MovieChat Forums > The Deer Hunter (1979) Discussion > The First Hour Makes the Movie, Period.

The First Hour Makes the Movie, Period.

posted 13 years ago by balthazar_bee
40 replies | jump to latest

I don't know why I'm surprised. Really, I should have my damned head examined.

It didn't occur to me that people would flock to this board to tell the world how utterly boring this movie is. In particular, that they were exasperated to near-insanity by the lengthy wedding sequence that opens the film.

Post after post after post after post. LOL The Weddng is SSOSSOOOOOOOOOOO long and SSSSOOOOO BORINGGGGGGG...put me to sleep and I never fall asleep in movies. OMFG! Nothing happens! The editor must've been aslepp 2 LMFAO I woke up when they got to Vietnam and De Niro fired up his flamethrower -- PWNED!!! I guess you had to see it in the sixties or whenever it was made, etc.

I suppose there are at least as many people defending the film (and its terrific first hour), but I must be experiencing some form of "temporary insanity", because I'm so blinded with uncomprehending rage that I scarcely notice them.

Why do people feel compelled to share their lack of cinematic taste or anything resembling a decent attention span with complete strangers? Are they not embarrassed? Has no one had a "stupidity intervention" with them? It must be hard enough on their own families. I mean, if it were me, I'd be hiding in a cave in East Jesus, hoping that no one ever asks my opinion about anything.

Differences of opinion are fine. Using IMDb as a virtual megaphone to shout odes dedicated to one's own ignorance is not. But most of us have learned to accept this, because we feel you can't have one without the other. Maybe not.

Anyway, others have said as much, but it bears repeating: The first hour is brilliant because it, at first glance, seems to be about nothing but "ordinary life". By the end of the film, the importance of these scenes has been revealed, and the viewer has (hopefully) come to understand that so-called "ordinary life" is what it's all about. The shattering experience of Vietnam would mean nothing -- nothing -- without the wonderfully textured representation of Steelmill, America and the characters who inhabit it. Their worlds have been all but destroyed, and we need to be able to see those worlds in order to appreciate this fact.

Furthermore, and Cimino's real trick here, it's actually filled with story. Every moment, every line, every gesture of that first hour adds to the impact of the whole. It makes me shudder to think that we were almost stuck with 20 minute "compromise" version of the first act.

I feel better now.

[–] mvickers-1 13 years ago

it may sound trite, but cimino and cast said the most with 'less'

[–] franzkabuki 13 years ago

Yeah, the first act, long and underdramatized as it may seem, is actually quite impeccably paced and filled with subtle character development. Also, the sudden jump from the quiet moment in the bar to the middle of battlefield hell, is one of the most effective transitions in any film.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] mvickers-1 13 years ago

goes over many peoples' heads, bec they want some transition scenes to 'justify' it

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 13 years ago

I haven't seen this film, but I absolutely dislike the type of post you just made. I hate fanboys who feel the need to insult anyone who dislikes something in their precious film. I mean, if they are doing it in a rude way, that's one thing, but nothing in your post suggests that these users are trolls. It seems to me that they just expressed their opinion and you are mad because it is nothing like your own.

Differences of opinion are fine. Using IMDb as a virtual megaphone to shout odes dedicated to one's own ignorance is not.

That's the most pretentious and contradictory statement in your post. So, having different opinions is okay as long as they are still positive about the things you like.... for the love of God.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 13 years ago

Ignorance and unsubstanciated "opinions" can only be patiently tolerated for so long

You have no basis for calling them "ignorant and unsubstanciated" opinions, other than their disagreement with your own opinion. If someone feels a scene or a shot is unecessarily long, then it is his opinion and that's it. NOTHING makes it an "ignorant" opinion. Nothing makes your taste for long shots right, and their distaste wrong.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] balthazar_bee 13 years ago

What's irritating are people blundering onto message boards, straight from watching some so-called "old" film on their handheld toy, or maybe in a film class, in all likelihood in between receiving text messages -- with almost no sense of cinematic perspective or historical context, or the least respect for the attention required to actually watch a film -- complaining that it's "too slow" or "boring". That's an ignorant opinion.

Film isn't just entertainment; it's an art form. If people aren't willing or able to put aside their own need for constant superficial stimulation, that's their loss, but they should keep it to themselves rather than polluting discussion boards with their nonsense.

And we're talking about The Deer Hunter here -- it's not exactly a record holder for "longest time between cuts" or "longest time without words spoken". The first hour moves along fast enough, but it's not about people firing machine guns in Vietnam.

And aren't you the guy who can't stand the fact that some people prefer Die Hard 2 over 4? Wasn't that you trying to convince people that they're wrong about their opinions?

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 13 years ago

Do you have any real basis or proof that everyone who has said in here that this film is slow have no real sense of cinematic perspective? It seems to me that you are just trying to rationalize the fact that some people dislike the slow pace of this movie, by making up characteristics that you don't really know they have.

If people aren't willing or able to put aside their own need for constant superficial stimulation, that's their loss

The same as I said before: making up characteristics for the people who dislike what you like, with no real basis.

The first hour moves along fast enough

Obviously that's an opinion that not everyone else share.

And aren't you the guy who can't stand the fact that some people prefer Die Hard 2 over 4? Wasn't that you trying to convince people that they're wrong about their opinions?

Nope. I'm the guy who can't stand the trolls of the DH board and thus I pay them with the exact same coin. They love trolling the fourth movie, so I might as well tell them some facts about the reception of the second movie.

All in all, I can tell that you are one of those dumb users who believe his/her opinion is an absolute fact. It is not. Some people dislike what you like. Deal with it. They are not being troll-ish about it, like the trolls in the Die Hard 4 board.

[–] balthazar_bee 13 years ago

You say I'm rationalizing -- you know what? Maybe I am. But I live in this world, and I have eyes. I can also read, and draw conclusions about what I'm reading.

I presume you're in North America somewhere. Have you not noticed that people are highly distracted these days? I'm not just talking about kids -- though they're probably the worst off.

I propose an experiment. Ask five casual film fans over -- five who haven't seen the film before -- to watch The Deer Hunter. Tell them it's three hours, but it won Best Picture and you'll have to insist on confiscating their cell phones before admittance in order to give the movie the respect it deserves.

Think you'd get any takers? If so, how do you think they'd respond to the film?

How long before someone says, "This really won best picture"?

If I'd read even one post that reached the level of perceptive criticism, I probably would've held back and not started this thread. Instead, it was almost entirely one to two line comments. And the content didn't get much further than "this was boring", "where was the editor?", "it moved too slowly", etc.

Maybe that's enough to convince you, a person who hasn't seen the film in question, that "all opinions are created equal", and those of us who admire The Deer Hunter should watch passively while this message board is swallowed by such threads.

But then you mention your beefs on the Die Hard 4 board, a film that's problematic at best, and you say that I'm being hypocritical?

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 13 years ago

Yes, you are being hypocritical. My beefs are with the trolls who feel the need to reply to every single positive thread, with something like "Irrelevant. DH4 is not even a REAL Die Hard movie, so there's no need to discuss it". That's pretty much the depth of the reply you will get from any of them if you say ANYTHING good about the film. I didn't care the first time I saw their hateful posts. I just took them as their opinion and I replied politely, this happened last year, then I noticed their trend and lost respect for them. Trolls should get no respect because they don't show respect. The film is problematic at best? According to your opinion perhaps. Oh but yes, you are the guy who thinks someone is ignorant if he doesn't agree with you.

I won't say anything else to defend the posters you are talking about, because as I said, I haven't even read their posts and I'm basing my opinion only on your OP, but I still believe, based on your hypotetical experiment, that you will discard ANY opinion that disagrees with yours as ignorant and a product of a society that you don't value because they don't like the types of film you like. I completely disliked The French Connection. I think it is a film that lacks focus, good characters (even if they are well acted) and an engaging plot. In fact it even reminded me of the Miami Vice movie. I don't care if it won many academy awards in the same way that I don't care if Crash won best picture. I still think Crash is one of the most manipulative films I've seen.

I don't think ALL opinions are created equal, but I do think everyone should be allowed to express their own as long as it's respectful. In my opinion, saying that a film is boring is a very valid criticism. My film teacher once said something that I will never forget. It may have been just his opinion, but is one I absolutely share: "The worst crime a film can commit, is to be unengaging". The Godfather is a very slow movie, but I don't really know anyone who says its boring, not even the casual viewers I've shown it to. If the Deer Hunter was "boring" to a viewer, I don't see why that would be an ignorant opinion. For me, it all depends on how s/he says it.

[–] djsnafu23 13 years ago

Some of us WANTED a slow pace and character driven first hour or two, but still didn't like the wedding scene and all the dancing. Its not automatic that the criticisms come from Van Damme fans...

....

http://soundcloud.com/dj-snafu-bankrupt-euros

Coz lifes too short to listen to Madlib

[–] Drooch 11 years ago

Sometimes I wonder if the studios created Goondocks to combat dissent from cinema lovers over the dumbing down of their mainstream output. An automaton they wind up and send into the imdb boards to manage our frustration.

It's not just his shrieking stupidity that's troubling, it's his horribly bloated ego. When he's not trampling over the slowly dying remains of quality cinema and championing heartless, braindead sequels, he's boasting about his laughable film studies credentials. He perfectly symbolises the lack of humility and artistic sensitivity, the attention deficit and swollen sense of entitlement that characterise today's mainstream audience. It's not necessarily their fault, but try and explain any of this to him, even nicely, and he'll report your post until it gets deleted.

His 'it's just your opinion!' chorus is screamed over the most patient explanations of how Othello is demonstrably a superior piece of literature to The Da Vinci Code. Nothing goes in. Nothing. You just come away feeling a bit stupider for having spent time with him.

I'm sorry you had to experience him.

[–] deadbunny28 12 years ago

i love Tarkovsky and i thought this film was "too slow" and "boring...just thought i'd throw some salt on your wounds...

[–] kenny-164 12 years ago

People are entitled to their opinions, but I think anyone who thinks TDH is slow and boring either suffers from ADD or didn't understand the film. The film is DESIGNED to use an initial period of introducing the characters and their frame of reference before it pivots in a way that shows the tremendous difference of their experience in Vietnam. The third part blends Michael's return with his attempt to retrieve Nick. It is a film that has parts that are necessary to make a whole. It examines contrasts.

Now you can say that sort of film is not your type, which is fine, but within the context of what the film was intended to achieve, which it does, it is not slow and boring.

[–] deadbunny28 12 years ago

actually I was referring to the Vietnam part...I was completely uninterested and disengaged...I actually wished the 'introducing of the characters' went on longer...I thought that was a fun way to get an idea of who each of these people are...so when the second part of the film was supposed to be the riveting part it did fail to achieve what it wanted to me

[–] Stirchley 12 years ago

I haven't seen this film, but I absolutely dislike the type of post you just made.

I'm always amazed by folks who post in a thread of a movie they've never seen.

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 12 years ago

Since I wasn't making a comment about a film I hadn't seen, but rather about a post I had read (i.e. the original post), I really don't understand at all why it would amaze you. I expressed my opinion on his attitude, not the film itself.

[–] gruesome 13 years ago

Maybe. If you're looking for a nap.

[–] princesstinymeat 12 years ago

Interestingly (or strangely) I love the first act but not the rest of the film. As soon as we get to Vietnam it goes downhill for me.

[–] gtrwizrd 12 years ago

I'm no action film, war-movie buff by a long shot - I'm into all types of films and I have to say there were scenes that simply lost my attention (yes parts of the eternal wedding scene everyone is talking about). Maybe this went over better in the 70's when movies and TV were generally a bit slower moving. It didn't piss me off though or make me hate the movie like some people are implying on this board. Consequently I was caught off-guard by some transitions between scenes/sequences and missed a few probably important details here and there. However I do understand the importance of establishing where they came from and who they were, etc... the purpose of the first part of the movie. It was just too drawn out and I don't think this would fly in a modern movie. There were many redeeming qualities though. Gave it an 8 - excellent overall film.

[–] MetalWorks 12 years ago

Bravo, finally someone who gets it!

And yeah, you are right, to me, an opinion should always be well-argumented in order to be seen as valid

"Its soo borinG"
"nothing happens!!"

Doesn't cut

But then it hit me, maybe the movie is still being marketed as a "WAR" movie, and that 's wrong

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] glennshook64 12 years ago

to the op... Was hitting women in public and being all but pyscho part of "ordinary life" back then? I wasn't alive then so I guess maybe it was. Pick up on my sarcasim? Boring is boring. Smart or stupid.