![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Last night I watched Heaven's Gate the 1980 Michael Cimino movie disaster that broke the bank and United Artists as a film production company. It's ambitious, engaging, and way too long. It runs to 3 1/2 hours and should have been 2 hour 45 minutes at the most. The bulk of the story takes place in 1890 (with an introductory Harvard graduation set in 1870 that should have been cut to five minutes, rather than the 25-30 minutes). Cattle barons are angry at the influx of immigrants coming to their country in Wyoming. Sam Waterston is EVIL. Kris Kristofferson is Sheriff (he was the Harvard grad) who is basically a fence sitter upholding "law" but not very engaged in anything or anyone. Christopher Walken plays a mercenary hired by the barons to punish the immigrant cattle thieves (who, with their families are trying to make a go of farming and are starving to death). Isabelle Huppert is madam of the local brothel and lover of both Kristofferson and Walken. Jeff Bridges plays a friend of the Sheriff who keeps a bar and entertainment emporium (I think that's what it is) and is on the side of the immigrants.
John Hurt is a totally extraneous character who was a friend of Kristofferson's at Harvard and is now semi-part of the cattle baron scene. A total drunk, he adds nothing to the plot whatsoever.
There is a good movie buried in the 3 1/2 hours--I don't recall this kind of attention paid to the western immigrant experience in old westerns. It always was cattlemen vs homesteaders, but it never showed the mix of immigrants who made up the homesteaders. There are wonderful scenes of this very mixed batch of desperate families communicating in their diverse languages with each other.
I also like the triangle of Huppert, Kristofferson, and Walken. Nice interactions among the three of them.
Then I watched Pride and Prejudice with Keira Knightly, Brenda Blethyn, an adorable Matthew Macfadyen as Mr. Darcy, and Donald Sutherland. It was a lovely version.
Now, on to working on my taxes and reading and editing.
John Hurt is a totally extraneous character who was a friend of Kristofferson's at Harvard and is now semi-part of the cattle baron scene. A total drunk, he adds nothing to the plot whatsoever.
There is a good movie buried in the 3 1/2 hours--I don't recall this kind of attention paid to the western immigrant experience in old westerns. It always was cattlemen vs homesteaders, but it never showed the mix of immigrants who made up the homesteaders. There are wonderful scenes of this very mixed batch of desperate families communicating in their diverse languages with each other.
I also like the triangle of Huppert, Kristofferson, and Walken. Nice interactions among the three of them.
Then I watched Pride and Prejudice with Keira Knightly, Brenda Blethyn, an adorable Matthew Macfadyen as Mr. Darcy, and Donald Sutherland. It was a lovely version.
Now, on to working on my taxes and reading and editing.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
"Pride and Prejudice" was delightful.
:) Jody
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Oddly, I don't like to read Jane Austen.... But her novels make gorgeous movies, both visually and otherwise.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
/silliness
;)
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
The same creative team is behind Atonement, which we haven't seen yet but must soon.
From:
no subject
From:
hmm...
From:
Re: hmm...
From:
first of all...
& anybody, be it production designer or director, who thinks that the Bennets had PIGS walking through their home is BEYOND reasoning with. Mr. Bennet was a gentleman for frith's sake, not some impoverished farmer. The "gritty" take on them was entirely distracting & far from Austen's world.
Finally, the writer/s lost many of Austen's best lines, even some of the best scenes. Guess what, folks- she wrote it first, she wrote it best- STOP trying to better her- you CAN'T.
*sigh* I was LITERALLY biting my tongue to keep from yelling @ the screen when I saw it. Fortunately I knew better than to go see the recent "Austen" travesty- the movie purported to be based on her life. I don't mind a little departure from the facts, but TRY to keep true to the nature of the characters & the period! (Unless you're going for a complete turn-about, like "Without a Clue.")
From:
Re: first of all...
I did wonder about the pig in the house and wasn't really clear about their social position, since they had servants but apparently no dowry money.
And since I haven't read the book for at least 30 years (and have no desire to reread it)and feel that adaptations of books don't need to quote from them literally, I doubt that would have bothered me either.
From:
it's one thing...
But when a director/production takes a wonderful work of art & twists it enough to make it untrue to itself for no better reason than to make it "more interesting" to a "modern" audience, that's criminal to my mind. I'm not talking about Julie Tayworth setting Shakespeare in 21st century, but a costume designer so lazy &/or insecure that she thinks a woman of Lizzie's position should appear in man's clothing for no other reason than that it "looks cool" is a slap to a fine writer & a most interesting period. That's sloppiness, that's catering to the lowest common denominator & to me that's right up there w/ fart jokes & cum-hair cream.