Reply to Topic
I earnestly believe (as well as numerous others) that Heaven's Gate marked the end of personalised filmmaking in American cinema. The repercussions of that prodigious flop is still conspicuous across the industry today, and it is a real shame. Prior to Cimino's ambitious and consequential film, filmmakers in large to moderate funded American projects were given a greater deal of - what I see as - artistic creativity. Producers were less invasive on set and studio interference was much more infrequent. Two of America's most prominent filmmakers, Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola, have personally subscribed to this notion, saying they were given much more flexibility in their 70s projects as opposed to those they worked on a decade later. This is partially why Scorsese distanced himself away from large-scale projects in the 80s and worked on smaller pieces, whereas Coppola was working off the disastrous ramifications of One from the Heart. Woody Allen, too, was forced to reshape his focuses, as well as various other filmmakers.
It was Heaven's Gate that fundamentally changed the very management and political landscape of mainstream filmmaking in America. As many know, Cimino was a trusted director amongst the large studios, heading into Heaven's Gate after the immeasurably towering critical and financial success of The Deer Hunter. As a result, overall supervision, intrusion, and administration was limited as the studios were faithfully optimistic that Cimino would deliver yet another triumph. The film only made back under $4 million of its $44 million budget, placing United Artists into disarray and collapse, and causing complete disorder.
Ever since that catastrophic debacle, studios and producers shifted their 'method of work' and began overseeing and observing projects much more thoroughly, to the extent of violating the filmmakers' 'vision' and giving him/her much less flexibility and authority. I personally know somebody who works in Los Angeles and he says there is a unified consensus amongst writers, producers, and directors that Heaven's Gate fundamentally changed the industry. Studios from there on in, after witnessing the fragmentation of United Artists, were simple too fearful and paranoid that any project given a substantial project that was predominately controlled by the director was too much of a chance. It left many precarious.
There was an interesting essay written by a primitive film historian who examines the repercussions and sheer significance of the Heaven's Gate flopwith greater detail. He speaks about the constant battles filmmakers 'coincidentally' had with studios ever since the fiasco happened - David Lynch's Dune and Terry Gilliam's Brazil being two of them.
I often ponder about alternatives. That is, imagine Heaven's Gate was a success? Or it was never made in the first place? I have always agreed with the notion that mainstream films have first and foremost been about generating viewership and profit, but this is strictly about the role of the filmmaker, and how that discernibly changed after the flop of one motion picture. I use the term 'personal' lightly here, but I think - without a doubt - directors were less-trusted and the status of producers and studio interference were greatly enhanced - after the flop of Heaven's Gate. Therefore, in some respects, the film did mark an end to personal filmmaking in American cinema. Of course, we will always have independent film, and there have been numerous masterpieces since 1980 that have had considerable budgets and large-studio backings, but there is no doubt its flop changed something in the industry. Or at least had an extensive impact.
This slice of filmic history has always interested me. What do you people think? This was a quite write-up, so excuse any inconsistencies or contradictions.
It was Heaven's Gate that fundamentally changed the very management and political landscape of mainstream filmmaking in America. As many know, Cimino was a trusted director amongst the large studios, heading into Heaven's Gate after the immeasurably towering critical and financial success of The Deer Hunter. As a result, overall supervision, intrusion, and administration was limited as the studios were faithfully optimistic that Cimino would deliver yet another triumph. The film only made back under $4 million of its $44 million budget, placing United Artists into disarray and collapse, and causing complete disorder.
Ever since that catastrophic debacle, studios and producers shifted their 'method of work' and began overseeing and observing projects much more thoroughly, to the extent of violating the filmmakers' 'vision' and giving him/her much less flexibility and authority. I personally know somebody who works in Los Angeles and he says there is a unified consensus amongst writers, producers, and directors that Heaven's Gate fundamentally changed the industry. Studios from there on in, after witnessing the fragmentation of United Artists, were simple too fearful and paranoid that any project given a substantial project that was predominately controlled by the director was too much of a chance. It left many precarious.
There was an interesting essay written by a primitive film historian who examines the repercussions and sheer significance of the Heaven's Gate flopwith greater detail. He speaks about the constant battles filmmakers 'coincidentally' had with studios ever since the fiasco happened - David Lynch's Dune and Terry Gilliam's Brazil being two of them.
I often ponder about alternatives. That is, imagine Heaven's Gate was a success? Or it was never made in the first place? I have always agreed with the notion that mainstream films have first and foremost been about generating viewership and profit, but this is strictly about the role of the filmmaker, and how that discernibly changed after the flop of one motion picture. I use the term 'personal' lightly here, but I think - without a doubt - directors were less-trusted and the status of producers and studio interference were greatly enhanced - after the flop of Heaven's Gate. Therefore, in some respects, the film did mark an end to personal filmmaking in American cinema. Of course, we will always have independent film, and there have been numerous masterpieces since 1980 that have had considerable budgets and large-studio backings, but there is no doubt its flop changed something in the industry. Or at least had an extensive impact.
This slice of filmic history has always interested me. What do you people think? This was a quite write-up, so excuse any inconsistencies or contradictions.
