>Am I right in asserting that this film (at least the director's cut) now
>has a very sound critical standing?

It should be pointed out that both the 220-minute version and 150-minute
version of the film is the "director's cut." Cimino panicked after the L.A.
premiere because of some nasty critical responses, particularly Vincent
Canby's New York Times review which began "Heaven's Gate fails so
completely you might suspect Mr. Cimino sold his soul to the Devil to
obtain the success of The Deer Hunter, and the Devil has come around to
collect." In the end he called the film an "unqualified disaster." Less
than 2 days later, in a Nov 20/80 memo to United Artists president Andy
Albeck (and reprinted in a full-page ad in Variety) Cimino wrote (in part):
"So much energy, time and money have gone into the making of Heaven's Gate
that I am asking you to withdraw the film from distribution temporarily to
allow me to present to the public a film finished with the same care and
thoughtfulness with which we began it."

I remember that the Toronto premiere had mostly mixed reactions. Some loved
it. Some didn't... but when the trimmed version was released a few months
later, the disappointment was universal. Subsequently, the disasterous
magnitude of the premiere (its nasty reviews, its unprecedented withdrawal
from distribution, and the subsequent collapse of United Artists) generated
an excitement to see the premiere version (btw, an earlier "almost-final"
cut ran 5 hours and 25 minutes!) and in 1982 and '83 some excited
re-screenings of the 220-minute version occurred in the U.S., France and
England. Critics (particularly in Europe) then started revising their
stance, blaming U.S. critics and United Artists for pulling the 220-minute
version from distribution (forgetting it was thoroughly Cimino's decision
to do so) and praising the film to the stars. But this "revival" was
short-lived and the picture is mostly forgotten about now. Now, when Cimino
releases a film, no-one seems to notice.

At best, the current view of the 220-minute version is luke-warm (great to
look at, but overlong). I agree. More forcefully, I think its one of the
mostly lovely-looking films ever made. But the pacing is indeed dreadful,
with Kristofferson talking endlessly about the "death list" (ok, Michael,
we get it!). In some ways I find the editing of the short version superior,
particularly the final scene which brilliantly cross-cuts between the 1900
boat scene with Ellie's death 30 years earlier. But, overall, I perfer the
longer version because it gives me more time to marvel at Vilmos Zsigmond's
visuals. The Kristofferson/Huppert dance scene is my favorite -- the
combination of Zsigmond's cinematography, and David Mansfield score, is
sheer poetry.

The only thematic analysis I've seen of the film is in one-half of a book
featuring a collection of essays about Cimino's films. The other half of
the book is dedicated to Scorcese (I believe) -- they probably seemed a
likely combo because of their Italian-American backgrounds, and their
treatments of the immigrant experience. Cimino, in particular, seems fond
of the immigrant theme (Deer Hunter, Heaven's Gate, Year of the Dragon).
Unfortunately I don't have the book because it's out-of-print and costs
something like $60. The title, as I recall, is simply 'Cimino/Scorsese' But
if you want an entertaining read, I strongly recommend "Final Cut: Dreams
and Disaster in the Making of Heaven's Gate" by Steven Bach. Even if you're
not a fan of the film, it offers a fabulous industry insight, much like
Goldman's 'Adventures in Screenwriting.' This book is more widely available
and can usually be found in used book stores for a reasonable price. I have
a hard-cover version that only set me back $2.

dw

----
To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]