MovieChat Forums > Heaven's Gate (1981) Discussion > First time viewer: What the hell's the p...

First time viewer: What the hell's the point of Billy Irvine?

posted 11 years ago by bbpictures
5 replies | jump to latest

The John Hurt character may be the most baffling part of this mess of a movie.

If he doesn't condone the slaughter of the immigrants, then what the hell is he doing accompanying Sam Waterston and the others on this campaign? Is his character there for levity? So that he can mumble how he misses Paris during the big shootout? (Not to mention the "humor" of these comments seems to undercut whatever drama we're supposed to be feeling.)

I actually thought the movie had its moments, and didn't think the first hour was bad at all. But after that, it rapidly declined IMO.

I thought Kristofferson was badly miscast, although the script didn't do him any favors, either. I kept imagining Sam Shepard as Averill. I didn't buy Kristofferson's romance with the madam for a single second. The scene with them at the river was possibly my least favorite in the entire movie. (The ten-minute long roll call of names was a close second...)

Kristofferson didn't seem to have any gravitas and less emotion; was I supposed to feel anything toward this character? Maybe the problem was with how the character was written. But even when he shows emotion, like when he's angrily kicking Ella's stuff around because she's chosen Nate, Kristofferson just comes across as hamming it up. His facial expressions (or lack of expressions) were a total cipher. His nonverbal acting told me nothing about the character.

The Nate character, in hindsight, was far more interesting than Averill. Made me wish the story had focused on him instead. Someone in another thread mentioned the wallpaper scene before the intermission was one of the few character moments. It's one of the few chances you have to develop any kind of opinion on these characters.

So many weird touches in this movie -- like when the musical score is playing the "romantic" theme over a scene with Averill and Ella, and then Averill leaves and the fiddle player is waiting outside and begins playing the romantic theme as diegetic music. Bizarre.

Guess it's one of those films a movie lover should see once. It's gorgeous to look at, but exhausting to watch. If nothing else, it made me have a much greater appreciation for Apocalypse Now.

[–] myselfandi 11 years ago

All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing?

I agree with you on the frustrations of this movie. Great locations and the detail, the crowds etc are impressive but nothing trumps good storytelling. 'Heaven's Gate' is too long and too elliptical in the telling.

"The Nate character, in hindsight, was far more interesting than Averill"

omigodyessss. Nate's heroic fight gave the settlers time to be warned and to organize resistance. The scene where the immigrants unite should have been where the movie was leading to the whole time. Ditch the Harvard scenes, ditch the lame love triangle and focus on the tensions between the landed gentry who live elsewhere and the people in Wyoming trying to survive.

Someday, someone should do a proper movie on the The Johnson County War of 1870, http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/guns/2013/02/johnson-county-war .

[–] robin-moss2 11 years ago

I've just watched the Blu-ray disc and I must admit I didn't see the point in the John Hurt character. Mind you, I thought the entire screenplay was a mess. Buried deep within this movie, there is a potentially good story, and it's not just about the Johnson County War.

Cimino clearly "borrowed" ideas from other movies, Doctor Zhivago, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Once Upon A Time In The West and Blood On The Moon for example, but seems not to have understood why and how those ideas worked in the original films.

[–] bbpictures 11 years ago

>> Mind you, I thought the entire screenplay was a mess. Buried deep within this movie, there is a potentially good story, and it's not just about the Johnson County War. <<

Agreed. There's some interesting ideas batted around, but nothing congeals in a cohesive way.

>> Cimino clearly "borrowed" ideas from other movies, Doctor Zhivago, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Once Upon A Time In The West and Blood On The Moon for example, but seems not to have understood why and how those ideas worked in the original films. <<

Bingo. "Borrowed" ideas and didn't have the characters to hang those ideas on. What's left is a fascinating failure. It certainly leaves an impression -- I'm still thinking about it days later -- so I give it credit for that.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 11 years ago

I thought that the character of William 'Billy' Irvine was unnecessary in terms of the film as it stands. I think he represented the bridge between Jim, who betrays his class to work fo a living, and Waterston's character (forget his name) who is, in effect, landed gentry and has to prove he's capable of any work by killing one of the unfortunates himself, after the challenge from Nate. Curiously Billy was the guy chosen as the orator at their Harvard graduation yet he fails to speak out in any persuasive way, as would befit an orator, and ends up shot in the jaw!

Had the film been edited more ruthlessly then he could have been as interesting a character as Nate. Nate like Billy is uneasy with the responsibilities of his role within his class. It's what leads Nate to rebel and Billy to drink.

I agree with much of what the OP writes although I liked the scene at the river with Ella and Jim. It helped to emphasis the idyll before the ugliness but even then the scene went on too long.

The distance is nothing. The first step is the hardest.

[–] bbpictures 11 years ago

Good points about Billy. I hadn't made the connection between him being the orator at graduation and then getting shot in the jaw.

He does seem like he could've been an interesting character. The film is quite misleading in how it starts -- you're given the impression Billy will be a major character, but then he virtually disappears from the film a few scenes later.

The scene by the river probably wouldn't have been so grating to me if I hadn't started to emotionally rebel against the film by that point.