MovieChat Forums > Grand Canyon (1992) Discussion > Such a Fine Film Toppled by a Tiny Techn...

Such a Fine Film Toppled by a Tiny Technical Flaw

posted 17 years ago by rivieran
20 replies | jump to latest

This has been one of my favorite American films since it was first released, but I am sad to say that the end credits start rolling at least one minute too soon.

They block out the beauty and grandeur of the (expensive!) aerial cinematography of the GC, in addition to distracting us from the climactic closing fanfare of James Newton Howard's sublime score.

I had hoped that the closing credits would have been delayed a minute or so on the DVD release, but no such luck. In a way they render the final scene almost meaningless, and that is way too bad for such an important movie.

I still love this film, but I am saddened that such a simple technical error in timing the start of the credits seriously damaged its overall cultural impact and, in my opinion, destroyed its performance at the box office.

Instead of remaining in their seats for sixty seconds more, experiencing the full visual and aural impact of the GC flythrough scenes and saying "Wow!", I suspect that most first-time viewers of GC walked out as soon as they saw the credits start to roll (as modern audiences are wont to do) merely saying "Huh?"

[–] Pat ODay 17 years ago

The credits roll at precisely the correct time. The film is called Grand Canyon not because it is a travelogue of the tourist attraction, but because of the varied personal stories that are the subject of the film. Merely arriving at the Canyon at the end sums up the resolution of the screenplay.

I agree that the canyon cinematography is stunning, but that is not the purpose of the film. There are MANY high quality cinematic run-throughs of the Grand Canyon. After having personally flown over and through the canyon myself, I own several. But that is not needed at the end of this film.

[–] rivieran 17 years ago

Thanks for the response, but I think that you are wrong. This film is about the innumerable layers of lives that comprise humanity, its history and its future. The ending is actually open-ended, as opposed to being resolved.

The fly-through of the canyon itself can be seen as a metaphor for the fact that no matter how important and overwhelming our problems often seem to each of us, in the overall scheme we are each just a tiny slice of something huge and powerful (and beautiful(?)) that extends over all time, similar to an ancient river eroding thousands of feet of strata to expose their underlying composition. (I didn't specifically explain this in my original post because it seems obvious.)

This is evident because the climactic intensity of the music occurs during the fly-through behind the credits, which implies that the start-up of the credits was rushed for some unpublished reason. I suspect it was a technical error, the importance of which wasn't recognized until it was too late.

The fly-through and its accompanying fanfare are obviously intended to strengthen the overall river/canyon/history/humanity/future metaphor in the audience's minds before they leave their seats.

Unfortunately it has become commonplace for 99.9% of the modern audience to flee the theater as soon as the first line of the credits appears.

I'm disappointed that you mis-interpreted my post as suggesting that this wonderfully complex movie was intended to be a "travelogue of the tourist attraction". The deeper meaning of the ending is in the canyon, and the credits block most of it out. I'm a little insulted that you think I just wanted some pretty pictures. I guess you missed my other post about GC.

However, as someone who has loved this movie since I first saw it during its initial release, I would appreciate reading your theory about why this otherwise excellent and intelligent movie was such a major failure at the box office. (I was just as shocked as I suspect Kasdan and his studio were.)

My theory still stands that the full impact of the beautiful and metaphorical ending was almost completely obscured for most people by the intrusive credits. Even the smartest and most open-minded people that I worked with at that time hated Grand Canyon because they thought that the ending was virtually meaningless.

The meaning that they expected but didn't see is hidden behind the early-rolling credits, and it's far deeper than just a fancy travelogue.

[–] Zando777 17 years ago

Interesting point. I agree that many people were disappointed and confused by the ending, and maybe an extra minute would've helped that meaning sink in. (I hadn't thought of that either -- I just thought the canyon was a symbol of natural beauty.)

[–] tagosti 17 years ago

Perhaps on the directors cut 20th anniversary DVD bonus (or whatever) version they could include just the ending GC fly through, with score and no credits. And great added value for little to no extra cost.
How about it Me Kasdan?

[–] Razzbar 10 years ago

The canyon was a metaphor for the seemingly unbridgeable gap between social classes (rich/poor, white/black, have/have-not, educated/uneducated...)

But I went "huh?" at the end. There were too many loose ends, too many unexplained outcomes for other characters, who seem to be just terminated from the script in mid-crisis with no clue as to what happened after...

I don't think the story would have been improved by more footage of the Grand Canyon, but to excuse it by saying "there is plenty of footage you can see elsewhere", is absurd. A movie should be complete. But more footage of the Grand Canyon won't help. I want to know what happened.

[–] Pat ODay 16 years ago

I'm disappointed that you mis-interpreted my post as suggesting that this wonderfully complex movie was intended to be a "travelogue of the tourist attraction". The deeper meaning of the ending is in the canyon, and the credits block most of it out. I'm a little insulted that you think I just wanted some pretty pictures. I guess you missed my other post about GC.

No reason to be insulted. My point was by the time the camera dipped away from the characters and into the Canyon, the film had reached its resolution. The credits were the logical conclusion. Also remember that by that point in the film, it was over two hours run time. Studios get VERY nervous about films that exceed the 1hr, 50min mark.

However, as someone who has loved this movie since I first saw it during its initial release, I would appreciate reading your theory about why this otherwise excellent and intelligent movie was such a major failure at the box office. (I was just as shocked as I suspect Kasdan and his studio were.)

Because people prefer junk! Always have, always will. My guess is that some cinematic masterpiece like "Christmas With the Klumps" or "Jungle Fever" was in the next theater and of course the lemmings all went there.

Listen. I understand the importance of mindless entertainment. Sometimes, you just want to put the gray matter on hold .. especially after a tough day. I remember seeing "Dumb and Dumber." Sure. It was unbelievably retarded. But it also made me laugh out loud BECAUSE it was so retarded. Sometimes you just need that. But the general public tends to ALWAYS prefer mindless over more rewarding fare. That's the shame of it all.

[–] davethemathtutor 9 years ago

To Rivieran and Pat O'Day;

I have no particular opinion concerning the end of the movie. I just want to say that it's a real pleasure to see two viewers with differing opinions, like yourselves, discussing their views in an intelligent and civilized manner, rather than resorting to the name-calling that so often characterizes these postings. A big thank-you to both of you for promoting civility on the Internet!

[–] LTUM (1037) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] arisdisc 17 years ago

HORRIBLE?? I think it's one of the most powerful and haunting scores of the 90's!

[–] My_Name_Is_Lydia 16 years ago

I totally agree with you. Every sound that came from this movie was flawless.

...a signature to be named later.

[–] Pat ODay 16 years ago

I agree. I liked the score so much that I bought the CD. I can't believe that someone would think the score was anything near "HORRIBLE!"

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] speechfork 16 years ago

I agree with you re the rapidity of the closing credits: let us reflect and breathe along with the actors (what a cast!) and take this in--all of it--the grandeur, the connections between those present, the larger-than-us sensation of nature that should reach us down the bone. Instead...

A powerful movie (and soundtrack) that I found personally moving. It will always be special to me.

Thanks for your thoughtful commentary (as well as those whose messages follow).

[–] jmilesjmiles 16 years ago

What I was disappointed in was that shot they chose while they are standing there wasn't nearly as nice as it could have been. Perhaps it was impossible to try to clear the tourists out of that main southern view spot that shows so much depth, but the sun was so low in the sky, the haze obscured so much.

As for the movie itself, I thought it was flawless. Anyone that thinks it was promoting liberal mush is hopelessly cynical. In each characters' lives, it gave us just enough to understand the reasons they came together so well. This is definitely one of those movies you cannot watch in a group on DVD because more than a few will not get it and be a distraction. No kids, no typing on the computer... there is too much nuance.

[–] pms1962 11 years ago

I agree with you.

I don't think it's a "travel log" or anything that superficial. But it robs the audience of a chance to see and feel what the characters are seeing and feeling at the end of the film. Just as they look out over that timeless vista and start to put themselves in perspective with the rest of the world and the rest of history ... we get a credit roll that pulls us completely out of the moment.

The score is powerful and the images are majestic ... and it's very jarring to have to read credits while that final moment plays out.

I would love it if, in future releases, they would delay the credits until after the fanfare section of the score, with the shots of the canyon, then start the credits over black after that. It would make a huge difference and leave the audience (at home or in a theatre) with the same feeling of humbled awe that the cast is experiencing.

A missed opportunity ... and it's right at the end of this (fine) movie.

[–] catbookss 10 years ago

You make an excellent point. I loved the movie anyway, including the end. But I do think it would have been improved had the camera lingered and allowed us, the audience, to experience what they were experiencing. Without the credits rolling so soon.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]