Angel Heart Question
Chi Mao
Does anyone know the significance of using fans in this
Lisa Bonet/Mickey Rourke movie? Every other shot was
of a fan. I thought it had some religious implications
but no one has been able to tell me what it means. Or
maybe it just doesn't mean anything then in that case, never
mind.
CM
Kathryn Scholl
I have also wondered this, if anyone has a (good) answer.
Sorry if this is a FAQ.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Kathryn Scholl -- Above text reflects opinions of the author, not VMark --
Vmark Software, Inc., 30 Speen Street, Framingham, MA 01701, USA
Michael S Ritchie
>
>Does anyone know the significance of using fans in this
>Lisa Bonet/Mickey Rourke movie? Every other shot was
>of a fan. I thought it had some religious implications
>but no one has been able to tell me what it means.
OK, here's my best shot. Back when the movie first came out,
there were some stills in Fangoria of scenes that never wound
up in the final cut. One of those was of the actual bloody
ritual, and it took place in a large room with one of those
fans in the wall. I assume that the fans were focused on
as reminders to Angel/Favorite of his "origin." Wonder if
Parker will ever do a "Director's Cut" with all the
gory footage intact?--Though I must state that I have no
idea how much was really cut, and whether it was cut because
Parker just thought it didn't belong.
--
Michael Ritchie | "Just remember, we're all
mrit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu | in this alone."
| --Lily Tomlin
KRA...@nuacvm.acns.nwu.edu
sch...@vmark.com (Kathryn Scholl) writes:
>In article <26...@news01.pge.com> cy...@encon.pge.com (Chi Mao) writes:
>>
>>Does anyone know the significance of using fans in this
>>Lisa Bonet/Mickey Rourke movie? Every other shot was
>>of a fan. I thought it had some religious implications
>>but no one has been able to tell me what it means. Or
>>maybe it just doesn't mean anything then in that case, never
>>mind.
>>
>
>I have also wondered this, if anyone has a (good) answer.
>Sorry if this is a FAQ.
was terribly underwhelmed by the movie anyway). Why all the shots of
fans? Then one day I was in a bookstore glancing through some sci-fi/horror
film magazines and saw an article about ANGEL HEART. There was a still from
a scene which was cut from the film, and it was of someone decapitated (or
otherwise mutilated) by such a fan. It seems rather silly that they left
in all of the foreshadowing shots when the reason for their being was done
away with.
Kevin M. Randall
Northwestern University Library
ivan audouin
very pretentious. I think he was attempting to portray urban menace and
the hot climate, and he just fell in love with shots through fan blades.
Just my uninformed opinion.
Ivan
Todd Knuth
> In article <26...@news01.pge.com>, Chi Mao <cy...@encon.pge.com> wrote:
> >
> >Does anyone know the significance of using fans in this
> >Lisa Bonet/Mickey Rourke movie? Every other shot was
> >of a fan. I thought it had some religious implications
> >but no one has been able to tell me what it means.
>
> OK, here's my best shot. Back when the movie first came out,
> there were some stills in Fangoria of scenes that never wound
> up in the final cut. One of those was of the actual bloody
> ritual, and it took place in a large room with one of those
> fans in the wall. I assume that the fans were focused on
> as reminders to Angel/Favorite of his "origin." Wonder if
> Parker will ever do a "Director's Cut" with all the
> gory footage intact?--Though I must state that I have no
> idea how much was really cut, and whether it was cut because
> Parker just thought it didn't belong.
I agree. When they show the room this happened in from the outside, all
you see is a large fan in the window.
> --
> Michael Ritchie | "Just remember, we're all
> mrit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu | in this alone."
> | --Lily Tomlin
---
-------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Knuth Cleveland Clinic Foundation
GO OILERS, INDIANS, CAVS, RED WINGS, and BUCKEYES
Rush is RIGHT!
"My career has taken a 130 degree turn"
--Jeff Stone Pittsburgh Pirates ---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Reiher
>Wonder if
>Parker will ever do a "Director's Cut" with all the
>gory footage intact?--Though I must state that I have no
>idea how much was really cut, and whether it was cut because
>Parker just thought it didn't belong.
Parker produced the cut of the film he thought was most effective.
As a result of being slapped with an X-rating, he cut a few seconds
of it (the scene of Mickey Rourke humping Lisa Bonet as blood drips
from the ceiling), which got an R-rating. I believe it was less than
10 seconds. The other footage people have been talking about is
footage that Parker apparently felt did not improve the film, and
possibly made it worse.
Just because footage that was shot doesn't make it into the final
film does not necessarily mean that the director got screwed. Only
a few directors shoot films so tightly that everything that appears
in the shooting script winds up on the screen. Part of the art of
film is determining which of the material you shot works and which
doesn't. Often, when people like a film and hear that scenes were
shot for it that were not in the final cut, they assume that "more
is better", and that they would prefer the film with these cut scenes.
Assuming that most directors and editors know what they're doing,
that's generally not true. If it didn't make the final film, there's
a very good reason that usually has to do with pace, quality of the
scene, tone, or other artistic decisions.
There are counterexamples, of course, but the above is generally
true. Now, really big fans of certain films may have a special
interest in such footage, for reasons of study - *why* did the
director choose not to include this scene? *Why* did the last two
lines of dialog get chopped off? But you have to be pretty deeply
interested in a film for that to be worthwhile.
--
Peter Reiher
rei...@wells.cs.ucla.edu
Michael S Ritchie
Peter Reiher <rei...@ficus.cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
>Parker produced the cut of the film he thought was most effective.
>As a result of being slapped with an X-rating, he cut a few seconds
>of it (the scene of Mickey Rourke humping Lisa Bonet as blood drips
>from the ceiling), which got an R-rating. I believe it was less than
>10 seconds. The other footage people have been talking about is
>footage that Parker apparently felt did not improve the film, and
>possibly made it worse.
>
>Just because footage that was shot doesn't make it into the final
>film does not necessarily mean that the director got screwed. [...]
>If it didn't make the final film, there's
>a very good reason that usually has to do with pace, quality of the
>scene, tone, or other artistic decisions.
I basically agree, but in this particular case, keeping some
of the flashback footage that was cut might have helped to make
the convoluted plotline a little more understandable. Perhaps
Parker decided he didn't want to be so explicit in showing the
"voodoo" ritual scene, but I would love to see what he shot.
Paul J Reynolds
>In article 2...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu, mrit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael S Ritchie) writes:
>>
>> OK, here's my best shot. Back when the movie first came out,
>> there were some stills in Fangoria of scenes that never wound
>> up in the final cut. One of those was of the actual bloody
>> ritual, and it took place in a large room with one of those
>> fans in the wall. I assume that the fans were focused on
>> as reminders to Angel/Favorite of his "origin." Wonder if
>> Parker will ever do a "Director's Cut" with all the
>> gory footage intact?--Though I must state that I have no
>> idea how much was really cut, and whether it was cut because
>> Parker just thought it didn't belong.
>
>I agree. When they show the room this happened in from the outside, all
>you see is a large fan in the window.
the ritual...there might have been some gore cut, but the scene is still
there.
Paul J Reynolds
Seems strange how this footage isn't shown on the US version...all the
bits that have been said to have been cut on the US version, got through
on the standard UK version on an 18 CERT...I personally found these clips
to be of importance to the film, and it's a shame you don't have the same
version in the US.
Christoph Steinecke
zum Thema "Re: Angel Heart Question":
>In article <26...@news01.pge.com>, Chi Mao <cy...@encon.pge.com> wrote:
>>
>>Does anyone know the significance of using fans in this
>>Lisa Bonet/Mickey Rourke movie? Every other shot was
>>of a fan. I thought it had some religious implications
>>but no one has been able to tell me what it means.
>
>OK, here's my best shot. Back when the movie first came out,
>there were some stills in Fangoria of scenes that never wound
>up in the final cut. One of those was of the actual bloody
>ritual, and it took place in a large room with one of those
>fans in the wall. I assume that the fans were focused on
>as reminders to Angel/Favorite of his "origin." Wonder if
>Parker will ever do a "Director's Cut" with all the
>gory footage intact?--Though I must state that I have no
>idea how much was really cut, and whether it was cut because
>Parker just thought it didn't belong.
I believe only the US Version was cut, the European release
was not edited at all !
(included teh heavy sex-scenes with Lisa Bonet)
Bye
Chris
## CrossPoint v2.93 ##
Jacques Pomerleau
> >Lisa Bonet/Mickey Rourke movie? Every other shot was
> >of a fan. I thought it had some religious implications
Greetings Earthlings,
I think it was only meant to make the audience fell hot & humid.
It worked for me, but then again, I have been to Louisisna several
times, so I didn't need those prop to remind me how it gets in the summer.
Captain Jerk
* JABBER v1.1 * Frustration factor 10, Mr. Sulu.
* Origin: Cervo-Pro-Gramme, Montreal (1:167/126)
Fridrik Gudnason
Since there seems to be some discussions over Angel Heart around here I
was wondering if somebody would be kind enough to send me the FAQ (if it
exists).
If not, then I'd surely appreciate it if somebody could tell me briefly
how the film can make sense logically!!! You see...I have this
problem, I just love the film and have seen it at least 4 times (and it
gets better and better all the time) but I still can't figure out how it
makes sense.
Sometimes I think..."Hey, that's it...at last I figured it out"
but two minutes later I see that it can't be because of some other
scene... <sigh>
By the way...don't you people just love the score! It's composed by
Trevor Jones and Courtney Pine plays the Saxophone - but tell me, has this
Trevor Jones done anything else you know about??? - just curious!
- Fridrik
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Fridrik Gudnason fri...@rhi.hi.is
The University of Iceland
Postholf 3163, 123 Reykjavik, Iceland
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Colin Needham
> By the way...don't you people just love the score! It's composed by
> Trevor Jones and Courtney Pine plays the Saxophone - but tell me, has this
> Trevor Jones done anything else you know about??? - just curious!
The rec.arts.movies movie database can answer your question. Here are some
of the ways to access it:
(1) To use the e-mail interface, send a message with the subject:
COMPO Jones, Trevor
to <mo...@ibmpcug.co.uk> and the movie mail-server will respond with the
information you require. If you include the word HELP in the body of the
message you will also receive a copy of the help file.
(2) For remote interactive access to the database via World Wide Web, if you
have access to the Mosaic program (X windows, PC and Mac versions are
available via FTP from ftp.ncsa.uiuc.edu in /Web) open the document:
http://www.cm.cf.ac.uk/Movies/moviequery.html
(3) For local interactive access to the database you can install the movie
database package on your machine, available via anonymous FTP from
cathouse.org in the file:
/pub/cathouse/movies/database/tools/moviedb-2.8.tar.Z
Col
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Now you listen to me, I'm an advertising man not a red herring"
-- Cary Grant, North by Northwest
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Col Needham, The PC Users Group, UK <c...@ibmpcug.co.uk>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Public access internet in the UK, contact <in...@ibmpcug.co.uk>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven
Did you notice that whether Rourke's going to kill somebody, the "fan"
shot will appear. I guess it has something to do with his other self.
KRA...@nuacvm.acns.nwu.edu
(including one by myself) about this and the missing mutilation scene
involving the fan. I would just like to point out that the messages
quoted above reinforce my opinion which I formed when I viewed the film
upon its initial release: it is a seriously flawed film that is
confusing, tedious, and generally worthless.
Leonard J. Augustine, Jr.
In article 26...@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu, ckc...@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu (Steven) writes:
>In article <75870914...@sjardine.1choice>, Jacques....@f126.n167.z1.sjardine.1choice (Jacques Pomerleau) writes:
>> > >Does anyone know the significance of using fans in this
>> > >Lisa Bonet/Mickey Rourke movie? Every other shot was
>> > >of a fan. I thought it had some religious implications
>>
>
>Did you notice that whether Rourke's going to kill somebody, the "fan"
>shot will appear. I guess it has something to do with his other self.
Well, of course they were used partially for "cinematic" effect. But
I thought about this and decided that there is something just a
shade deeper. Rourke does not know that he is the killer. Why
doesn't he know? Well, he must have been in some kind of a trance
while he commits the murders. What the hell would put him into a
trance? - how about staring into a fan? Maybe, just maybe, it's
just hypnotic enough for Rourke to go into a trance and let his
other personality out.
I really hated this movie while I was watching it the first time. I
can't stand movies that are mysterious for no apparent reason. It
just seemed like there were all these pieces that couldn't possibly
have a purpose to the movie - I figured there was no way to tie
everything together. But at the end of the movie, all the things
that I thought were so spurious actually were explained. And it blew
my mind that I hadn't been able to figure it out. I mean, come on,
Louis Cypher? How could I be so stupid? (Of course, it's still a
*little* fragmented, but all the pieces really do fit together.)
I would say that it had the "surprise ending" that fooled me the most
out of any movie I have ever seen.
I'm not saying it's one of the best movies of all time, but my rating
of it went from a 2 to about an 8 in about 1 minute of action.
---
Lenny Augustine (le...@aic.lockheed.com)
(Clever ASCII art withheld until I have company time to work on it.)