIFAL is my favorite opera bar none, and that the opening overture to Act I is my single favorite piece of music ever composed in this world. So don’t even go there, trying to slight or demean my taste in opera which goes further by a long way than any casual fan. Find another example to promote your poisonous and scandelous analogies. Wagner is my favorite composer, Ingmar Bergman and Robert Bresson are my favorite directors, Shakespeare is my favorite playright, Edvard Munch my favorite painter, Dickens and Hugo my favorite novelists. I know, I have such “cheesy” taste, right?
I am still reeling, in complete and total shock at the mean-spirited assault that was posted here, an assault that in essence responded to what was in large measure effusive praise for the individual rights of Mssrs. Fish and Clark. I needed to attend to some personal business this afternoon, but I found myself forced to respond to the scandelous charges made against me, and the ungrateful answer to all th enice things I said.
I urge all here to re-read my first response, and then tell me if I deserved what was given to me here. It’s frankly reprehensible.
Yes Movie Man, I did still laugh at the O SOLO MIO quip! Ha!
“The west is John Ford, (as well it should be in large measure) Anthony Mann, Nick Ray, Howard Hawks, George Stevens, Fred Zinnemann, Clint Eastwood, Henry King, Michael Curtiz, John Sturges, Henry Hathaway, Arthur Penn, Raoul Walsh, King Vidor, Budd Boetticher (found his worth recently, this is true), Robert Altman, Fritz Lang, Ang Lee, all of whom I like a number of westerns from.”
You forgot one biggie– Sergio Leone.
That’s true Bob. He does belong there and is one of the major figures in the genre. My bad.
I’m with those who praise “Heaven’s Gate”. definitely a top 5 of the ’80s for me and probably the single most important American film of that decade.
I also agree that “Last Temptation” is an extraordinary achievement on the level of “Raging Bull”. “Ran” (my #1 of the 80s) is top 3 Kurosawa for me, followed by “High and Low” and “Bad Sleep Well”.
The single most important film of the decade? Really? Whenever the 80s comes to mind, there’s really only film that in my mind that could be deemed as important and that would be Bladerunner. I’m not sure if there’s another film that has had a bigger impact on American cinema from the 80s. But again, try not to take my response too rudely because its not my intent (I guess I’m still a bit shocked of this film’s placement). I also think Ran got shafted on this list and is my number two choice for the decade (number 1 was Dead Ringers) and probably top five on my Kurosawa list. Also it great to hear someone mention High and Low. Its is easily my favorite Kurosawa film and, along with Michelangelo Antonioni’s Red Desert, my favorite of the 60s.
I’ll have it in Friday after moving it to the top of the Netflix queue after this shocker… I certainly did not see this coming, but as Allan pointed out, if one had noticed his silence in Bob’s review of the movie, it might have been realized.
Yep, it probably is the most important film of the ’80s. Not for its pain-staking, self-indulgent production methods (where it shares a place with ‘Duel in the Sun’), but for the fact that after ‘Jaws’ showed that films could be critic-proof by being screened into 1,000s of cinemas blanketed by a heavy tv marketing campaign, it’s destruction of a studio allowed the Studios to pull the plug from director led projects and play it safe. And the era of ‘High Concept’ came into being. In many ways it’s the ‘Greed’ of the modern era.
Bobby–
Interesting points there, but I couldn’t figure how you ultimately satnd with the film. Are you a fan?
Dave–I didn’t catch the silence myself to b ehonest and was caught completely off guard by this. I’d love to know what you say of it!
I’ve seen both versions of this film, but have never been incredibly found of it. I will give it one more chance because of this. I’ll return then.
“but have never been incredibly found of it” should be “but have never been incredibly FOND of it”, my brain had a spasm as I tried to decide between saying that or “I’ve never found it that interesting…”
my apologies.
A copy just arrived from Netflix this afternoon… I’ll be giving it a shot this evening and will be back to post thoughts. I truly have no idea what to expect or what my reaction will likely be.
Well, I finished it last night. I suppose my assessment would be kind of basic and similar to what many have expressed in this thread – it’s far from the “worst movie ever made” tag that many were quick to pin on it when it was first released, but at the same time I personally think it’s far from the best of any decade. I don’t have the energy to write at great lengths (I have to save my writing time/power for other things!), but I’ll at least offer some basic thoughts. The length and supposed “wandering” nature of the film doesn’t bother me at all… I’m a Malick nut and find things like the extended cut of The New World to be among the best movies I’ve ever seen. So in that sense, I can appreciate some of sweeping scope of everything and certainly enjoy taking in some of the excellent cinematography. The main issue that I ultimately had was that at times it felt like things were being stretched out just for the sake of stretching them out… which based on my other Cimino experience seems to be a trait of the director’s. I felt like there was an incredibly compelling and interesting story waiting to unfold — the actual Johnson County War — but that by the time it starts to get moving, it feels like its too late to do it justice. So I found the second half to be much better than the first, and felt like there were certain characters (Hurt) and sequences (much of Harvard) that could have been completely cut in order to free up time to devote to the actual war.
Just personal opinion here… I’m glad that I finally watched it, but I can’t say I’ll be eager to dive back into it anytime in the near future.
Thanks very much for this Dave. Well, to be honest I’m with you here. I’m happy that Allan and Bob (and Ari) felt this was a matserpiece, but like you I don’t see it as such, and did find excessive length with a number of scenes. I applaud you for taking the time an dgiving it a chance, especially in view of his high praise here at Wonders.
Kris Kristofferson and John Hurt were FAR too old to play college students.
Do you have favourite John Ford westerns, Clark?