So many of us who are devoted to the "art" of the motion picture will disregard or forget that movies are also business ventures. Most of the time, they are far too costly to produce to be anything else. In light of this, it often seems a miracle to me that really great ones do get made every now and then. Once in a while, the film-makers will go so far over budget in producing a film that the businessmen responsible for funding the enterprise will be badly hurt financially and will of course become very angry about this. I'd like to know precisely how it happens that this has often led to both the big studios and some major critics "gunning" for the picture when it is at last released. Terrible expectations are generated and often what people expect to see clouds their perception of what they are viewing.<br /><br />You can see this phenomenon at work in the imperfect, but magnificent '62 re-make 0f "Mutiny on the Bounty", and you can definitely see it in the reaction to "Heaven's Gate". Cimino took too long and cost United Artists way too much money in making this picture. The company was fatally wounded by his excesses and, no doubt, powerful people were out to see his reputation forever ruined when this strange, mammoth epic was finally released. There are always many film-goers who dislike long, weighty pictures. The storytelling in this film is not accomplished with great economy or a brisk pace. Like Stanley Kubrick, Cimino often chooses not to spell out the particular statement he is making with a given scene. Rather, he draws it out in such a way as to make the viewer feel like they are living in the moment, providing time for his own imagination to participate deeply in what is being presented. A lot of folks don't react all that favorably to this approach. They want the story to move quickly and clearly and they easily become impatient and confused by this sort of film. These factors doubtless contributed to the box-office failure of "Heaven's Gate".<br /><br />By nature, a film editor, I am deeply frustrated by two problems with this film. Here and there, a scene is clearly too long and could easily have been trimmed without harming its effectiveness. Then we come to the massive, drawn-out battle scenes at the end of the picture. Where these are concerned, the clarity of the storytelling is indeed damaged. If you liked the film up to the point where these occur, your understanding of what is supposed to be happening is likely to become unclear and this is indeed a frustration. Not having seen all the rough footage, I can not tell if actual re-shoots would have been needed, or whether some critical plot elements might have been made clearer by careful re-editing of some moments. Given the time and money that were poured into this picture, more care and thought should have been given to this problem.<br /><br />There are other problems, some occasional weak acting, some dialog that doesn't ring true, but these are really minor concerns. The reason I am so troubled by the problems stated above is that, like so many these days, I too feel that in all "Heaven's Gate" is so splendid to behold and so magnificently deals with major historic, political and sociological issues that it is just short of a masterpiece. Despite its shortcomings, it is so dramatically and visually powerful that it stands head and shoulders above most other Hollywood films I have ever seen. I'd like to re-mix a lot of the sound. I'd like to re-direct and re-edit the scene where Ella is killed, but the greatness of this picture is such that these considerations really do become trivial when compared with the value of the total production. I should add that it should always be seen on a giant wide screen to achieve the glorious effect that it is so capable of delivering.