 |
| Director Michael Cimino with the Oscar he won for "The Deer Hunter" Source: http://www.boxofficestory.com/ |
It is unfortunate when one thing can derail a career, especially when
it is something as subjective as a movie review.
The first time I ever heard of Michael Cimino, I was in high school in
1985 and he just had a movie come out called “Year of the Dragon”.
However, instead of the narrative focusing on the merits of the movie,
critics kept referring to this thing called “Heaven’s Gate”.
What the hell is “Heaven’s Gate?” I thought.
Well, it turned out to be described as one of the biggest flops in
cinematic history, yet I never heard why.
When Michael Cimino died over a year and a half ago, once more “Heaven’s Gate”
came up.
This time, with the benefit of distance and time, Michael Cimino’s
career was given the credit it deserves, a career that is more than a big
budget flop.
Promising start
In the decade leading up to the 1980s, Michael Cimino was making quite
a name for himself.
He arrived in Los Angeles in 1971 where he co-wrote the scripts for
two movies. One was “Silent Running” in 1972, a science fiction movie starring
Bruce Dern as a botanist on a space ship with huge agricultural domes and some
lovable drones or robots. The
other was “Magnum Force” in 1973, the first sequel to “Dirty Harry” starring
Clint Eastwood.
He then wrote “Thunderbolt and Lightfoot” in 1974, which Clint
Eastwood liked so much he hired Cimino to direct it. The story is a crime film
starring Eastwood, Jeff Bridges, Geoffrey Lewis and George Kennedy.
This all opened the door for Cimino’s breakthrough 1978 classic, “The
Deer Hunter”, about three Vietnam War veterans. It would go on to win five
Academy awards for best picture, best supporting actor for Christopher Walken,
and best director for Cimino. The film also saw Meryl Streep nominated for the
first time for an Oscar. She has since become the most nominated actor in
history.
A troubling sign of things to come was the film going over schedule
and over budget, ultimately costing about $15 million to make.
Box office bust
Still, Michael Cimino was riding high after his success with “The Deer
Hunter”, and the 1980s were posed to be his decade.
Then came “Heaven’s Gate”.
Cimino decided he was going to make a western. It was a sprawling epic
that went severely over budget. The critics panned “Heaven’s Gate” and it was
out of theatres almost as quickly as it was in them.
The movie was in theatres just two weeks, and grossed just over $3.4
million. The film cost about $44 million to make.
It bankrupted United Artists, the studio that made it, and left
Michael Cimino’s reputation in tatters.
‘Year of the Dragon” and beyond
And this is where I come in. Michael Cimino’s next film was “Year of the Dragon” in 1985, starring
Mickey Rourke, and exploring gangs, drugs, ethnicity, racism and stereotypes.
I heard about it, but never did see it, primarily because I did not
have my driver’s licence yet, and it was difficult to get to the nearest
theatres, which were in Lethbridge.
However, I did hear a lot about the movie. Not so much about the plot,
or the characters, but how it was Cimino’s first film since the “Heaven’s Gate”
disaster.
It seemed, the movie was doomed from the outset, as critics appeared
to be more interested in dredging up “Heaven’s Gate” and associating Michael
Cimino with it, then reviewing the movie.
He would make one more movie in the decade, “The Sicilian” in 1987,
then just three more movies up until his death in 2016.
Parting thoughts
With the benefit of time, distance and insight, “Heaven’s Gate” has
been somewhat rehabilitated. According to Wikipedia, critics have reassessed
the movie, calling it a modern masterpiece, and the BBC even listed it as
number 98 in their 100 greatest American films of all time.
It illustrates just how subjective criticism was, and how sensitive
studios can be to it.
When the movie came out, was it judged on its own merits, or on its
budget? Did a sense of group think set in where, once one critic panned the
movie, everyone else piled on? Was the movie judged based on the personality of
the director? These are all emotional intangibles that have nothing to do with
the film itself.
It would seem once all these subjective impurities are boiled away,
and critics either unaware or unconcerned with the budget, the director or the
era, judge the movie on its own merits, it is not the disaster it first
appeared to be.
It is also sad that United Artists would panic and pull the movie
after two weeks. Perhaps a longer run, with more actual people seeing the
movie, would have lessened the financial losses.
Above all else, what this illustrates is the power of critics at the
time. It is like a precursor to social media, where a negative review begets
another and another. In this case that avalanche submarined a movie before
large swaths of the population could see it.
Beyond all that, another thing that has always irritated me is when
critics judge a movie based on its budget. Is it a bigger flop the more money
that is spent? It can be true if there are huge special effects, that do not
produce results, but there are so many other things that can increase cost –
salaries, labour disputes, weather delays, the economy. The big budget seemed
to be the rationale, in part for the way critics savaged big money “flops” such
as “Ishtar” and “Water World”. By that rule, should not movies made on a shoe-string
budget then be branded masterpieces? Some times they are, but not always.
However, in the end and before his death, Michael Cimino’s reputation
was somewhat rehabilitated when people judged the movie based on the movie
itself. For that, his career ended up about more than just a big budget flop.
*This is from the vault
No comments:
Post a Comment