Kubrick and Frankenheimer
Rob Kinmonth
conversation? They had a good deal in common, form- and content-wise....
Nycouplee
each of his films.
Peter Tonguette
>I'm not sure but there is a book of John Frankenheimer interviews that covers
>each of his films.
Yes, I just checked Amazon and it's called "John Frankenheimer: A Conversation
with Charles Champlin." I'm a big Frankenheimer fan as well; I saw "Ronin" in
theatres around this time last year and will definitely try to check out
"Reindeer Games" this fall.
Hope this is of some help,
Peter
Nycouplee
commentary.
(Coincidentally, I'm watching The Train tonight.)
natch
great run in the 60's with Manchurian, Seconds, Birdman, The Train and
even Grand Prix. Based on his TV movie Andersonville (was that the
name) I thought he might be back, because it was excellent. But Ronin
was an absolute piece of crap!
James M
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Ichorwhip
>great run in the 60's with Manchurian, Seconds, Birdman, The Train and
>even Grand Prix. Based on his TV movie Andersonville (was that the
>name) I thought he might be back, because it was excellent. But Ronin
>was an absolute piece of crap!
>
>James M
>
>
but it wasn't that terrible was it? I could easily be persuaded here so don't
get the idea that I'm throwing down a gauntlet over Ronin. I guess if you're
sick to death of car chases and shoot-outs I could see your point, but
Frankeheimer is somewhat of a master of this sort of thing. I found Ronin
suitably edgy and exciting in parts, but it was kind of crappy too.
Andersonville, I agree, was excellent. The story of an American concentration
camp with all the grim trimmings. TNT should be commended for getting Civil War
movies like this made. Most recently, The Hunley.
I had always thought in the back of my mind that Kubrick could have gotten a
lot of thematic and visual mileage out of a Civil War epic, factual or
fictional. One of my long standing favorite novels is The Red Badge of
Courage. Stephen Crane is worthy of great hyperbole. But of course John
Huston already did that back in '51. I for one always found Audie Murphy and
this adaptation a little watered down. It did use a lot of Crane's
"narration", but it seems unnecessary to me. What Crane wrote was of more of a
"show don't tell" variety and to read it out in the film seems unnecessary as
visuals could have done a more effective job. There are thematic undercurrents
and visuals that remain untapped in Crane's masterpiece. The 1974 remake for
TV with Richard Thomas(John-Boy Walton)had some good qualities but really
couldn't reach the naturalistic horrors that Crane was getting at either. What
a shame! In my study of RBoC, I've come to the opinion that Crane was
representing a specifically chaotic battle in microcosmic form and this battle
was Chancellorsville. It was the first time the forces of the North and South
faced each other in The Wilderness and its outskirts. It was here that Union
General "Fighting" Joe Hooker lost his nerve completely and nearly got half of
the Union army decimated courtesy of Lee and Jackson. It was also here that
Stonewall Jackson, that "Minister of Death praying for war", got himself shot
by his own troops and later died. The battle played out in utter pandemonium
after Jackson's brilliant flanking maneuver through the tangle of the
Wilderness. Surely Crane new all about this, and there are some cunning clues
and hints contained in the text to support the argument.
Well, have I ventured far enough off topic?
"Appy polly loggies"
Ichorwhip("the youth")
"Peace is our Profession"
"Nothing is too important"
Bilge Ebiri
>>Courage. Stephen Crane is worthy of great hyperbole. But of course John
>>Huston already did that back in '51. I for one always found Audie Murphy
and
>>this adaptation a little watered down. It did use a lot of Crane's
>>"narration", but it seems unnecessary to me. What Crane wrote was of more
of
>>a
>>"show don't tell" variety and to read it out in the film seems unnecessary
as
>>visuals could have done a more effective job. There are thematic
>>undercurrents
>>and visuals that remain untapped in Crane's masterpiece.
You should read Lillian Ross's book "Picture", about the making of Huston's
film. By all accounts, his original cut was some sort of masterpiece, but
it was hacked to bits, resulting in the brief oddity we're left with today.
love,
Bilge
Darryl Wiggers
> I was, actually, really impressed with "Ronin"; there was a post about this
> several weeks ago, but some of the car chase footage is as good as any I've
> ever seen (Save for William Friedkin's "The French Connection" or his, IMO,
> equally excellent "To Live and Die in L.A."). There was a certain edge, a
> certain spareness to it that I really admired -- perhaps this was a little of
> Mamet overlapping. And John Frankenheimer has always been one of my all time
> favorite directors -- highly underrated, also.
I was lukewarm to Ronin (plot too confusing, ending unsatisfying) but,
indeed, the chase footage is one of the best. Part of what made it
unique is that Frankenheimer used race car drivers, not stunt drivers.
Also, the scenes were shot in Europe (quite unommon for an American
film). This is significant because North America has mostly wide roads.
Only in Europe do you have such narrow spaces. This claustrophobic
feeling, combined with incredible speed, truly made the car chase
footage unique... another of my favorite "Euroopean" car chase scenes
is in opening scene of "Subway" -- dosen't have the same sense of
claustrophobia, but it has a whimsy that I find charming (i.e. the
chase can't start until he finds the right music).
> interest. But, I agree, Kubrick would have made a great Civil War film -- the
> only name among current filmmakers that springs to mind that could handle such
> a broad, farreaching topic is probably Michael Cimino; purely a matter, I
> realize, of personal taste, but "Heaven's Gate," to me, is a masterpiece.
Another favorite of mine. Have you seen the widescreen version? It
makes a world of difference... I still have a problem with the story
and characters (both are much too thin) but there's no denying the
beauty of the visuals. Or the fabulous music. For that reason alone I
can gladly sit through the most boring scene. It is, in my opinion, one
of the most beautiful-looking films ever made (excepting Kubrick, of
course).
dw
Peter Tonguette
>Oh come now! I wouldn't say it was an absolute. I was a little
>underwhelmed,
>but it wasn't that terrible was it? I could easily be persuaded here so
>don't
>get the idea that I'm throwing down a gauntlet over Ronin. I guess if you're
>sick to death of car chases and shoot-outs I could see your point, but
>Frankeheimer is somewhat of a master of this sort of thing. I found Ronin
>suitably edgy and exciting in parts, but it was kind of crappy too.
>
Ichorwhip,
I was, actually, really impressed with "Ronin"; there was a post about this
several weeks ago, but some of the car chase footage is as good as any I've
ever seen (Save for William Friedkin's "The French Connection" or his, IMO,
equally excellent "To Live and Die in L.A."). There was a certain edge, a
certain spareness to it that I really admired -- perhaps this was a little of
Mamet overlapping. And John Frankenheimer has always been one of my all time
favorite directors -- highly underrated, also.
>Andersonville, I agree, was excellent. The story of an American
>concentration
>camp with all the grim trimmings. TNT should be commended for getting Civil
>War
>movies like this made. Most recently, The Hunley.
>
>I had always thought in the back of my mind that Kubrick could have gotten a
>lot of thematic and visual mileage out of a Civil War epic, factual or
>fictional. One of my long standing favorite novels is The Red Badge of
>Courage. Stephen Crane is worthy of great hyperbole. But of course John
>Huston already did that back in '51. I for one always found Audie Murphy and
>this adaptation a little watered down. It did use a lot of Crane's
>"narration", but it seems unnecessary to me. What Crane wrote was of more of
>a
>"show don't tell" variety and to read it out in the film seems unnecessary as
>visuals could have done a more effective job. There are thematic
>undercurrents
>and visuals that remain untapped in Crane's masterpiece. The 1974 remake for
>TV with Richard Thomas(John-Boy Walton)had some good qualities but really
>couldn't reach the naturalistic horrors that Crane was getting at either.
>What
>a shame! In my study of RBoC, I've come to the opinion that Crane was
>representing a specifically chaotic battle in microcosmic form and this
>battle
>was Chancellorsville. It was the first time the forces of the North and
>South
>faced each other in The Wilderness and its outskirts. It was here that Union
>General "Fighting" Joe Hooker lost his nerve completely and nearly got half
>of
>the Union army decimated courtesy of Lee and Jackson. It was also here that
>Stonewall Jackson, that "Minister of Death praying for war", got himself shot
>by his own troops and later died. The battle played out in utter pandemonium
>after Jackson's brilliant flanking maneuver through the tangle of the
>Wilderness. Surely Crane new all about this, and there are some cunning
>clues
>and hints contained in the text to support the argument.
I haven't actually seen "Andersonville" -- although this thread has prompted my
interest. But, I agree, Kubrick would have made a great Civil War film -- the
only name among current filmmakers that springs to mind that could handle such
a broad, farreaching topic is probably Michael Cimino; purely a matter, I
realize, of personal taste, but "Heaven's Gate," to me, is a masterpiece.
>
>Well, have I ventured far enough off topic?
Hey -- wandering OT is a sacred tradition on alt.movies.kubrick! (And has
produced more interesting posts than *on*-topic threads a lot of the time).
Peter
Ichorwhip
>>>Courage. Stephen Crane is worthy of great hyperbole. But of course John
>>>Huston already did that back in '51. I for one always found Audie Murphy
>and
>>>this adaptation a little watered down. It did use a lot of Crane's
>>>"narration", but it seems unnecessary to me. What Crane wrote was of more
>of
>>>a
>>>"show don't tell" variety and to read it out in the film seems unnecessary
>as
>>>visuals could have done a more effective job. There are thematic
>>>undercurrents
>>>and visuals that remain untapped in Crane's masterpiece.
>
>film. By all accounts, his original cut was some sort of masterpiece, but
>it was hacked to bits, resulting in the brief oddity we're left with today.
>
>love,
>
>Bilge
>
snoop around and see what I can turn up. Sounds like something I need to read.
Ich
natch
icho...@aol.com (Ichorwhip) wrote:
> >Frankenheimer is (or should I say was) one of my favorites. He had a
> >great run in the 60's with Manchurian, Seconds, Birdman, The Train
and
> >even Grand Prix. Based on his TV movie Andersonville (was that the
> >name) I thought he might be back, because it was excellent. But
Ronin
> >was an absolute piece of crap!
> >
> >James M
> >
> >
underwhelmed,
> but it wasn't that terrible was it? I could easily be persuaded here
so don't
> get the idea that I'm throwing down a gauntlet over Ronin. I guess
if you're
> sick to death of car chases and shoot-outs I could see your point, but
> Frankeheimer is somewhat of a master of this sort of thing. I found
Ronin
> suitably edgy and exciting in parts, but it was kind of crappy too.
>
concentration
> camp with all the grim trimmings. TNT should be commended for getting
Civil War
> movies like this made. Most recently, The Hunley.
>
> I had always thought in the back of my mind that Kubrick could have
gotten a
> lot of thematic and visual mileage out of a Civil War epic, factual or
of
> Courage. Stephen Crane is worthy of great hyperbole. But of course
John
> Huston already did that back in '51. I for one always found Audie
Murphy and
> this adaptation a little watered down. It did use a lot of Crane's
> "narration", but it seems unnecessary to me. What Crane wrote was of
more of a
> "show don't tell" variety and to read it out in the film seems
unnecessary as
> visuals could have done a more effective job. There are thematic
undercurrents
>
>
> Ichorwhip("the youth")
>
>
> "Nothing is too important"
>
I can't give much of a detailed or intellectual response to why I didnt
like the film because I dont remember it well (it was quite forgetful)
The car chases I suppose were good, but to me comparing car chases is
like comparing noisy neighbor's parties, no matter which is better or
worse, they're all bad. I just dont like car chases. I guess in the
2000 or so films Ive seen there may have been 3 or 4 that I thought
were decent. Actually the film GO, which just came out on video, had a
decent one, mostly because they knew when to stop it. The filmmaker
new he was making a film not an amusement park attraction. I also
remember some of Ronin's dialogue making me roll my eyes, and some of
the subplots too - and I cant explain that further because, like I
said, I dont really remember it. I do agree that a Kubrick Civil War
film would have been very intriuging. Actually what topic wouldnt be?
Did you read Wartime Lies? I'm sort of glad he didnt do it. I didnt
find that story very riveting and not very cinematic either.
Ichorwhip
>I can't give much of a detailed or intellectual response to why I didnt
>like the film because I dont remember it well (it was quite forgetful)
>The car chases I suppose were good, but to me comparing car chases is
>like comparing noisy neighbor's parties, no matter which is better or
>worse, they're all bad. I just dont like car chases. I guess in the
>2000 or so films Ive seen there may have been 3 or 4 that I thought
>were decent. Actually the film GO, which just came out on video, had a
>decent one, mostly because they knew when to stop it. The filmmaker
>new he was making a film not an amusement park attraction.
That's fair enough. Like I said, I wasn't seeking to defend Ronin very much.
I also
>remember some of Ronin's dialogue making me roll my eyes, and some of
>the subplots too - and I cant explain that further because, like I
>said, I dont really remember it.
Yes, I agree that a lot of this stuff in Ronin fell flat as a flapjack(mmmm).
It was rather forgetable. I can't seem to remember one good quote from the
entire movie, and that's bad for me!
I do agree that a Kubrick Civil War
>film would have been very intriuging. Actually what topic wouldnt be?
Cross stitching?
>Did you read Wartime Lies? I'm sort of glad he didnt do it. I didnt
>find that story very riveting and not very cinematic either.
No haven't read it. So much to read and so little time.
>
Ichenheimer
"You don't think I'd go into to combat with loose change in my pockets."
Peter Tonguette
>Another favorite of mine. Have you seen the widescreen version? It
>makes a world of difference... I still have a problem with the story
>and characters (both are much too thin) but there's no denying the
>beauty of the visuals. Or the fabulous music. For that reason alone I
>can gladly sit through the most boring scene. It is, in my opinion, one
>of the most beautiful-looking films ever made (excepting Kubrick, of
>course).
>
>dw
>
Darryl,
Yes, I've actually never seen anything *but* the widescreen (A concious
decision on my part, reflecting some bad experiences I've had with pan/scan
tape versions of "2001" and "Spartacus") of HG. I agree with you totally,
though, on all of your observations -- it's an amazing looking film, if nothing
else. The Blue Danube waltz sequence, about twenty minutes in, is probably as
astonishing a scene as any in a Cimino film (Not easy, from the man who
directed "The Deer Hunter," "The Year of the Dragon"). It strikes me every
time I see it as one of the truly monumental achievements in modern American
films and that Cimino hasn't made more films is a loss to everyone -- but I'm
expecting great things from "Brasil 1600."
Peter
Darryl Wiggers
> Yes, I've actually never seen anything *but* the widescreen (A concious
> decision on my part, reflecting some bad experiences I've had with pan/scan
> tape versions of "2001" and "Spartacus") of HG. I agree with you totally,
> though, on all of your observations -- it's an amazing looking film, if
> nothing
> else. The Blue Danube waltz sequence, about twenty minutes in, is probably as
> astonishing a scene as any in a Cimino film (Not easy, from the man who
> directed "The Deer Hunter," "The Year of the Dragon"). It strikes me every
> time I see it as one of the truly monumental achievements in modern American
> films and that Cimino hasn't made more films is a loss to everyone -- but I'm
> expecting great things from "Brasil 1600."
I've generally found all of Cimino's films (including his early
screenwriting efforts for Magnum Force and Logan's Run) worthy of a
look, but I was IMMENSELY disappointed with his last film, Sunchaser.
Like many filmmakers who made a big splash, and showed lots of promise,
in the 1970s his latest film just felt tired and dull... compared with
some of the new American filmmakers making their marks with efforts
like Boogie Nights, Go, Before Sunrise and Chasing Amy, Cimino would
never get noticed is he was a newbie today... and rightly so... hence,
I'm not holding my breath to see his next film... but, back to Heaven's
Gate, my favorite scene is the OTHER dance sequence (after the
roller-skating sequence). The music, the amber glow of sunlight coming
through the ceiling, the swirling camera around Kristofferson and
Huppert as they dance around the caevous hall... ahhhhh, simply
glorious!
darryl
Peter Tonguette
I agree that there are probably more than any time in the history of American
films more great new directors at work -- RIchard Linklater, in particular, has
produced an amazing body of work, but also (And a lot of these you point out)
Paul Thomas Anderson, Wes Anderson, Sam Mendes, etc.
But, I have been impressed with just about everything (Including The Sunchaser)
that Cimino has ever made -- I think that Steven Spielberg made the remark
that, more than any other filmmaker of the 70s, Cimino has the potential to
become his generation's David Lean. Very few filmmakers today still work on
the scope that he does and when his material provides for that kind of canvas
(Heaven's Gate, The Sicilian) the results can be astonishing.
Peter
word...@rocketmail.com
I agree. The similarities between *Prophecy* and
*The Shining* are so striking I just want to spit.
Wordsmith ; )
Nycouplee
of Paths of Glory. The Train is about how will Burt Lancaster stop a train
full of paintings by Vincent Van G., Rodin, Monet etc from being brought to
Nazi Germany. The theme of the film seems to be: What is a man's life worth?
Are the greatest painting man ever made worth the price of a human's life?
Paths of Glory seems to answer the question with a similar answer but in a
completely different and no less complicated manner.
boaz...@my-deja.com
delt3...@aol.com (Peter Tonguette) wrote:
> Darryl Wiggers wrote:
>
> >Another favorite of mine. Have you seen the widescreen version? It
> >makes a world of difference... I still have a problem with the story
> >and characters (both are much too thin) but there's no denying the
> >beauty of the visuals. Or the fabulous music. For that reason alone I
> >can gladly sit through the most boring scene. It is, in my opinion,
one
> >of the most beautiful-looking films ever made (excepting Kubrick, of
> >course).
> >
> >dw
> >
>
> Darryl,
>
concious
> decision on my part, reflecting some bad experiences I've had with
pan/scan
> tape versions of "2001" and "Spartacus") of HG. I agree with you
totally,
> though, on all of your observations -- it's an amazing looking film,
if nothing
> else. The Blue Danube waltz sequence, about twenty minutes in, is
probably as
> astonishing a scene as any in a Cimino film (Not easy, from the man
who
> directed "The Deer Hunter," "The Year of the Dragon"). It strikes me
every
> time I see it as one of the truly monumental achievements in modern
American
> films and that Cimino hasn't made more films is a loss to everyone --
but I'm
> expecting great things from "Brasil 1600."
>
Peter,
You're obviously too young to remember (because you weren't around
then) the tremendous fallout caused from HG. You say that Cimino not
making more films is a loss to everyone; there are still a lot of
people here in L.A. who would strongly disagree with you. Many of them
felt Cimino should never have been allowed to step behind a camera
again after HG. The nearly $40 million spent practically wiped out
UA's budget for other projects that could bring a return to the company
in order to compensate the loss here (HG earned not much more than $2
million before it was finally pulled from theaters; a two and a half
hour re-cut didn't help matters, and, in fact, made the film even more
confusing). I suggest reading "Final Cut," by Steven Bach. He was one
of the executives at United Artists at the time HG was made. The book
is written from the perspective of an executive, but it does offer some
insight about how an unchecked ego on a director's part led to
excessive spending which subsequently broke a major studio. United
Artists was a major player in Hollywood for many years, and was a
champion to many an independent filmmaker. It was never quite the same
when Arthur Krim and co. went on to form Orion Pictures. TransAmerica
took over and took a more corporate view towards moviemaking, not
unlike many of the other studios today. But they did support
independents and did give the director the artisic freedom necessary
(consider it almost much like the way Miramax is today; the parent
company was a corporation, but they did support the director and more
offbeat subjects). There are a whole lot of other reasons UA let
Cimino do what he did, which would take too long to get into now.
Maybe another post. However, I believe UA was concerned about looking
bad in trying to control a director who just won an Oscar for "The Deer
Hunter," and that in part led to the fiasco that happened.
I came to L.A. to attend film school about a year after HG came out.
The Hollywood community was still feeling the aftershock. Many people
couldn't find work because projects were dropped and production was cut
back (many of them did volunteer work on student projects, such as
ours, which is how I got to learn about the ripple effect HG caused).
We were reaching a period where the producer, studio and agent were
becoming "stars" and were getting the same amount of ink usually
reserved for an actor or director, often getting profiled on page one
of the Times Calendar section. Tighter reigns were being put on
directors on future projects. Warren Beatty's "Reds" was among the
last of those films to come out where the director had total control
over such a large project that took a long time to shoot and went way
over budget ($42 million, which was a lot in 1981). And,
unfortunately, that film also fared poorly at the box office. But it
was Cimino's name that was sneered at the most. There were some
situations where one just didn't mention his name or HG without having
someone else give you a dirty look or start an argument, usually
because something they were going to work on got cancelled due to the
panic that began when HG became a disaster to UA. And a lot of it was
just panic. It's also possible so much negative publicity was coming
out about the film that its poor performance at the box office was
partly due to a self-fulfilling prophecy. However, Hollywood survived
and people continued to find work. But HG was also the excuse for
Hollywood to take control of films back from the director, and Cimino
became the scarificial lamb (or the Judas goat, if you will) for anyone
who dare attempt to be excessive in the future. (I myself was not
impressed with "Year of the Dragon" or "The Sicilian." Perhaps I need
to see them again without the spectre of HG so close behind now.)
Cimino continues to work, though his output if far and few between.
And the results aren't as satisfying as his earlier work - at least in
my opionion they aren't. They don't have the same drive and energy.
And, Cimino is still considered a pariah in some circles here in L.A.,
not unlike Welles was after "The Magnificent Ambersons," or perhaps
even "Touch of Evil." But I consider HG Cimino's "Ambersons," as I
see "The Deer Hunter" his "Kane." But that's just me.
Fortunately, the fallout has reached half-life proportions, many
players from that era have gone on to other things, and Hollywood
itself continues to practice its short memory span. Time heals all
wounds, or so the saying goes, so what with newer companies supporting
the new independent film movement, we're seeing more films where "art
by committee" is not as much in evidence. I don't want to appear
simplistic in presenting this view, and I apologize if I do so, but it
would require a book to go into detail about the impact HG's failure at
the box office had on Hollywood. And since many of those books already
exist, I recommend you seek them out.
Boaz8741
boaz...@my-deja.com
It's interesting you bring up that point about "what a man's life is
worth," regarding both "The Train" and POG, in regards to comparing the
two directors. When Kubrick came on board to direct "Spartacus," he
was angling to use portions of Arthur Koestler's novel, "The
Gladiators," a novel about Spartacus that predates the Fast novel by
about twelve years. In fact, UA and the Mirisch Company had purchased
the rights to "The Gladiators" at about the same time Douglas
optioned "Spartacus." Koestler's novel was less optimistic, and it did
pose the same theme, "Was it worth the lives of many innocent people to
engage in an action, regardless of the results?" This question/theme
better suits Kubrick's canon of work, and it was one he was hoping to
get into the "Spartacus" script once UA pulled the plug on "The
Gladiators." But Kubrick was, as he's put it before, "a hired hand,"
and had no say over re-thinking the script or the film's concept.
Director's just didn't do that sort of thing on big studio productions
in 1958/59. And Dalton Trumbo, "Spartacus's" scribe, was also dead set
against using any element of the Koestler novel, because his philosophy
was more in tune with Fast's. And Douglas, who brought Trumbo out of
hiding and "broke the blacklist," as he likes to put it, would continue
to stand behind the man whose shackles he himself broke (sort of like
playing Spartacus in real life here, so he didn't want "the little
shit" Kubrick coming in and stealing his thunder) and have the script
written as he and Trumbo would see fit.
Ichorwhip
Thanks for that, it needed said.
Not being in the "business" I am not as privy to the HG fallout as you, but I
can say that I remember that even popular conception of HG at the time was
nothing less than it was an utter disaster. Now that time has passed and
everyone has their balls back to some extent, we can view HG on its artistic
merit alone. I'm not prepared to do that, having never seen it, but it is on
my list to see. Cimino has/had talent to be sure. HG, having only recently
been jogged in my memory, seems like something worth looking at.
Ichorwhip
"Where's the sniper?!"
Peter Tonguette
Very interesting post -- you make a lot of interesting points and bring up some
things I hadn't even thought of.
First of all, I suppose that my remark about "being a loss to everyone" was
meant (And, reading it again, I don't think this post conveyed this point
strongly enough) in an artistic sense, in that I believe Cimino is a major
artist and that he hasn't directed more films -- and more personal films (There
was talk for a long while that he and the late Raymond Carver were going to
collaborate on a film, although apparently that never happened) -- is a genuine
loss to the film art.
Certainly, when you have a film as controversial as HG, which, as a result of
it's financial failure, caused a lot of things in Hollywood to change (and
then, like you point out, change back), it is important to look at every
perspective -- I haven't read Bach's book, although I see that Da Capo press
has re-issued it and I will be sure to check it out. I am sure that there
*were* people who felt that he should never make another film (A scary thought,
that the business could have that much power), but, to me, that doesn't
diminish the power and beauty of his work, the work of, IMHO, a true poet of
the medium. I think that there is a "Chimes at Midnight," a "2001" still in
him and yet to come, but to discount him, as Hollywood so often does with some
of it's most represenative artists, (One needs only to think of, as you rightly
point out, the saga of Orson Welles; that he never lived to complete "King
Lear," "The Dreamers," "Cradle Will Rock" strikes me as one of the genuine
artistic losses of the past century) seems to me incredibly short sighted.
There are obviously several sides to this argument -- and it's all too easy to
discount the studios, whose perspective is, obviously, rightly, a financial
one; but, to me, the test of a film's standing is not a matter of finances, but
a matter of how that film lives on in the hearts and minds of those who have
been moved by it.
Peter
Darryl Wiggers
> but, to me, the test of a film's standing is not a matter of finances, but
> a matter of how that film lives on in the hearts and minds of those who have
> been moved by it.
Terrific point, Peter. I simply think HG was the victim of a number of
circumstances, including a backlash for the enormous success of his
previous flick (Deer Hunter) and a scapegoat for a string of failures
around that time (Spielberg's 1941 was a $40 million bomb, and John
Schlesinger's Honky Tonk Freeway was another big-budget turkey). John
Landis' The Blue Brothers was another $30-40 million opus that just
didn't live up to its needed success. Hollywood had gone so desperate
for, not only a hit, but a critical-acclaimed and Oscar-winning film,
that they mindlessly threw their money around... now the same companies
that own the studios also own soft drinks, magazines, tv networks and
fast food chains, thus they can cross-promote one another and ensure a
steady success. It longer matters if the film is "good." Or even mildly
interesting. All they have to do is sucker people into showing up
opening weekend. So even a film like Wild Wild West can turn a
profit... and if the critics snear at it (as they did with Heaven's
Gate) they no longer panic and pull it from distribution. They laugh
and keep running the ads in the media they own, ensuring that the "best
film of the summer" comments from the reviewers on their payroll are
revealed prominently... if you don't believe me, look at the marketing
campaign for EWS. The film received a cover story on Time Magazine, and
the TV ads prominately displayed the comments of the Time's critic (no
one else's). Time, of course, is owned by the Time Warner Corporation
which owns Warner Brothers, EWS's finanier and distributor... oh, and
all that positive coverage on CNN? Time Warner owns that too... but
this shouldn't detract from the quality of the film, much as the
financial failure of HG has nothing to do with the film itself.
> >You're obviously too young to remember (because you weren't around
> >then) the tremendous fallout caused from HG. You say that Cimino not
> >making more films is a loss to everyone; there are still a lot of
> >people here in L.A. who would strongly disagree with you. Many of them
> >felt Cimino should never have been allowed to step behind a camera
> >again after HG. The nearly $40 million spent practically wiped out
> >UA's budget for other projects that could bring a return to the company
> >in order to compensate the loss here (HG earned not much more than $2
> >million before it was finally pulled from theaters; a two and a half
> >hour re-cut didn't help matters, and, in fact, made the film even more
> >confusing).
Actually it was yanked after big, splashy premieres in L.A., New York
and Toronto (back then distributors would put a signature film like
this in one theatre for a week or two, then let positive word-of-mouth
sell it to other theatres... and if word-of-mouth wasn't positive, they
were in trouble). HG didn't get bad reviews after the premiere. They
were horrible, vicious attacks. Cimino pleaded with UA to withdraw the
film and they did. By the time the trimmed version appeared a few
months later, people were no longer interested. The purists wanted to
see the original. The cynics believed a shorter piece-of-shit is still
a piece-of-shit... I personally thought the shorter version took away
nothing from the story (it was thin enough as it was since all
Kristofferson seemed to say was "There are over 100 names on a... death
list."). And I though the editing of the final scene was brilliant
(Peter, the final boat scene was cut down considerably... you never see
the Harvard woman. Just Kristofferson as he stares into the mirror and
remembers Ella's death in flashback. A terrific marraige of two
seperate scenes). But, you saw much less of Vilmos Zsigmond's
cinematography, and that was definitely a loss.
> >I suggest reading "Final Cut," by Steven Bach.
Indeed, a very entertaining read. It details an era of Hollywood that
is now long gone. A reviewer once bitterly complained that, when he
started in the business in the 1970s "I was reviewing art for adults...
now I'm reviewing product for teenagers."
dw
Peter Tonguette
>delt3...@aol.com (Peter Tonguette) wrote:
>
>> but, to me, the test of a film's standing is not a matter of finances, but
>> a matter of how that film lives on in the hearts and minds of those who
>have
>> been moved by it.
>
>Terrific point, Peter.
Thanks, Darryl. I always remember what SK once said in one of his interviews
with Michel Ciment (Posted on The Kubrick Site) that, to him, the true test of
a film was not how well in fared with critics or whether or not it was a
"blockbuster," but how fondly those who were touched by it remember it. I have
an endless faith in the benefits of time, that a film like HG can be viewed
today free of all of the hype or controversy and seen as an artistic
achievement, pro or con. When I discovered it, I did not have a knowledge of
it's respective success or failure; I only knew that I was watching a work that
I was deeply touched and immensely inspired by.
I've never seen the shorter version (Is it even available on tape?), however I
can certainly see how it could be tightened up in some areas -- it isn't
exactly a "spare" film. Although, you're right -- Zsigmond's photography would
be a major loss; I would hate to be the one to decide which scenes to trim!
What do you suppose accounted for the negative press -- I've never been able to
read any of the early reviews (Although I know that Roger Ebert, reviewing
probably the cut version, gave it 1 1/2 stars -- yikes). Do you think that
even at that initial stage, the critics were reviewing more the film's budget
and sort of bloated history than the content itself?
>> >I suggest reading "Final Cut," by Steven Bach.
>
>Indeed, a very entertaining read. It details an era of Hollywood that
>is now long gone. A reviewer once bitterly complained that, when he
>started in the business in the 1970s "I was reviewing art for adults...
>now I'm reviewing product for teenagers."
>
You know, I've posted this before and I still sort of find it amazing that in
1971, "A Clockwork Orange," "The Last Picture Show," "McCabe and Mrs. Miller,"
and "The French Connection" were *all* Academy Award nominees -- I would have a
difficult time choosing between those!! You can't imagine that happening these
days -- even though I think that there are great films being made all the time;
they just don't recieve the sort of attention they deserve.
Peter
Joshua Zyber
Peter Tonguette <delt3...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990918144917...@ng-cj1.aol.com...
Sorry to intrude on this conversation. I just wanted to point out, though,
that there is another reason for Cimino's lack of success in financing and
distributing new projects. The fact is that there are simply a lot of people
out there who hate his work. A lot of this may be based on his reputation
and unfair negative publicity, but a lot of it is that his movies are simply
unappealing to many people.
Personally, I think Cimino's works have some genuine artistic merit buried
in them. The Deer Hunter is a testament to that. In almost all of his films
there is usually a scene or two that is really just perfect. But on the
other hand, for the most part he is also like an over-indulgent child
breaking out the box of crayons to draw on the walls. He doesn't know when
to stop or exercise restraint. Heaven's Gate had some truly beautiful
moments in it, but it also had *endlessly* long stretches where nothing
happened except one postcard-shot after another. Year of the Dragon seems to
alternate from scene to scene between being truly fantastic and
infuriatingly wrong-headed. And his remake of Desperate Hours was just awful
in every respect.
My favorite quote ever regarding Cimino comes from Douglas Pratt of The
Laserdisc Newsletter in his review of Year of the Dragon:
"As for the celebrated director, he has shown an incredible ability to
convince wealthy producers that they should play Charlie Brown to his
Lucy-holding-the-football style of filmmaking. The jacket cover quotes one
critic as saying, 'Michael Cimino has talent to burn.' Please, oh please,
may we light the first match?"
That about sums up my feelings as well.
OK, I just wanted to throw in my $.02. (Really the whole post was an excuse
for me to look up that quote!).
- Josh
Darryl Wiggers
> Thanks, Darryl. I always remember what SK once said in one of his interviews
> with Michel Ciment (Posted on The Kubrick Site) that, to him, the true test of
> a film was not how well in fared with critics or whether or not it was a
> "blockbuster," but how fondly those who were touched by it remember it. I
> have
> an endless faith in the benefits of time, that a film like HG can be viewed
> today free of all of the hype or controversy and seen as an artistic
> achievement, pro or con. When I discovered it, I did not have a knowledge of
> it's respective success or failure; I only knew that I was watching a work
> that
> I was deeply touched and immensely inspired by.
Well you should find the below quote (bottom of post) interesting, Read
on:
> I've never seen the shorter version (Is it even available on tape?)
No (someone correct me if I'm wrong). I've only seen it when it shows
up in second-run theatres -- the only place to watch such a film
anyway. Once Upon a Time in America was initially released in both its
long and short versions (though the European version longer than both).
Now I only see the longer version around (and thank goodness for that)
> , however I
> can certainly see how it could be tightened up in some areas -- it isn't
> exactly a "spare" film. Although, you're right -- Zsigmond's photography
> would
> be a major loss; I would hate to be the one to decide which scenes to trim!
I had watched the premiere version on video before I saw the shorter
one. It was certainly painful to notice over an hour of beautiful
images not there anymore. The pacing was also screwed up. Example:
Remember the execution of the station master, after the intermission?
In the long version, after his death, the camera holds on his face as
it rests on the ground, and you can see the posse in the background. As
they begin to ride off, the camera moves up (crane shot) and follows
them off. In the short version the shot begins precisely when the
camera starts to move... I've seen similar butchery when comparing the
short version of Once Upon a Time in America with the long version (now
there's a "masterpiece")
> What do you suppose accounted for the negative press -- I've never been able
> to
> read any of the early reviews (Although I know that Roger Ebert, reviewing
> probably the cut version, gave it 1 1/2 stars -- yikes). Do you think that
> even at that initial stage, the critics were reviewing more the film's budget
> and sort of bloated history than the content itself?
Exactly. Movies like Apocalpse Now got the ball rolling on criticizing
films on the basis of their budgets (in previous decades there were
films like Cleopatra to pick on -- another film that has gained respect
with time). At the time critics had incredible weight (it's very
apparent when you read The Final Cut, which also includes HG review
excerpts. The book is VERY easy to find in both major and second-hand
bookstores. I'd recommend the hard-cover version in 2nd-hand. It should
only be a couple of bucks at most). They could single-handedly make or
break a film. Pauline Kael, for example, ensured the huge success of
Last Tango in Paris and secured Bertolucci's long career. Similarly,
Andrew Sarris single-handedly destroyed Antonioni's career after
writing a nasty review for his film Mystery at Oberwald in 1980.
Antonioni has only made 2 films since, and neither have been
distributed in North Ameria. So, with the huge budget on everyone's
mind, HG was ripe for the poison pen... The quote at the bottom of this
post offers another explanation. Read on:
> You know, I've posted this before and I still sort of find it amazing that in
> 1971, "A Clockwork Orange," "The Last Picture Show," "McCabe and Mrs. Miller,"
> and "The French Connection" were *all* Academy Award nominees -- I would have
> a
> difficult time choosing between those!! You can't imagine that happening these
> days -- even though I think that there are great films being made all the time;
> they just don't recieve the sort of attention they deserve.
I must be getting old because I'm starting to say things like "they
don't make movies like they used to." Of course people forget about all
the cheesy b-movies made around that time, or the Don Knotts movies.
There has always been a lot of crap being made. Nowadays, most of the
films I see (even the low-budget independants) have exellent production
values (good visuals, sound, etc.) but confusing, dull, or cliche
stories and lame characters. The art of story-telling has largely been
replaced by, either films with no creative spark (just
pan-tilt-and-invoice "filmed theatre") or "art" films that concerns
itself with creating cool-looking images, but don't really think if
helps tell the story -- if it bothers to tell a story in the first
place (something talked about below...). Films like The Last Picture
Show and The French Connection are wonderful examples of great stories,
characters and a visual style that only enhanced these strong qualities
(not deflated or distracted from them). That's the art of the
filmmaking to me (in the "narrative" tradition anyway).
Anyway, about that quote I was talking about... recently I sent someone
these quotes from the book Masters of Light. It's 2 excerpts from the
interview with cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond (Mcabe & Mrs. Miller,
Deliverance, The Deer Hunter, Heaven's Gate). It relates to a lot of
things we've both mentioned:
Q: Most likely Altman knows how to convey what he wants and that goes
hand in hand with trusting you. Why would he get Vilmos Zsigmond in the
first place if not for his exceptional camerawork?
A: It's funny you mentioned this. Altman was in London and 2001 was
playing in a twin theatre on one side, and McCabe and Mrs. Miller was
playing on the other side. Somehow it happened that Altman was watching
2001 and Kubrick was watching MCabe and Mrs. Miller at the same time.
On the way out, they bumped into each other. And Kubrick started to ask
Altman questions. He said, "Robert, how do you do those beautiful zoom
shots, when the camera starts zoooming in and it pans and ends up on
that beautiful composition? Do you do that yourself?" And Robert said,
"No, I'm not doing that myself; it's my cameraman doing it." And
Kubrick said, "Do you trust him?" To which Robert replied, "Of course I
trust him; he's doing it exactly the way I would do it if I was behind
the camera, that's his job."
... I've made many pictures that were not accepted by the public but I
think most of them were ahead of their time."
Q: Like Scarecrow?
A: Scarecrow probably was one of those. Futz was definitely one; it was
way ahead of its time. Heaven's Gate is a classic example of this.
Everyone was trying to judge that picture in relation to present-day
pictures. And on that basis they find fault with the film. But I'm
pretty sure that as the years go by, somebody will dig up the picture
and say, "What a genius this Cimino was! He realized he didn't need a
strong story to make a motion piture." Right now maybe you'll laugh at
that. But I think the time will come when a plot is not going to be
that important for a picture.
Q: What will be important then?
A: The visual quality of a picture. Movies should be a visual
experience. Unfortuantely when sound came in, movies became
photographed theatre, where the play was the thing. We are still at
that stage.
Q: We've been there for the last fifty years.
A: We are still there. Some directors, like Kubrick, are trying to
continue the era of silent films. But there is a big resistance because
people got used to photographed theatre. You have to have a good plot,
a good story; if you don't have that, forget it. The piture is not
going to be successful commercially....
Darryl Wiggers
> My favorite quote ever regarding Cimino comes from Douglas Pratt of The
> Laserdisc Newsletter in his review of Year of the Dragon:
>
> "As for the celebrated director, he has shown an incredible ability to
> convince wealthy producers that they should play Charlie Brown to his
> Lucy-holding-the-football style of filmmaking. The jacket cover quotes one
> critic as saying, 'Michael Cimino has talent to burn.' Please, oh please,
> may we light the first match?"
Excellent quote, Josh. I think you're very much right. There are some
marvelous moments in Cimino's films, but equally some awful ones (e.g.
the closing scene for Year of the Dragon). Of course a lot of
subsequent work has been a perpetual attempt to prove he can shoot
on-time and on-budget (which he consistently has) but Hollywood stills
refuses to forgive him and let him tell a proper story. At one time he
was suppose to direct the Kevin Baon film Footloose. Wouldn't THAT have
been interesting!
dw
boaz...@my-deja.com
finances, but
> > a matter of how that film lives on in the hearts and minds of those
who have
> > been moved by it.
>
> > >then) the tremendous fallout caused from HG. You say that Cimino
not
> > >making more films is a loss to everyone; there are still a lot of
> > >people here in L.A. who would strongly disagree with you. Many of
them
> > >felt Cimino should never have been allowed to step behind a camera
> > >again after HG. The nearly $40 million spent practically wiped out
> > >UA's budget for other projects that could bring a return to the
company
> > >in order to compensate the loss here (HG earned not much more than
$2
> > >million before it was finally pulled from theaters; a two and a
half
> > >hour re-cut didn't help matters, and, in fact, made the film even
more
> > >confusing).
>
> and Toronto (back then distributors would put a signature film like
> this in one theatre for a week or two, then let positive word-of-mouth
> sell it to other theatres... and if word-of-mouth wasn't positive,
they
> were in trouble).
Actually, HG never made its L.A. premiere. (At the Cineplex theater in
Century City, I believe there is still by the box office a reserved
seat ticket on display for HG that never got used. Talk about rubbing
salt in a wound!) It was at the NY and Toronto premieres that UA
smelled trouble, and the film was pulled from distribution before it
ever made it to L.A. Also, the positive word-of-mouth approach doesn't
work anymore, as has been posted in the past. For the studios, it
really is sink-or-swim on opening weekend. Then, of course, the second
and third weekends also have to show promise. If it doesn't, as was
the case for EWS, then the studio cuts its losses and goes on with
their next release, hoping for the best. No matter how much is
emphasized about film preservation, studio heads still see film as
disposable product.
HG didn't get bad reviews after the premiere. They
> were horrible, vicious attacks. Cimino pleaded with UA to withdraw the
> film and they did. By the time the trimmed version appeared a few
> months later, people were no longer interested. The purists wanted to
> see the original. The cynics believed a shorter piece-of-shit is still
> a piece-of-shit... I personally thought the shorter version took away
> nothing from the story (it was thin enough as it was since all
> Kristofferson seemed to say was "There are over 100 names on a...
death
> list."). And I though the editing of the final scene was brilliant
> (Peter, the final boat scene was cut down considerably... you never
see
> the Harvard woman. Just Kristofferson as he stares into the mirror and
> remembers Ella's death in flashback. A terrific marraige of two
> seperate scenes). But, you saw much less of Vilmos Zsigmond's
> cinematography, and that was definitely a loss.
You've hit the nail on the head when you said HG had a thin story.
That was what was wrong with it from the beginning. It was a paper
thin melodrama wrapped up in David Lean-like imagery. The Johnson
County War was hardly what Cimino depicted in his film, it was more
like a small skirmish. Cimino's script took tremendous liberties with
historical fact, taking what was a minor incident about cattlemen and
rustlers and turning it into this bloated epic and made it look like
the Charge of the Light Brigade, Custer's Last Stand and the battle of
the Alamo all rolled into one. Cimino said he wanted to make a film
that showed the end of '60s ideals and attempted to use the range war
as a metaphor for Vietnam (as if he didn't cover that subject
already). Actually, HG did symbolize the end of '60s ideals in
Hollywood filmmaking, because after that a lot of the films that came
out later in the decade catered to the '80s mentality of greed and
yuppie lifestyles. But the script was weak and had more in common with
dime novel melodramas than a serious drama about a man having to choose
between his ideals and becoming the thing he is fighting against. Too
often, Cimino showed Kristofferson kicking ass like some action film
hero or the hero of some immediate justice film (or even like Clint
Eastwood, who gave Cimino his break by letting him direct "Thunderbolt
and Lightfoot") and not showing him questioning his own morality, which
is what makes this story melodrama and a film like "The Godfather," for
example, good drama.
But I really wanted to like HG, believe me. I knew Cimino was up to
something back in '79, but I didn't know exactly what, except that it
was a western and it was called "Heaven's Gate." I had very little
access to any detailed information before moving to L.A. For example,
I never found out until later that someone on the crew wrote a long
letter about what it was really like on the location, which got
published in the L.A. Times Calendar section. That really began the
ball rolling concerning the negative publicity on the film. My only
information prior to the film's release came in the American
Cinematographer articles about the film. After reading the articles
and seeing the gorgeous production stills, I couldn't wait to see it.
Then I heard about the film being pulled from distribution and being
reedited, and then all sorts of horror stories came out of the
woodwork. By the time I saw it, it was the two and a half hour cut
(and I saw it in a practically empty theater, the negative publicity
had successfully kept the audiences away). It was not only confusing
as far as the story went, but the sound was awful; I could hardly make
out what was said half of the time. There were subtitles for the
characters who spoke foreign languages, but it almost seemed necessary
to have subtitles for all of the characters. It looked beautiful, but
the images were too strong and the weak story couldn't sustain the
weight of the film's look. It came off to me as pretentious. My
favorite scene is in the skating rink. It made the movie for me. It
was as if Cimino had gone back in time and shot the activity in a
frontier skating tent of 110 years ago. The music was beautiful and
the actors and extras seemed to be really enjoying themselves. It was
a beautiful interlude to a film that seemed to made up of interludes
mixed in with melodramatic action that didn't quite gel. I also liked
the opening, which was supposed to be at Harvard, but was shot at
Oxford because the Harvard officials didn't want a Hollywood film crew
on their grounds. This was one of the last scenes shot, and it was
done on a tight schedule and budget. Cimino brought it in on time and
within budget, yet it looks just as grand as anything he spent an
inordinate amount of time and money on in Montana. I also liked the
speeches Joseph Cotten and John Hurt gave, as they were very much in
the style of valedictory addresses of that period. The costumes were
great and the dancing also looked terrific. But too often, Cimino
indulges in ceremony scenes that are meant to convey atmosphere and
character to an environment, and it ends up stopping the show because
the screenplay he often shoots from is very filmsy, thus not giving to
two elements a proper balance. It's as if he's trying to do the
cinematic equivalent of the epic novel, but it doesn't work because the
story is weak and the characters are often uninteresting.
I dug out my old copy of the film, which I taped off the Movie Channel
many years ago, so it's pan-and-scan, not a letterbox edition, after my
post earlier just to see if my opionion of the film has changed. It
has somewhat. I believe it was an excuse for Hollywood to keep the
director from overindulging, and I believe Cimino was the Judas goat of
a lot of other directors. But I also believe it is still a weak film,
and its weakness derives from characters that are basically one-
dimensional that are operating from within a melodramatic plot inflated
to give the impression of a huge epic. If there ever was a cinematic
emperor without any clothes, HG was it. But I suppose the same could
be said for the films mentioned above from the previous post. They too
were overblown, self-indulgent works. But it was HG that became the
symbol of excess in Hollywood, and it took a long time for Cimino to
live that one down.
>
> > >I suggest reading "Final Cut," by Steven Bach.
>
> Indeed, a very entertaining read. It details an era of Hollywood that
> is now long gone. A reviewer once bitterly complained that, when he
> started in the business in the 1970s "I was reviewing art for
adults...
> now I'm reviewing product for teenagers."
I would also recommend Peter Biskin's "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls,"
which talks about HG.
The other thought I'd like to conclude this post on is that one of the
reasons people like Peter liked HG was probably because they weren't
around to recall the repercussions it created. He came into watching
this film with a clean slate, no preconceived notions or prejudices,
nothing to cloud or influence his judgement. Perhaps the same can be
said about EWS, though I hope it doesn't take fifteen to twenty years
before it's truly appreciated for what it is and not condemned for what
it isn't. He might be right about time determining whether HG will be
any good or not. I myself don't see it as a great film, but I think
it's pretty good in places and not as bad as it was made out to be when
it first premiered in 1980. It's flawed but watchable. And I think
more and more people will watch it, regardless of their age, and
say, "Gee, this isn't so bad after all." I also hope the same thing
will be said someday soon about EWS.
Peter Tonguette
(snips throughout)
>No (someone correct me if I'm wrong). I've only seen it when it shows
>up in second-run theatres -- the only place to watch such a film
>anyway. Once Upon a Time in America was initially released in both its
>long and short versions (though the European version longer than both).
>Now I only see the longer version around (and thank goodness for that)
>I had watched the premiere version on video before I saw the shorter
>one. It was certainly painful to notice over an hour of beautiful
>images not there anymore. The pacing was also screwed up. Example:
>Remember the execution of the station master, after the intermission?
>In the long version, after his death, the camera holds on his face as
>it rests on the ground, and you can see the posse in the background. As
>they begin to ride off, the camera moves up (crane shot) and follows
>them off. In the short version the shot begins precisely when the
>camera starts to move... I've seen similar butchery when comparing the
>short version of Once Upon a Time in America with the long version (now
>there's a "masterpiece")
>
Agree on all points..."Once Upon a Time in America" (the long version) was my
first introduction, actually, to Leone's work and it remains today my
favorite...wasn't it his last film? I remember reading Roger Ebert's
comparative review of both the long (which he gave four stars) and short (one
star, if I recall correctly) versions and noting how one sequence (I forget the
context in which this appears, but I hope you get my point) that has a
telephone ringing six or seven times as a psychological effect in the original
cut; in the short version, the phone rings *once*!!
>> What do you suppose accounted for the negative press -- I've never been
>able
>> to
>> read any of the early reviews (Although I know that Roger Ebert, reviewing
>> probably the cut version, gave it 1 1/2 stars -- yikes). Do you think that
>> even at that initial stage, the critics were reviewing more the film's
>budget
>> and sort of bloated history than the content itself?
>
>Exactly. Movies like Apocalpse Now got the ball rolling on criticizing
>films on the basis of their budgets (in previous decades there were
>films like Cleopatra to pick on -- another film that has gained respect
>with time). At the time critics had incredible weight (it's very
>apparent when you read The Final Cut, which also includes HG review
>excerpts. The book is VERY easy to find in both major and second-hand
>bookstores. I'd recommend the hard-cover version in 2nd-hand. It should
>only be a couple of bucks at most). They could single-handedly make or
>break a film. Pauline Kael, for example, ensured the huge success of
>Last Tango in Paris and secured Bertolucci's long career. Similarly,
>Andrew Sarris single-handedly destroyed Antonioni's career after
>writing a nasty review for his film Mystery at Oberwald in 1980.
>Antonioni has only made 2 films since, and neither have been
>distributed in North Ameria. So, with the huge budget on everyone's
>mind, HG was ripe for the poison pen...
>
Yes, some of the posts I've read today have convinced me to check out the Bach
book. There are a lot of critics who I have an enormous amount of regard for,
who really try to understand what the filmmaker was trying to do, and explain
his/her success or failure (I would count Ebert, Rosenbaum, and Sarris in this
category). But bad hype can be deadly: A film like Bogdanovich's At Long Last
Love probably failed at the box office solely because of it's bad press, even
though, seen today objectively, is one of, IMO, Bogdanovich's greatest and most
personal works.
>
>I must be getting old because I'm starting to say things like "they
>don't make movies like they used to." Of course people forget about all
>the cheesy b-movies made around that time, or the Don Knotts movies.
>There has always been a lot of crap being made. Nowadays, most of the
>films I see (even the low-budget independants) have exellent production
>values (good visuals, sound, etc.) but confusing, dull, or cliche
>stories and lame characters. The art of story-telling has largely been
>replaced by, either films with no creative spark (just
>pan-tilt-and-invoice "filmed theatre") or "art" films that concerns
>itself with creating cool-looking images, but don't really think if
>helps tell the story -- if it bothers to tell a story in the first
>place (something talked about below...). Films like The Last Picture
>Show and The French Connection are wonderful examples of great stories,
>characters and a visual style that only enhanced these strong qualities
>(not deflated or distracted from them). That's the art of the
>filmmaking to me (in the "narrative" tradition anyway).
>
I couldn't agree with you more!! I think that this is why Peter Bogdanovich's
films (Not only The Last Picture Show, but Paper Moon, Mask, the above
mentioned At Long Last Love) are to be so valued; because he was a former film
critic, I think that his films were often carelessly sort of labeled as
"homages" to this film or that (i.e., "Last Picture Show" and "Magnificent
Ambersons"; "Paper Moon," "Dr. Bull" etc.). Instead, they reflect a genuine,
fully developed understanding of the basic art of the cinema: that is to tell
stories, to evoke emotions through a visual means. The sort of lack of
appreciation for film history among a lot of filmmakers these days I think,
more than anything, accounts for a lot of the poor films being released these
days.
Thanks very much for posting this -- the story about the Altman/Kubrick meeting
is rather amazing: two of the greatest directors in history, each seeing two of
their respective greatest works!! I wonder if SK's admiration for some of the
zooms in McCabe led to his extensive use of them in Barry Lyndon?
I think that Zsigmond has some excellent points, certainly food for thought on
this thread -- I would disagree that films are *soley* an unguided visual
experience; if you read about a lot of the pioneer directors, they define the
cinema as "telling a story without words." I have always thought of the
greatest films ("2001," "Sunrise," and even "Heaven's Gate") as visual
experiences, but their visuals serve to relay a story or convey an atmosphere
or mood. And then where do we place an artist such as Chaplin, whose later
works clearly violated every Hitchcockian principle of "pure cinema."
Peter
D. Larson
cover books of black and white pictures of the war...they look remarkably
like the recreations in The Train.
During the last sequence of the movie where Lancaster derails the train for
the last time, the Nazis execute the hostiges...there are many intercut
shots of the painting crates and the dead hostages that indicate a parity
between the painting and the dead hostages...both laying on the ground. The
Train is the nexus for both.
The final shot of Lancaster as Labiche walking back towards Paris while
the derailed train hisses makes me think that he is going back to Christine
the motel owner and possibly a life he really didn't have before or during
the war...the paintings lie on the ground next to the train...paid for by
the hostage's lives.
boaz...@my-deja.com wrote:
Keith Griffin Gordon
> (snip)
>
> The other thought I'd like to conclude this post on is that one of the
> reasons people like Peter liked HG was probably because they weren't
> around to recall the repercussions it created. He came into watching
> this film with a clean slate, no preconceived notions or prejudices,
> nothing to cloud or influence his judgement. Perhaps the same can be
> said about EWS, though I hope it doesn't take fifteen to twenty years
> before it's truly appreciated for what it is and not condemned for what
> it isn't. He might be right about time determining whether HG will be
> any good or not. I myself don't see it as a great film, but I think
> it's pretty good in places and not as bad as it was made out to be when
> it first premiered in 1980. It's flawed but watchable. And I think
> more and more people will watch it, regardless of their age, and
> say, "Gee, this isn't so bad after all." I also hope the same thing
> will be said someday soon about EWS.
>
> Boaz8741
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Hi all,
Sorry to be joining in on this late, but I was away for the weekend. As
fate would have it, I ended up in a discussion about "Heaven's Gate" from
a slightly different angle. What stuck me, was how Cimino was a classic
example of the (American?) obsession with over-building people up to an
insane degree (artists, sports figures, politicians, whatever), only to
tear them down by equally silly measure (and then, perhaps, 're-discover'
and build them up again.).
To me (and I know there are many who will argue), Deer Hunter and HG were
very similar in both their strengths and their weaknesses. They both were
beautifully photographed, long, complex social commentaries, with some
amazing sequences and powerful images. But both also seemed a bit
over-long, ponderous and self-important -- as though they thought their
ideas were even deeper than they were (something I never feel with Kubrick,
who's ideas really do seem complicated enough to justify a lengthy,
meditative approach).
The idea that, within a couple of years, one of these films was heralded as
one of the great films of our time, and the other condemned as trash, says
far more about our society, than about the films or their maker.
On another front, I think a lot of what brought the world crashing down on
Cimino was his personality. He is (or was) a man of tremendous, outspoken
ego to the point of alienating a lot of people around him, and I think
there were many, in the press and 'the biz' who looked forward to taking
him down a few notches. Of course, in theory, a huge ego or a grating,
abusive personality should have nothing to do with how the world sees a
work of art, but we seem to often judge the singer and the song as one.
(Unless we're looking at the person in the 'rose colored glasses' phase, in
which case those same qualities are seen as artistic eccentricities proving
the genius of the creator!)
Just some random thoughts...
Keith
Peter Tonguette
Thanks for sharing some of your thoughts on this topic -- a lot of quite
interesting thoughts in your post, so I'll try to comment on some of them one
by one (With as few snips along the way as possible):
>Sorry to be joining in on this late, but I was away for the weekend. As
>fate would have it, I ended up in a discussion about "Heaven's Gate" from
>a slightly different angle. What stuck me, was how Cimino was a classic
>example of the (American?) obsession with over-building people up to an
>insane degree (artists, sports figures, politicians, whatever), only to
>tear them down by equally silly measure (and then, perhaps, 're-discover'
>and build them up again.).
>
I agree with this totally -- never does the business seem as spiteful or
unappealing than when you learn something like that Erich Von Stroheim never
directed a feature length film after the late '20s or the innumerable projects
that Orson Welles -- the maker of "The Magnficent Ambersons," "Touch of Evil,"
"Othello" -- never was able to get off the ground.
>To me (and I know there are many who will argue), Deer Hunter and HG were
>very similar in both their strengths and their weaknesses. They both were
>beautifully photographed, long, complex social commentaries, with some
>amazing sequences and powerful images. But both also seemed a bit
>over-long, ponderous and self-important -- as though they thought their
>ideas were even deeper than they were (something I never feel with Kubrick,
>who's ideas really do seem complicated enough to justify a lengthy,
>meditative approach).
>
I would agree that HG is not a perfect film -- but so few films attain
perfection that, I suppose, a lot of my admiration for it and certainly my
admiration for Cimino is based on his pure ambition; I would take a film with
ambition that does not totally succeed (Although, I believe, that the levels on
which HG succeeds, many of which you've identified in your post already, out
number whatever faults it may have) that a film with no ambition whatsoever
that succeeds on just nominal levels. This is not to imply that all great
films have also been great innovations -- I think that far too often, what may
lie in the steadfast or conventional is overlooked for what is new and
exciting; just think of how demonized the word like "stereotypical" has become.
What is a film like "Rio Bravo" or "The Searchers" *but* "stereotypical," in
that their influence has become so wide reaching that they have become the
models for their own genres? And yet they are still great films -- just as a
groundbreaker like "2001" is, or, as the case may be, a film that tries to
expand the form like "HG" is.
>The idea that, within a couple of years, one of these films was heralded as
>one of the great films of our time, and the other condemned as trash, says
>far more about our society, than about the films or their maker.
>
Oh, yes, absolutley. I think you may be on to something when you say that HG
and The Deer Hunter really are not that far apart and so that one is regarded
as a modern masterpiece (Rightly so) and one has, sadly, become the buzz word
for Hollywood excess is a sad commentary. But, after all of the hype and talk,
there is always the film and that it has inspired and touched me and others I
think is some measure of it's relative success.
Just my thoughts,
Peter
Nycouplee
John Frankenheimer is actually John Frankenheimer: The Man From Manchurian by
Charles Camplin.
boaz...@my-deja.com
"This is bigger than lunch!" (Supposedly said by Michael Cimino on
the "Heaven's Gate" location.)
Boaz8741 (just another thief and anarchist about to shit a pumpkin)
Darryl Wiggers
Keith. Forgive me while I move into "debate mode" but my perspective is
somewhat different.
> Sorry to be joining in on this late, but I was away for the weekend. As
> fate would have it, I ended up in a discussion about "Heaven's Gate" from
> a slightly different angle. What stuck me, was how Cimino was a classic
> example of the (American?) obsession with over-building people up to an
> insane degree (artists, sports figures, politicians, whatever), only to
> tear them down by equally silly measure (and then, perhaps, 're-discover'
> and build them up again.).
To me this was very much the case around the time HG was released
(1980) and much less so now. Back then the studios has far less control
over the marketing of films, and critics could independantly make or
break a film by one review. Wild Wild West is one recent example of
this new trend. I don't remember a single glowing review for the
film... and very few people who actually like it... but with massive
marketing, a tie-in video, product endorsement and enough "reviewers"
eager to see their names on advertising, the film became a must-see
event. It may not have been a blockbuster, but the investment was
protected. Even low-budget independant films are now marketed to ensure
appeal. I've seen many art-house hits that were simply wretched, but
because their were enough critics singing its praises, and an art-house
community eager for product, people were convinced that they were
seeing something grand. Worthy of notice. Just enough to turn a
profit... and that's the only place where critics still have influence:
the little films (critics like Kenneth Turan ome to mind). So they
praise almost every little one they see, and crap on the big ones
(which dosen't matter). It's so predictable I don't bother reading them
anymore.
> To me (and I know there are many who will argue), Deer Hunter and HG were
> very similar in both their strengths and their weaknesses. They both were
> beautifully photographed, long, complex social commentaries, with some
> amazing sequences and powerful images. But both also seemed a bit
> over-long, ponderous and self-important -- as though they thought their
> ideas were even deeper than they were (something I never feel with Kubrick,
> who's ideas really do seem complicated enough to justify a lengthy,
> meditative approach).
Interesting. But I still think the story of DH had something more that
viewers could relate to. Remember, at the time it was the first major
Hollywood film to deal with the Vietnam War (besides forgettable films
like The Green Berets and Coming Home). People were fascinated by the
topic and anxious to see it dramatized on the big screen. The time was
ripe for a Vietnam flick. And despite how "unrealistic" you may call
the Russian Roulette scenes, I can rarely remember a more intense piece
of cinema -- more intense than anything in HG; a film dealing with a
topic few could possibly be interested in. Overall what sets DH apart
is its terrific characters, and wealth of scenes that maximized the
drama of their relationships. The long wedding sequence truly set the
tone. You felt like you were in their world -- a not very pretty world,
but it was home. And when they faced the hardships of war, I (at least)
truly wanted these characters to survive. To live and return home.
Sadly I felt no empathy for the characters in HG. I never had a clear
idea of who they were and what made them tick (I've NEVER been able to
figure out what da hell John Hurt's character is up to). Their fate was
not a concern... but the film did have lovely pictures and terrific
music. And if you insist on making "narrative" cinema, some thought has
to be placed on story and characters. Not everyone gives a shit about
that neat-o crane shot, or how it's lit.
> The idea that, within a couple of years, one of these films was heralded as
> one of the great films of our time, and the other condemned as trash, says
> far more about our society, than about the films or their maker.
Again, I see less of that circumstance now. Can anyone give a
contemporary example of a filmmaker who was so universally pumped
up/then torn down like Cimino? I don't think so because I think that's
one of the lessons Hollywood learned from that fiasco. It simply
dosen't make good business sense to do so. And with the lateral
ownership of studios, publishing, television, music and such, there's
much more at stake to protect.
> On another front, I think a lot of what brought the world crashing down on
> Cimino was his personality. He is (or was) a man of tremendous, outspoken
> ego to the point of alienating a lot of people around him, and I think
> there were many, in the press and 'the biz' who looked forward to taking
> him down a few notches. Of course, in theory, a huge ego or a grating,
> abusive personality should have nothing to do with how the world sees a
> work of art, but we seem to often judge the singer and the song as one.
> (Unless we're looking at the person in the 'rose colored glasses' phase, in
> which case those same qualities are seen as artistic eccentricities proving
> the genius of the creator!)
I think a big problem is that UA had much to blame for this, and this
is clear when you read 'The Final Cut' (even though it was written by a
former UA exec who is more likely to show himself in the best possible
light, and Cimino in the worst). When they saw DH they were blown away
and they srambled like mad to hire him and let him make anything he
wanted. Cimino's script for HG ('The Johnson County War') had been
sitting around, gathering dust, for something like 10 years. Before
then nobody wanted to touch it (go figure) but, now, with his new
status Cimino knew he could (and UA was willing to at any cost) finally
get this pet project made. On top of this Cimino won all those Academy
Awards on the day HG started shooting. With this further endorsement he
went all out to spare no expense -- and UA continued writing the
cheques. They fed his indulgence, if not his ego.
Besides, I think you'll agree that Cimino is not the only director with
an inflated ego (if you assume he did or still does). And many of them
get away with it. Some are even praised for it (Hollywood doesn't shit
on James Cameron for his arrogance). Bottom line, it's not ego or lack
thereof that Hollywood cares about. It's whether or not the artist is a
good investment... don't you think?
dw
Mike Jackson
> >I also remember some of Ronin's dialogue making me roll my eyes, and
> >some of the subplots too - and I cant explain that further because, like I
> >said, I dont really remember it.
>
> Yes, I agree that a lot of this stuff in Ronin fell flat as a flapjack(mmmm).
> It was rather forgetable. I can't seem to remember one good quote from the
> entire movie, and that's bad for me!
That's the second thing "they" teach you...
> I do agree that a Kubrick Civil War
> >film would have been very intriuging. Actually what topic wouldnt be?
>
> Cross stitching?
All sewing and no play makes Jack a dull boy?
I can just see Jack chasing the quilting bee ladies with a knitting needle...
Hmmm... Perhaps it wouldn't be the same effect...
--
Mike Jackson
Mental Pictures
Photography &
Graphic Design
Phone/ Fax (228) 696-2702
Joshua Zyber
Darryl Wiggers <dar...@pathcom.com> wrote in message
news:210919990246411386%dar...@pathcom.com...
> To me this was very much the case around the time HG was released
> (1980) and much less so now. Back then the studios has far less control
> over the marketing of films, and critics could independantly make or
> break a film by one review. Wild Wild West is one recent example of
> this new trend. I don't remember a single glowing review for the
> film... and very few people who actually like it... but with massive
> marketing, a tie-in video, product endorsement and enough "reviewers"
> eager to see their names on advertising, the film became a must-see
> event. It may not have been a blockbuster, but the investment was
> protected.
This is generally true, but every so often a case like Batman and Robin
comes along. The film had a massive budget and was riding a huge wave of
hype, but got such horribly horribly negative reviews that it tanked
(deservedly so).
> Again, I see less of that circumstance now. Can anyone give a
> contemporary example of a filmmaker who was so universally pumped
> up/then torn down like Cimino?
Well, this isn't exactly the same thing, but David Lynch went through a
similar scenario after the huge success of the first season of Twin Peaks.
He was riding high and everyone in Hollywood wanted to be associated with
him, but by the time the second season was halfway through he was a pariah.
Fire Walk With Me (one of the best films of the decade) got *universally*
terrible reviews from otherwise objective critics. The New York Times said
"If this isn't the worst film ever made, it sure feels like it." There was
no call for that, and the horrible reviews killed its box office as well. I
went to the film in the middle of its first week of release with my
girlfriend at the time. We were the only two people in the theatre.... And
it was a great movie, but nobody knew it!
> Besides, I think you'll agree that Cimino is not the only director with
> an inflated ego (if you assume he did or still does). And many of them
> get away with it. Some are even praised for it (Hollywood doesn't shit
> on James Cameron for his arrogance).
Actually, they do. Just not to his face. Nobody would dare turn him down for
anything he wants, but everyone who has ever worked with him hates his guts.
>Bottom line, it's not ego or lack
> thereof that Hollywood cares about. It's whether or not the artist is a
> good investment... don't you think?
This is certainly true, but it is still possible to turn the investment
potential of certain directors around. How did Michael Bay break his way out
of music video obscurity to the point where he is now helming a $250 million
Pearl Harbor movie? It certainly had nothing to do with talent.
- Josh
Bilge Ebiri
>>Wild Wild West is one recent example of
>> this new trend. I don't remember a single glowing review for the
>> film... and very few people who actually like it... but with massive
>> marketing, a tie-in video, product endorsement and enough "reviewers"
>> eager to see their names on advertising, the film became a must-see
>> event. It may not have been a blockbuster, but the investment was
>> protected.
>
>comes along. The film had a massive budget and was riding a huge wave of
>hype, but got such horribly horribly negative reviews that it tanked
>(deservedly so).
>
I think that Batman & Robin and WWW are in pretty much the same boat --
massively hyped, overblown projects that made enough to qualify themselves
as moderate hits (both over $100 mil, IIRC) but still fell far short of
their studios' (ridiculous) expectations.
> Again, I see less of that circumstance now. Can anyone give a
>> contemporary example of a filmmaker who was so universally pumped
>> up/then torn down like Cimino?
>
Probably not, although Coppola experienced a similar rise & fall over a
longer period of time and a wider array of films. Though I'm a big admirer
of the other bloated auteur project of this era, FFC's One from the Heart, I
am actually NOT a fan of Heaven's Gate (I do think that The Deer Hunter is a
great film, though) -- it feels too much to me like Cimino saw Days of
Heaven and decided that he was going to out-do Malick, and failed --
miserably. It's certainly not the worst film ever made (and it sure as heck
isn't the worst film Cimino made -- not by a long shot), but it is, IMO, not
a very good one. That Cimino's films since then have gotten progressively
worse, culminating most recently in the unwatchable Sunchaser, seems to
indicate that his "genius" really wasn't much of anything. I know that HG
has its admirers, but I have to say that it is one indulgent epic I can do
without.
love,
Bilge