Wow - finally here is someone who actually gets Cimino:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-dissent-on-michael-cimino-1467840468
I have a few
minorquibbles with this article.
First is with this.
"Seen today, however, the film impresses one less for its insights into war or its acting than for the painstaking visual design used in depicting assorted locales and terrains, including a grand Russian Orthodox church, a fog-filled mountain range and the green, soggy depths of Vietnam."
I disagree that the visuals impress one
most.
Of course this is subjective but for me it's the story and the performances given by the actors.
For me this film perfectly captures the 60's sobering of the "all you need is love" generation.
Sort of a 60's BIG CHILL MASSACRE.
I love how the tragedy effects everyone differently.
It's exactly like a real death in a family where some step up and others fall apart.
And then there's...
"Above all, Mr. Cimino’s films were the very opposite of “photographs of people talking”—to borrow Alfred Hitchcock’s pejorative description of films he deemed insufficiently cinematic."
Now I know he's arguing the fact that Cimino was no "one hit wonder" but this does give the impression people like Leone and Scorsese didn't paint or roam with a camera before him.
"One hit wonder" should never be used for someone with the talent of Cimino.
Who gives a crap on what's successful to others anyway?
Show Posts
