#heaven'sgate

Yesterday, I posted Richard Rushfield's Shootout at the Heaven's Gate Corral. The much maligned film has been restored and will be shown at the Venice Film Festival and released in a Criterion edition in November. Having written a chapter about Kris Kristofferson's 1970s film stardom for my PhD thesis, I have watched Heaven's Gate many times and have formed some strong opinions about the film.

I think Rushfield's question is valid- would you rather have films that shoot high and fail miserably or films that shoot for the middle and succeed? And he is right, Heaven's Gate is a film from a time period in American cinema when the new autuers were shooting high and, many, failed miserably. Part of this, though, occurred because the new directors were given as much rope as they wanted from the film studios to, in turn, hang themselves. Cimino is a great example of the runaway productions that dominated the late 1970s into the 1980s. Studios became wiser and sought more control over productions. This is a simplistic summary, but Heaven's Gate belongs to a time when young and only slightly proven directors (it was just Cimino's third film, right after the success of The Deer Hunter) were left largely unsupervised and could create the film they envisioned. 

I think I am in agreement with Rushfield- Heaven's Gate is both extraordinary and frustratingly awful. So many scenes are not just puzzling, but inaudible and unnecessary. The film should have been a perfect vehicle for Kris Kristofferson to stake his claim as an A-list Hollywood star. He is perfect for the role as a world-weary man tired of the conflicts that dominated the American west in the 19th century, seeking his own happiness and piece of mind. And there are some moments that truly capture KK's cowboy aesthetic better than any other 1970s film he appeared in. I am always in awe of the tracking camera on the train with KK sitting at a seat, cowboy hat dipped low over his face and his slow look up at the train conductor speaking to him. It is a perfect western/cowboy moment. Returning to his "spiritual" home with the people he wants to protect, but without the same vigour he once had. The idealism is gone, the years have ticked by and as much as he wants to do what is right for the people, he also just wants to settle down and live his own life. It is a glorious moment, perfectly shot and acted.

But, these moments are muddled by scenes that seems out-of-place, often times, making little narrative scene. There is no doubt that Cimino's focus was on the way things looked. Many shots are beautifully composed (the first crane shot of the town, a shadowy figure shot through a hanging sheet, the roller skate scene, the opening dancing scene at Harvard, Ella and Jim's waltz), but the visual takes precedence over the story.

I've often thought that The Deer Hunter is a perfect precursor to Heaven's Gate. The Deer Hunter is extremely manipulative, evoking emotional responses from the audience by using the Russian Roulette game as both a metaphor for war and the demise of one of the main characters. However, I would argue, the film is truly saved by the last scene of the mourners singing, "God Bless America" as a condemnation of their nation. Heaven's Gate also wishes to condemn the nation for a tragedy that occurred (the Johnson County War), but the film does not offer the same tight narrative structure as The Deer Hunter. Although the film is long, it is framed by pre-war life, war life, post-war life, ultimately showing what has been lost in the process. Heaven's Gate attempts to do the same, but the Harvard (pre-tragedy section) and post-tragedy sections are all focused on Jim (KK), thus making the film about one individual's experience in this tragic historical period as opposed to The Deer Hunter's group of friends (another problem is class- they are working class in The Deer Hunter, while in Heaven's Gate we follow the privileged Harvard man who wants to be "a man of the people."). Overall, there are similarities between the two films, but Cimino's focus is lost in Heaven's Gate, both in story and scope by spending so much time trying to set the mood and properly recreate the time period.

I tend to believe that Cimino struggled with recreating a time that people are somewhat familiar with, but a tragedy most are not. The Deer Hunter was contemporary and Heaven's Gate was set in the past. This is something people often overlook and I really think the failure here highlights that some directors are much better making contemporary films. Recreating time periods and being meticulous with those recreations is not a skill all filmmakers have. Cimino would have (possibly) been better served if he attempted to recreate the mood of the time as opposed to great attention to period details (Although the roller skate scene is supposedly historically accurate, it feels out of place and must have seemed even more in 1980 when America was in a roller skating boom time!). I rarely watch The Godfather films and think they are historically accurate, more that they hint at mood and time periods through costumes, clothing and sets. Westerns are even more set in the past and appear as such with hardly any of the modern technologies we have today, but how often do audiences notice china pattern details or the accuracy of costumes? The subject was maybe something Cimino should have shied away from, but it does appear that he wished to make a Deer Hunter-type film set in America's past.

A failed masterpiece? Possibly, but a lack of focus truly condemned this film. But, there is no doubt that the film and all involved with it (Cimino included) should never have received the vitriol thrust upon them when the film was released. So, a reassessment of the film is welcome, but I cannot agree with anyone who states the film is a masterpiece. It is an ambitious film that went wrong, for various reasons, but is not as bad as people have made out. I can't say, either, that the film aimed high and missed as much as I think it aimed beyond what the filmmaker was capable of. And I think this was part of the critical ravaging Cimino's film faced. Critics and Hollywood were embarrassed that their new rising star wasn't the next great American filmmaker they once thought he was. This doesn't mean that Cimino wasn't talented or that he couldn't have become a great filmmaker, but on his second true Cimino release (Thunderbolt and Lightfoot was developed by Clint Eastwood and although he didn't direct the film, many have suggested that he had more say than Cimino, as the actual director), he failed.

To me this is a different argument than what Richard Rushfield is suggesting. By the time Martin Scorsese bombed with New York, New York (a film I like and admire even with its flaws), he had made five films (three- Mean Streets, Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore and Taxi Driver) were critically well-received. His name was already solidified as a great American director and the film was viewed as a misstep (again, I would defend the film as a great Scorsese genre film with some flaws, but not as many as most would suggest).