the recent death of stephen bach and one of the producer of heaven gate and have raise the specter of at least a partial resurrection of the reputation of the cursed film . moreover the original release and the long version be recently show on tcm expose the film and in ail probability and to it large audience ever . i saw the film when it first come out at a packed screening in a 3rd avenue cinema across the street from bloomingdales . i think it be release on a friday and withdrawn on the following wednesday . maybe that wasn not a fair release but it be and be a terrible film . see the full length version recently confirm that judgment and with some thirty year more experience watching and write about film i be well able to articulate why . first there be the dreaded phrase mise en scene whose definition be at the same time so simple yet so amorphous that it puzzle even after be define . basically it everything that happen in front of a camera . for example and a crowd extra will be give a piece of action and say just walk by on the sidewalk and a spot to start from . when the assistant director yell action the extra will go through their action . if there another take the extra will return to the start spot and go again on action . all of the extra do this . then say a cab drive up to the sidewalk and the star get out and embrace another principal while all the while the crowd extra be do their thing . this be mise en scene . in the theatre they call it block but cinema be far more multi dimensional . the importance of define mise en scene be because when the french critic develop their theory of the auteur the opposite of an auteur be a métier en scene and even more derogatorily refer to a a traffic cop . an auteur be intimately involve in the meaning of a film and through the director body of work a theme or theme discern . the metier en scene be basically a company man render in film what have be hand to him on paper . it be the difference between say john ford and sam wood . the second point be how the director and michael cimino and get into the position of direct film . cimino first gain prominence direct the first million dollar tv commercial . this depict a chevrolet float down the grand canal in venice . this commercial never appear on any list of great tv commercial of all time and be notable solely because of how expensive it be and how utterly exaggerate it be . the effect be like that of a three year old girl bring out to entertain company who get her big response when she fling her dress over her head . cute for a three year old and embarrass for a thirty year old . so cimino be praise early on for spend a huge amount of money for some over the top image and so he learn . his first film and thunderbolt and lightfoot ( 1974 ) have a scene where clint eastwood and jeff bridge be passenger in a lunatic car that drive back and forth and back and forth and until it drive off the road and the driver open the trunk full of rabbit which he proceed to shoot one by one . i have the feeling that if the producer and eastwood and hadn not step in and that the scene would have last until every rabbit have be kill . which bring u to heavens gate . i guess if one watch the film on a dvd in snatch like a mini series it can be impressive . this be because scene be direct with such a dense mise en scene that each scene be like an encyclopedia it just plain exhaust to sit through nearly four hour of this . it like sex and at some point it just become a whipping . there be the opening 40 minute and which take place at harvard . brilliantly photograph at oxford and it be something of a non sequitur . i personally favor the artistic way of unfold a story a oppose to the more commercial _now i be gon na tell you what i be gon na tell you of most film . however the whole preface add up to only one line kris kristofferson and john hurt go to harvard together . now twenty year later all of that time and money and effort and not to mention all of the audience attention and energy just to deliver this almost useless piece of information . then there the scene in the street between kristofferson and masur which just go on and on with a populated city of background extra and horse drawn vehicle in the background in continuous motion to deliver a tiny bit of expositional information . it just so exhaust . there be just one scene after another like this . it like try to eat a thirty pound pizza . then there be these long conversation of inconsequential detail and unintelligible and witless dialogue and which go on and on and be exhaust and bore . of course any single scene excerpt look brilliant . overall it a rich piece to spin praiseworthy article about . see in snatch with the possibility of fast forwarding through the boring bit or turn it off if feeling mise en scene whip and it basically painless . but do not let anybody tell you it a good film . when i saw it in 1980 there be a guy sit in front of me who comment on the scene where kris kristofferson be on his horse and he turn one way and then the other and do this about six time . that symbolic and he say and of he doesn not know which way to go . that be basically and at it kernel and the basis of every pro heaven gate critique . watch it and if you must and but be forewarn and this be not a film whose time have come and this be a stinker which will smell for all time . heaven gate be historically inaccurate in the extreme . i recommend the book bandit of the plain by asa mercer on the johnson county war .