BEFORE: Another long film tonight, another film that I've managed to avoid until now, not only because of the length, but because this film is generally regarded as one of the biggest flops in cinema history. I'll try not to let that influence my rating, because the whole point of the exercise is to judge these things for myself. Linking from "Open Range", Robert Duvall was also in "Crazy Heart" with Jeff Bridges (last seen in "The Contender").
THE PLOT: A dramatization of the real-life Johnson County War in 1890 Wyoming, in which a sheriff born into wealth attempts to protect immigrant farmers from rich cattle interests.
AFTER: First off, the length of film - I'm watching the restored director's cut, I think, which TCM ran as part of their Oscar programming this March. The running time was about 3 hours 20 min - reportedly Michael Cimino's first screening for United Artists was a 5 1/2 hour work print, which he vowed to trim by 15 minutes. However, the studio executives refused to release such a long film, and he then trimmed it down to 3 hours, 40 min. After a one-week screening run, the film was brutally chopped down to 2 hours, 30 min, and by that time the story was probably unrecognizable.
So there were major problems with editing, and it's worth noting that the critics' bad reviews were of the shorter cut. So, the question then becomes, does the longer cut vindicate the story choices? Umm, not exactly. The film still takes too long to get anywhere - and not much happens in Part 1, with everything happening fast in Part 2. Now I want to see what got removed to make the shorter cut - I'm guessing it was a lot of the ambling set-up from the first half.
For example, there's a long sequence taking place at the roller rink - which is called "Heaven's Gate" - ah, so that's what it means. But this sequence got cut out in the 2nd edit. It's really bad when the namesake of the title gets cut - can you imagine "Jaws" without the shark, or "Driving Miss Daisy" without that action taking place? People would justifiably be scratching their heads over what the title means.
ASIDE: Who even knew there were roller rinks in 1890 Wyoming? I sure didn't. I associate roller skating with decades like the 1950's and the 1970's, not the Old West.
Finally in Part 2, stuff really starts to happen. It's full-on war between the settlers (1st generation immigrants) and the established cattlemen (probably 2nd generation Americans). A sheriff is caught in the middle, fighting against some men he went to Harvard with, and there's a love triangle between the sheriff, a frontier prostitute (hmm, I've seen a lot of those this past week) and one of the cattlemen's hired guns.
This is also the film that is notorious for using real horses, and real munitions, in the battle scene. You know how when you watch any recent film there's that graphic at the end from the Humane Society, proving no animals were harmed during production? Yeah, this is why. There's supposedly one scene where you can totally see a horse explode.
Also, did you ever wonder why kids used to play "cowboys vs. Indians"? That's because it's a really simple concept - good guys vs. bad guys, us vs. them. But this is a more complex issue, it's Americans vs. Americans, some may have been here a little longer, but since the country was the "Land of Opportunity" at the time, and people came from all over to head out West and seek their fortunes, here's proof that in practice, it wasn't always so easy.
I took the chance last week to learn about The Alamo, so here is my chance to read up on the Johnson County War - why couldn't the immigrants just move on? The whole Western frontier was opened up to them, what was so special about freakin' Wyoming? Jeez, Colorado's right next door, and it's the same damn shape, and it's probably just as nice. And an extra bonus, nobody there is trying to kill you! Or if that's not a good fit, what about one of our other available states or provinces? I hear British Columbia is quite nice, or what about Washington?
In the end, this is a real downer of a film. Maybe people didn't take to it because of all the violence, death, rape, etc.? I'm just speculating.
Also starring Kris Kristofferson (last seen in "Semi-Tough"), Christopher Walken (last seen in "Pennies From Heaven"), Sam Waterston (last seen in "Fitzwilly"), John Hurt (last seen in "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2"), Brad Dourif (last seen in "Mississippi Burning"), Isabelle Huppert, Joseph Cotten (last seen in "Touch of Evil"), Geoffrey Lewis, Richard Masur (last seen in "Six Degrees of Separation"), Terry O'Quinn (last seen in "Tombstone"), Mickey Rourke (last seen in "Once Upon a Time in Mexico"), and my Sundance buddy Tom Noonan (last seen in "The Man With One Red Shoe").
RATING: 3 out of 10 "thieves and anarchists"
No comments:
Post a Comment