Craig Skinner On Film

Adam Batty posted an article at Hope Lies entitled Easy Rider and the Death of the Western which ended with the following paragraph,

That it was a western that killed the New Hollywood is apt to the level of poetic beauty, with Michael Cimino’s Heaven’s Gate the ultimate folly of a revitalised film industry born of lofty ambitions and artistic belief. The ultimate fate of the New Hollywood is predicted in the final scenes of Easy Rider, with the subversives shot down by a pair of murderous hillbillies, surely the most damning yet apt description of a people driven by everything that the counter-culture stood against?

That “ultimate folly” comment intriguid me and I questioned Adam in the comments section of his post. Heaven’s Gate is a film often held up as being responsible for destroying a studio, ending the ‘New Hollywood’ period of filmmaking and fundamentally changing the relationship between directors and studios. All of this and more fed into the debate I had with Adam in the comments section of this post. I have collated these comments and you can read them in full below.

(I have reformatted the comments slightly, including italicising any large sections of quoted text, but the comments are otherwise as they appeared at Hope Lies)

Craig says:
09/01/2011 at 4:12 pm
In what way do you feel Heaven’s Gate was a folly?

adambatty says:
09/01/2011 at 4:23 pm
The sheer ambition was far outside the realms of what was realistically possible in the American film industry at the time. I think its incredibly arrogant to think that as a filmmaker you can create these major films but on an artistic level. We’re talking blockbuster amounts of money, yet with no legitimate financial control. In that respect, it kind of proved that a filmmaker couldn’t totally ignore the money men (like they had done for much of that 70′s period).

I actually really like Heaven’s Gate, but it really damaged the good that had been done in the years preceding.

Craig says:
09/01/2011 at 11:41 pm
I think Cimino achieved what he aimed to do artistically with Heaven’s Gate (evidenced in the longer cut but not as much in the shorter cut) and for me that’s the area of film that makes me passionate.

I can’t really speak too authoritatively to the business side of the film or filmmaking in general as it is not an area that really interests me. That said filmmaking is surely always an uncomfortable relationship between art and commerce. No film is made for zero money and therefore zero monetary concerns.

Why is it arrogant as a filmmaker to “think that as a filmmaker you can create these major films but on an artistic level” and why is that any more arrogant than thinking you can make a film for another sum.
Is a film made on an ‘artistic level’ (I don’t really get what you mean by that phrase to be honest) for $100 000 arrogant? $300 000? $1 million? $200 million? If a filmmaker is going to spend a large sum of money on the production of a film I bloody hope he is aiming for a high artistic level.

What good do you feel it damaged? From an artistic point of view it was a film that pushed things forward for the better. From a business point of view I suppose it made it harder for filmmakers to push for large budgets for films that were more focused on artistic aspirations rather than box office considerations. But aren’t you saying that’s a bad thing?

adambatty says:
10/01/2011 at 12:42 am
“I think Cimino achieved what he aimed to do artistically with Heaven’s Gate (evidenced in the longer cut but not as much in the shorter cut) and for me that’s the area of film that makes me passionate.”

Me too, I’m not questioning his artistic achievement, but the repercussions of his financial failure. I’m actually a pretty big fan of the film.

“I can’t really speak too authoritatively to the business side of the film or filmmaking in general as it is not an area that really interests me.”

Me neither, hence the throwaway line at the end of the article.

Why is it arrogant as a filmmaker to “think that as a filmmaker you can create these major films but on an artistic level” and why is that any more arrogant than thinking you can make a film for another sum.

Perhaps arrogant was the wrong word, but Cimino’s failure directly effected the rest of the New Hollywood, with his attitude at the time of the production directly responsible for a lot of the problems faced. He refused to co-operate with the studio once he’d signed his contract, didn’t employ a “proper” producer, and didn’t respect the studio that he was making the film for. This attitude towards the studio dictated that other filmmakers weren’t given the same opportunities again.

Is a film made on an ‘artistic level’ (I don’t really get what you mean by that phrase to be honest) for $100 000 arrogant? $300 000? $1 million? $200 million? If a filmmaker is going to spend a large sum of money on the production of a film I bloody hope he is aiming for a high artistic level.

By made on an “artistic level” I am referring to the intent. It wasn’t made to make a ton of money, it was made to make art. I don’t think that you’re claim that “If a filmmaker is going to spend a large sum of money on the production of a film I bloody hope he is aiming for a high artistic level” really holds any water in a world were artistic intent is pretty much the last thing on the mind of a filmmaker like Michael Bay.

What good do you feel it damaged? From an artistic point of view it was a film that pushed things forward for the better. From a business point of view I suppose it made it harder for filmmakers to push for large budgets for films that were more focused on artistic aspirations rather than box office considerations. But aren’t you saying that’s a bad thing?

I’m not saying that its a bad thing at all, but that Cimino didn’t act responsibly in the position he was in. He took advantage, pissed off the studios (effectively bankrupted one), and, apologies for the use of a boorish term, he ruined it for everyone. Nobody else was given the sort of freedom that he was after the (financial) failure of Heaven’s Gate.

I’m interested in hearing how you feel it was a film which “pushed things forward for the better” on an artistic level, given that it pushed directorial freedom back in to a place that its never fully recovered from.

Craig says:
10/01/2011 at 10:30 pm
Sorry I wasn’t particularly clear with the comment “pushed things forward for the better”. I was talking exclusively about the film not a film within a business and how it might have a changed the freedom that directors had in Hollywood.

With regards to that situation, I don’t know how different things could have been if Cimino had behaved differently or if Heaven’s Gate had never been made. No-one knows for definite, we can only speculate. To say he “he ruined it for everyone” is a little too definite for my liking. We don’t know that. Also do we really know the truth of what happened. A lot of your comments surrounding the production of the film sound very clear as if this that is definitely what happened but I wasn’t there, you weren’t there, and even those that were have a vested interest in pushing one point of view. Who knows, maybe the producers acted in such a way that made the events that occurred inevitable and unavoidable.

I also think newspapers latched onto the Heaven’s Gate story and helped seal its fate before filming even began. Even if they didn’t effect the production (although I think they did) they certainly defined the discourse that still surrounds the film and has led to us discussing it here. If the newspapers had supported Cimino more despite the problems, putting their trust in the him rather than the studios maybe the longer cut would have opened wide and the positive buzz would have led more people to see it and appreciate it and history would look very different.

I don’t think that you’re claim that “If a filmmaker is going to spend a large sum of money on the production of a film I bloody hope he is aiming for a high artistic level” really holds any water in a world were artistic intent is pretty much the last thing on the mind of a filmmaker like Michael Bay.

This has me kind of baffled to be honest. Don’t worry I’m not going to start defending Michael Bay’s artistic intentions but I can’t say I agree with this statement. We’re in a world where artistic intent is the last thing on Michael Bay’s mind. So? He doesn’t define a whole generation of filmmakers in Hollywood right now. Things do seem bleak in some areas but there have always been hacks in Hollywood making terrible films purely to make money with no care for what they are producing. I didn’t say that I didn’t think those people existed, I said I ‘hoped’ filmmakers were aiming for a high artistic level. Some, even some on ludicrously high budgets, most probably are.

This also comes back to a difference in our definition of artistic level and I fear from your invoking Bay that it is more about snobbery and a clear division between ‘art films’, that which would fit neatly in a respected canon of cinema and the more money driven world of the Hollywood blockbuster etc. I can’t get on board with that at all.

I also think it is dangerous to focus too much on intent. The way we as critics discuss and dissect film is not purely a matter of understanding intent (as I’m sure you know) and to speculate too much about directorial intent can be something of a dead end.

I also don’t believe it is always necessarily important in a discussion about the deeper themes etc in a film. Hong Kong action directors in the 80s, for instance, may not have been intending to make allegories about the Handover to China or to reflect the feelings surrounding national identity but those themes are up there on the screen. If one was to look into their intentions one would probably find that a large number were looking to make a quick buck and little else but this doesn’t stop them being artistically fascinating.

adambatty says:
10/01/2011 at 10:51 pm
Sorry I wasn’t particularly clear with the comment “pushed things forward for the better”. I was talking exclusively about the film not a film within a business and how it might have a changed the freedom that directors had in Hollywood.With regards to that situation, I don’t know how different things could have been if Cimino had behaved differently or if Heaven’s Gate had never been made. No-one knows for definite, we can only speculate. To say he “he ruined it for everyone” is a little too definite for my liking. We don’t know that. Also do we really know the truth of what happened. A lot of your comments surrounding the production of the film sound very clear as if this that is definitely what happened but I wasn’t there, you weren’t there, and even those that were have a vested interest in pushing one point of view. Who knows, maybe the producers acted in such a way that made the events that occurred inevitable and unavoidable.

I’m confused. So you’re saying that “we can only speculate” in one breath, yet saying its unfair to in another. Are you deliberately being contrary? You’re point is all over the place. Of course we don’t have any definitive account of what happened, but whats the problem with speculating based on an educated understanding of the events surrounding the films production? Nothing I’ve said can’t be backed up by one account or another.

“I don’t think that you’re claim that “If a filmmaker is going to spend a large sum of money on the production of a film I bloody hope he is aiming for a high artistic level” really holds any water in a world were artistic intent is pretty much the last thing on the mind of a filmmaker like Michael Bay.” This has me kind of baffled to be honest. Don’t worry I’m not going to start defending Michael Bay’s artistic intentions but I can’t say I agree with this statement. We’re in a world where artistic intent is the last thing on Michael Bay’s mind. So? He doesn’t define a whole generation of filmmakers in Hollywood right now. Things do seem bleak in some areas but there have always been hacks in Hollywood making terrible films purely to make money with no care for what they are producing. I didn’t say that I didn’t think those people existed, I said I ‘hoped’ filmmakers were aiming for a high artistic level. Some, even some on ludicrously high budgets, most probably are.

I never said he defined a generation of filmmakers. Saying that, he does define a major sector of the current film industry.

This also comes back to a difference in our definition of artistic level and I fear from your invoking Bay that it is more about snobbery and a clear division between ‘art films’, that which would fit neatly in a respected canon of cinema and the more money driven world of the Hollywood blockbuster etc. I can’t get on board with that at all.

Once again, you misunderstood. A quick look around the site shows that there is no snobbery on board, and in fact, it was of this agenda that the site was born. As an apt example I took a lot of flack academically (at work) for my attitude towards blockbusters in my review of Transformers 2.

I also think it is dangerous to focus too much on intent. The way we as critics discuss and dissect film is not purely a matter of understanding intent (as I’m sure you know) and to speculate too much about directorial intent can be something of a dead end.

You’re the person who seems so hung up on intent! It wasn’t actually mentioned until you brought it up.

I also don’t believe it is always necessarily important in a discussion about the deeper themes etc in a film. Hong Kong action directors in the 80s, for instance, may not have been intending to make allegories about the Handover to China or to reflect the feelings surrounding national identity but those themes are up there on the screen. If one was to look into their intentions one would probably find that a large number were looking to make a quick buck and little else but this doesn’t stop them being artistically fascinating.

Agree entirely. The focus of my work academically and professionally actually concerns an area not hugely dissimilar.

Craig says:
11/01/2011 at 1:51 am
You’re the person who seems so hung up on intent! It wasn’t actually mentioned until you brought it up.

I’m going to be a little pedantic here but you used the word intent first and my commenting on that area was really in response to your statements surrounding Cimino’s ambitions and arrogance. I wouldn’t say I’m hung up on the intent just reacting to the subject of this conversation.

adambatty says:
11/01/2011 at 1:59 am
True, but it was mentioned in the context of a response to your initial query. Either way, we agree that focussing on intent isn’t a great thing!

Craig says:
11/01/2011 at 2:05 am
Agreed.

Craig says:
11/01/2011 at 2:04 am
I’m confused. So you’re saying that “we can only speculate” in one breath, yet saying its unfair to in another. Are you deliberately being contrary? You’re point is all over the place. Of course we don’t have any definitive account of what happened, but whats the problem with speculating based on an educated understanding of the events surrounding the films production? Nothing I’ve said can’t be backed up by one account or another.

I didn’t intend to suggest it was unfair to speculate but more that we have to be clear that we are speculating and not recounting with certainty exactly what happened and what the precise course of events would have been if specific decisions were different. I think this paragraph just sounded a bit to certain for my liking,

…Cimino’s failure directly effected the rest of the New Hollywood, with his attitude at the time of the production directly responsible for a lot of the problems faced. He refused to co-operate with the studio once he’d signed his contract, didn’t employ a “proper” producer, and didn’t respect the studio that he was making the film for. This attitude towards the studio dictated that other filmmakers weren’t given the same opportunities again.

adambatty says:
11/01/2011 at 2:29 am
Cool, I accept your point on that. My assertion that Cimino’s “attitude towards the studio dictated that other filmmakers weren’t given the same opportunities again” is based on my reading of the events though, and propped up by accounts from those around at the time. It’s not like I’ve just typed whatever came in to my head, its based on the generally received attitude towards the film, but yes, perhaps I ought to have made that more clear within the article.

Craig says:
11/01/2011 at 2:42 am
It definitely is the “generally received attitude towards the film” and I can assure you I never thought that you typed whatever came in to you head. It’s a widely held view that has never quite sat right with me though. It’s certainly interesting to debate.

(This was originally posted at my old blog in 2011.)