Reflections
on “Heaven’s Gate”
Written
and directed by Michael Cimino
Starring
Kris Kristofferson, Christopher Walken, John Hurt et al.
The
following article is based on a viewing of the 2012 216-minute Blu-Ray version
of the film.
The 19th
century is renowned for its gradual move toward social understanding,
compassion and accountability among those in authority. In contrast, “Heaven’s
Gate” demonstrates the consequences if authorities (right up to government
level) are willing to put the narrow and ruthless interests of the influential
wealthy, here in the form of stock and landowners, above principle, law, order
and the aspiration to justice, all at the expense of humanity.
At its heart, “Heaven’s
Gate” explores a most worthy main theme or cause as it presents the story of
the persecution and assassination of a large number of immigrants in the
Wyoming of the 1870s by an association of wealthy stock owners who, tired of
seeing some of their stock stolen and killed to feed starving immigrant
families, hire some fifty men to kill those on a 125-strong death list in the
hope of discouraging further theft. It is suggested that this course of action gained
approval in the upper echelons of government as these businessmen are legally entitled
to protect their property and there is no consideration of the situation or
rights of poor citizens who set out to build homes for themselves while
contributing to the development of their adopted country.
Plenty of scope, then,
for the defence of humanity, principle and justice, and the engagement of
emotion and intellect on the part of the audience, if only through the
incitement of indignation and outrage. However, this opportunity is largely squandered
through issues of pace, purpose, clarity and self-indulgence.
There are many positives.
The sheer scale is quite breathtaking in terms of the natural vistas and the
numerous crowd scenes. Atmosphere and tension are established. The conflict is
at times quite visceral. There are divisive characters and the appealing
premise of a threat to justice. There are sympathetic immigrant characters who
display admirable qualities and intriguing if questionable main characters. The
central theme of power and wealth versus principle and humanity is highly
attractive, and the performances are by and large perfectly acceptable, even
good. Sadly, however, writer and director Michael Cimino appears to have
written a script and produced a film that he wanted to see and understood, but
he failed to respect the needs and understanding of his audience.
In later versions of the
film, numerous lengthy scenes were cut altogether but I would suggest nearly
every scene is needlessly and indulgently long, thus losing engagement and patience
on the part of his audience.
The script needed to be
reviewed and edited before shooting began. There are regular issues of clarity
in terms of character identification and background, as well as pace and
purpose. Attention is drawn to certain reactions or events and this is not
followed through. We may reach the end of a scene and not really understand its
import or why a character responded or didn’t respond in a certain way.
Conclusions may be reached that are not well supported by previous dialogue.
There are inconsistencies in character development or changes and attitudes
that beg questions which remain unanswered. The tone is almost universally
downbeat, even gloomy, apart from one relatively upbeat and comic sequence – Mr
Cimino might have raised the spirit of the piece and the audience if he had
incorporated some comic relief at various points in the film rather than
restrict it to one anachronistic sequence.
Of course, these issues may
have come about as the result of losing two full hours of material from the
original five-and-a-half-hour version.
Another element that
contributed to the downbeat tone and lack of engagement is the lack of
hero-figures. Jim Averill is the obvious candidate but his conduct falls far
short of hero status and I’ll return to him shortly.
The only other character
I think we’re supposed to view as vaguely heroic in terms of development and
evolution is, surprisingly, Nate Champion. Presented as a cold-blooded killer,
we are supposed to gain sympathy and perhaps some respect for him when he
spares a young cattle-thief and then displays apparently genuine feelings for
Ella, the local brothel keeper and occasional prostitute, even asking her to
marry him. It seems to me that we are eventually to believe he has had a change
of attitude and mind when he turns on one of his employers as a result of Ella’s
rape, but this is a personal reaction and not because he has developed any
understanding of or compassion for his victims. We do not feel any particular
sympathy or sense of injustice when he is pursued by his former employers. He
remains the same ambiguously conflicted but fundamentally heartless man who now
exercises his capacity to kill coldly as a result of following his feelings
rather than orders. He has not had a change of heart, expresses no regret and
displays no heroic qualities as such.
Another recurring
character originally presented as potentially influential and even, perhaps,
heroic, is Billy Irvine, first seen with Jim Averill at a Harvard graduation ceremony
in 1870.
I would suggest that this
whole lengthy Harvard section is largely unnecessary except to imply that Jim
and Billy come from wealthy backgrounds and to draw attention to the idea of
mixing the cultivated with the uncultivated in the hope of raising standards, a
premise proposed by the reverend doctor which is rapidly and quite eloquently
dismissed by Billy Irvine in his address to those gathered for the graduation. Twenty
years later, we learn Billy has joined the stock owners’ association and offers
only meagre and ineffectual opposition to their plans to kill a large number of
immigrants before conceding and accepting them. In the end, the audience may
even be forgiven for wondering what useful role Billy plays in the proceedings
except, perhaps, to boost Jim Averill’s standing by comparison.
In 1890 it appears that
Jim is a respected marshal. However, he does little to merit this position or
the audience’s respect, at least initially. When entering a store in Casper, he
does nothing to help an immigrant who is being badly beaten, though he stops
the beating as he leaves the store, telling the man’s aggressor he has won and
advising the immigrant’s wife and family to move on. Shortly afterward, Jim
comes across the same family and discovers the husband has been shot dead.
After exchanging a few words, he drives on, leaving the newly widowed immigrant
to struggle with her wagon as she drags it toward their land. These are not the
actions of a committed or principled lawman or even a caring human being.
Although he was moved by
the plight of the immigrants, Jim did little to help them until he was stirred
to take a stance against the forces of wealth and power by the brutal rape of his
girlfriend Ella by members of the association’s gang of hoods and killers. Even
then, he appears to hesitate but finally throws in with the immigrants who,
facing destruction, make a stand against those willing to casually wipe them
out. In the end, however, they lose the battle and Ella is killed in an ambush
during which Jim kills the cattleman responsible for the attack and then he
mourns Ella.
In one or two other
places, there are nods to existentialism as Jim suggests each of us must make
our own decisions and make our own way. I wondered if this was at the core of
Jim’s lack of action in the face of injustice and his refusal to marry or take
responsibility for Ella, but the scenes at the end of the film caused me to
review these thoughts.
Some thirteen years
later, we find Jim living in opulent luxury on board a yacht. He is accompanied
by the same beautiful girl he pursued in Harvard at the start of the film and we
realise she may be his wife.
He looks around and
appears tearful, disappointed, regretful and perhaps even embarrassed or
ashamed by his surroundings. Was Jim a rich man playing at being poor (as was
stated at one point in the film)? If he had another life to which he could
return, was this Harvard-educated man (who used his knowledge of Roman battle
tactics to help the immigrants in the final battle) ever truly committed to his
work as a marshal? Does this explain his unwillingness to take action? Was he
married while he was seeing Ella and does that explain his lack of commitment
to her?
As he looks upon the
opulence and security that surround him and he appears upset, is he doubting
the value he has given to his life? Is he troubled by his conscience? Did he simply
and too easily give up the worthy cause of defending the poor from self-serving
rich people who effectively run the country? Did he take the easy option of
rejoining the rich set after his adventure in Wyoming?
There is much that could
have been great about “Heaven’s Gate” but the audience should not have been
left to interpret scenes or input motives, background and character. It is
reasonable to expect guidance, pace and purpose from the director and writer.
Apart from structural
issues, the film may have fared miserably at the box office because ultimately
there is no-one to root for, not even a tragic hero to support, and the film
offers no positive outcome or hope, and that is hard to swallow having invested
three and a half hours in the film.
Of course, there is
always the possibility that this negative outlook was just what Mr Cimino was
aiming for as a reflection of society and its infrastructure.
My thanks for taking the
time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.
Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)
YouTube Blog
