MovieChat Forums > Heaven's Gate (1981) Discussion > Perplexity about script loopholes

Perplexity about script loopholes


After my fourth or maybe fifth viewing of the director's cut, there are a couple points I still don't get.

First, how come two Harvard graduates finally wind up in the middle of the Johnson County war? Averill (Kristofferson) in particular puzzles me: he's several times referred to as a 'rich man', and the elliptic final scene aboard the yacht clearly shows that he in fact is much more than simply rich - the man's obviouly a millionaire. So how could a (seemingly) married millionaire from the East become a sheriff or a marshal in Wyoming, leaving his wealth and - as we learn in the end - his wife behind?

Then there's the apparent contradiction in the Irvine (Hurt) character: in Harvard he's the local loud-mouthed, wisecracking big guy, but in Wyoming he's always one step aside from the course of events, and remains mostly passive - not to mention drunk. Averill on the contrary is much more discreet in the East then becomes a prominent character in the West.

Agreed, this has to do, as other reviewers pointed it out, with the disillusion and bitterness that age brings - yet there's absolutely nothing, either in the opening Harvard section or later on, that offers any clue about the question : how the hell did these two guys get there, and what made them change so much?

I wonder if the mythical 5 hour cut mentioned in other threads contained footage that could explain a thing or two about this?

reply

First, how come two Harvard graduates finally wind up in the middle of the Johnson County war? Averill (Kristofferson) in particular puzzles me: he's several times referred to as a 'rich man', and the elliptic final scene aboard the yacht clearly shows that he in fact is much more than simply rich - the man's obviouly a millionaire. So how could a (seemingly) married millionaire from the East become a sheriff or a marshal in Wyoming, leaving his wealth and - as we learn in the end - his wife behind?
The cattle industry was controlled by wealthy men from the East. Truth be told, it went beyond Easterners; a great chunk of the industry was controlled by wealthy Europeans. It can be inferred that Averill and Co. ended up in Johnson County as businessmen for the Wyoming Stock Growers Association. In fact, it's likely Averil became sheriff essentially as a puppet for the company (and in real life, it was Frank Canton who was sheriff, essentially for that reason). Along the way, however, his allegiance grew closer to the settlers. The movie hints at this in the scene where he shows up at the WSGA clubhouse, and is told he was blackballed from it long ago, showing he was once a member whose relationship soured, as well as the line about him being "rich man pretending to be poor".

Then there's the apparent contradiction in the Irvine (Hurt) character: in Harvard he's the local loud-mouthed, wisecracking big guy, but in Wyoming he's always one step aside from the course of events, and remains mostly passive - not to mention drunk.
I don't think its contradictory. Irvine is suppose to be a perfect example of wasted potential. He was class valedictorian, destined for great things. But he ends up more or less as Canton's drunken caddy. In the same scene above, Averril asks him something along the lines of what he is going to do, and he blurts out something along the line of "for crissakes, I'm the class valedictorian". Averill gives him a stare of dissapointment and pity, while he cowers down in shame. It's arguably the most important moment for the character, as it explains his problem. He's an underachiever who never lived up to his promise, and in some ways is living in the past by being the same drunken, class-clown he was in Harvard. But the stakes are higher now. He's representative of society's passive cynics. He'll loudly protest what the Association is doing, and make wisecrack's about them, but he's completely passive and unable, or more accurately, unwilling to do anything against them. He can voice dissent, but his indifference towards action despite his moral qualms, makes him as culpable as the Association and their mercenaries. There's always Irvines in any conflict of this nature, be it Johnson County, Vichy France or the Iraq war.

reply

Thanks a lot for your two comments, guys. I didn't know how the livestock business worked in those days. As for the character's behavior, I guess I didn't pay enough attention to the WSGA clubhouse scene - you're right, it's a key explanatory moment.

Well, with that in mind I'll go get my DVD for another viewing - and a good thing too!

reply

While these explanations might be all true, the obvious problem is that most members of the viewing community might not know these facts. I am a fan of this film, but the director (and screenwriter?) (and editor?) should have focused more on these logic problems.

The moment the audience begins to ask questions not intended by the filmmaker, that person is not completely involved, and is lost.

Also, after seeing this for the third time, I still can't tell whether the woman in the end is his wife or Ella? Was it just bad make-up? I can't tell.

Was his wife back home the reason he couldn't get married? Was that her in the picture? Or was that Ella? I can't tell.
I know Cimino most likely intended it to be his wife from back home, but a tad more exposition would have been greatly appreciated.

I can certainly see countless people walking away from this thinking the identical thing.

And, to conclude, I totally totally didn't buy Canton and two or three other men attempting to ambush Averill after the battle. Why would Canton not just pay men to do it? And why bother at all? I felt like I was cheated.
Perhaps there was more logic included in the shot but not included footage, but I guess we'll never know.

But, in my opinion, all the good in this film certainly outweighs these issues.

reply

Supposedly the shorter cut (which I have not seen) contains a voiceover in which Averill explains that he decided to go west after graduating.

During the commencement ceremony the Reverend Doctor tells the graduates that they have a responsibility to improve society while Ivine's speech suggests that no change is necessary in the current order of things. My interpretation is that by becoming a lawman Averill was following the ideal espoused by the Reverend Doctor. Irvine reflected the attitude of most of his class, who felt entitled to their wealth and privileges. Wealthy easterners and foreigners invested heavily in the Wyoming cattle industry so it's not unusual that Irvine would end up there.

Twenty years later both men are disillusioned. Averill sees the injustice and poverty around him and can't do much about it. Irvine wasn't a very serious person at Harvard and he is unable to confront the harshness of the real world after graduating. Irvine sadly exclaims "It's over." at the end of the commencement celebrations, as if he realizes that the best years of his life are behind him. Irvine disagrees with his fellow cattlemen about how to deal with the rustlers but is too weak to actively oppose them. He is afraid to jeopardize his social status and has become a self-loathing drunk. Averill has been blackballed by the Stock Growers' Association but since he comes from a wealthy background he can't fully relate to the poor settlers he is trying to help.

reply

Douglas Branch's excellent book "The Cowboy and His Interpreters" makes it clear that Eastern college graduates were thick on the Western plains, not just as ranch owners but as actual working cowboys. The movie could make this point a little clearer, to be sure, but it is a historical fact. If Cimino had made the point, the Harvard prologue that takes up a good twenty minutes of the director's cut would seem a little less gratuitous.

reply

Whoah. Mark.


als das kind kind war

reply

[deleted]