MovieChat Forums > The Deer Hunter (1979) Discussion > Analysis of the first hour - great or te...

Analysis of the first hour - great or terrible?

posted 10 years ago by nielw
48 replies | jump to latest

In my quest to watch all Best Picture winners, I just watched this movie for the first time, and I had no pre-conceived notions coming in. All I knew was that it had Robert DeNiro and some Russian Roulette in the Vietnam War.

I found myself getting bored 30 minutes in and wondering when things were going to pick up... 20 minutes later, I felt like I was watching someone's home movies, wondering when something interesting would happen. I stuck it out, and eventually it jumped from some of the slowest pacing in the world to the most intense scene I've ever seen: Russian Roulette in Vietnam.

Now, after looking back, I can't say I'm a fan of the first hour, but the contrast between slow American life and quick-paced war scenes is what really made this movie.

It's almost like the director is making you choose between the most boring small town life imaginable, and shooting yourself in the head.

A little surprised this won the Oscar for Best Editing, but I guess they nailed the contrast between the two settings of the movie so well that it couldn't be avoided...even though I found the slow pacing almost unbearable.

That said, I enjoyed the film overall, at least once it got out of home movie mode. The Vietnam scenes were some of the best I've ever seen in film.

Mirror inspector is a job I could really see myself doing.

[–] wilky37 10 years ago

Yeah, I find myself fast-forwarding through this movie 10 and 20 minutes at a time. It has sequences that go on and on forever with no dialogue, no plot development, scant character development.

[–] Nikon11 10 years ago

You either love it or hate it, I guess.

This is this.

[–] slainzcasl 10 years ago

It was one of the most boring films I have ever seen. The most boring film ever to get nominated for X academy awards.

[–] ilutrov 10 years ago

It sounds like you haven't watched many films. Have you seen Forrest Gump, Shakespeare in Love, Chicago, or The Artist yet?

http://imdb.com/user/ur2019270/ratings

[–] thomaswilliamboner 10 years ago

I really really like this movie. This is my favorite Vietnam movie along with Apocalypse Now. I would put it in my top 20 ever. I will say though that the first hour is slow and the wedding scene is painful to watch. I know why it was shot like that, but it does not change my mind. The movie could be about 20-30 minutes shorter. Like I said I love the movie, but the editing at the beginning is bad.

[–] Nikon11 10 years ago

The editing is not bad, simply because you don't like the wedding scene. That's how they meant it to be - not some mistake, attributed to bad editing.

You don't like that part - good for you - I do. But it's not due to some goof on the film-makers and their editing.

[–] brandmanager 10 years ago

I adored the first hour; the pool table scene is one of my favorite scenes in any film, ever.

That being said, it's not for everyone. For me, growing up in a region of the US (the Rust Belt) filled with folks like the pre-Vietnam characters might have helped.

[–] hawktwo 10 years ago

My reason for liking the first hour is that I grew up the daughter of a steel mill worker in the Pittsburgh area. I loved the realism of the wedding -- so familiar. The hunting -- the schools and malls in areas around Pittsburgh still close when hunting season opens. The malls hold special sales for the women and children left behind.

I married a Vietnam Vet and worked in a government office that tracked missing vets, so I realized the roulette scene was fake, but the imprisonment with rats was not. The godawful loss of limbs was something the men in my life still live with.

My impression was that Streep, DeNiro and Casale looked too old to be playing the parts they played. I thought Streep was married to the man who struck her; didn't realize it was her father. That being said, their acting was spot on.

I am very familiar with the horrors of the vets hospital -- that was totally realistic. There's a huge vets hospital just north of Pittsburgh.

[–] molypocho 9 years ago

I was never bored by the first hour, but I agree with you in your questioning its Best Editing Oscar, perhaps for entirely different reasons. I didn't like how Michael Cimino merged scenes. They often felt awkward and forced, especially when he was interlacing a large, grandiose shot depicting multiple people, and then cutting into a more select scene featuring intimate dialogue, or vice versa. Two examples:

- When the men first get out of work and Michael is commenting on the sky (the moon? I don't remember the specifics). His friends kid him about his strangeness, and then, suddenly, the rest of the workforce appears behind them in a wide shot. It's beautiful, but it feels forced, as though everyone was waiting at the door for the five friends to carry on with their intimate conversation, and then, once Cimino gave the ok, they all got released like an unruly chaotic torrent.

Oh wait...that is what happened.

You see what I'm saying? Cimino's trying to make an extremely realistic film, but he keeps accidentally drawing attention to himself.

- The scene outside Michael's house. Everyone is gathered around Michael's car, fooling around, being happy friends together, and then Linda (Meryl Streep) walks up and is greeted Nick (Christopher Walken). They walk away from the crowd together in order to stand directly in front of the house's window so that their every word and gesture can be perfectly framed and secretly observed by Michael who is inside the house. It feels incredibly contrived. Clumsy stuff.

I could go on and on with more examples, but I won't. As a whole, it's a powerful movie. Quite beautiful too.

My rating: 9 (in other words, a failure)

[–] jajceboy 9 years ago

I wouldn't say it's terrible but I don't think it's that great either. I don't mind slow-paced films since that usually gives a film its strength, but this one was stretching it. It's was to detailed. Cimino really had to focus on everything as if it mattered. Not only the wedding but everything before it. And then the drawn out wedding process, reception and the hunting trip. But first the trip to the hunting trip which seems to go on forever.
Was it really necessary for the film to focus on everything? We get that the boys are really close with each-other and that the town is boring. We don't need dead scenes. Cimino should have either shortened the film to focus on the core, or made the editing more effective and fast-paced. I always fast forward the film due to this tedious tendency.

I am a bit surprised that it won the Oscar for editing, Like really?
I always thought the editing award went for films who had a noticeable editing, or something remarkable. The editing here is far from remarkable or note-worthy.It is quite ordinary in fact
I'm guessing 1978 was a really weak year editing wise so they went for the best of the weakest. But it could also be for the fact that Peter Zinner, the editor had a feud with Cimino during the production. Cimino wanted the film to be around 4 hrs long, Zinner disagreed. Maybe the Academy heard about this feud and went for the sympathy vote?
Either of the two is possible.

[–] rascal67 9 years ago

I'm guessing 1978 was a really weak year editing wise so they went for the best of the weakest. But it could also be for the fact that Peter Zinner, the editor had a feud with Cimino during the production. Cimino wanted the film to be around 4 hrs long, Zinner disagreed.
______________

These were the editing nominees:
Best Film Editing

WINNER
The Deer Hunter: Peter Zinner
NOMINEES
The Boys from Brazil: Robert Swink
Coming Home: Don Zimmerman
Midnight Express: Gerry Hambling
Superman: Stuart Baird

It would have likely won for prestige value, that had been attributed to the film. For the story, character's and style\tempo of the film, the editing was fine. In spite of any flaws, it was still an unfolding, profound and even searing drama. However, looking at some of the other nominees, I think MIDNIGHT EXPRESS, would have been a better choice; but that film, wasn't having to deal with an extra 60mins padded run time, compared to DEER HUNTER. Even SUPERMAN, has some unnecessary drawn out sequences and could have used some trimming. Films from this era, would have rarely utilized the same rapid fire editing techniques used today and even these films, can come over as flat and boring.

[–] GeekCritique 9 years ago

The first hour was my favorite because it basically set up all of the characters it introduced them all one by one. I felt though it was a little long and could have used a few cuts. Like the dancing at the wedding went on a little too long, but everything else was neccesary. It showed how the characters were going to act in the movie and if you watch the movie again it shows how much they change in the end.

You talk'n to me?

[–] keyser_soze_smokes 9 years ago

It's almost like the director is making you choose between the most boring small town life imaginable, and shooting yourself in the head.



I had to speed up the movie for the same reason, I already know how ordinary lives are and expected the introduction to be pointedly instead of dragging.

The movie truly only starts after the first explosion in Nan, but like you, I avoided spoilers and had to deal with it.

Visually great with terrific acting by DeNiro, Walken and Streep, but the-horror-the-horror takes an hour to surface.

What we imagine turned Walken's character into the absolute nihilist and ascetic beyond an eastern monk is hair raising.

=======================================
🐋 Doggy dolphins? 💅Erection?

[–] balthazar_bee 9 years ago

I had to speed up the movie for the same reason,

In all seriousness, when did this practice become acceptable, assuming we're all wearing our big boy pants?

I'm not trying to pick on KSS specifically; other posters (in this thread, and elsewhere on these boards) have said as much.

And I don't mean from a moral or ethical point of view -- at least, not quite -- but presumably we're all members of the IMDb community because we have some kind of affection and respect for film, no?

What gets me is that these people don't pull up the tent poles and make tracks while the getting's good.

Movie X has the slowest, least interesting first hour I've ever seen. I turned it off.

See? Now this isn't the sort of pronouncement that's going to knock anybody's analytical socks off, but it's frank and to the point -- it is what it is.

But instead, these folks think they can have their cake and eat it too. They're openly lumping themselves into a group that is rather unsavoury, frankly -- one that's content to actually speed up the process until Movie X "gets interesting". This. Is. Bullshït. It should offend anyone who has even the slightest respect for film.

Nonetheless, behind closed doors and all that -- people can do what they're going to do, and it's not worth getting worked up about.

The real insult is that they show up on message boards and actually feel comfortable PROCLAIMING that they "had" to skip or speed through certain parts -- and yet they still feel qualified to render an opinion.

Is shame a human emotion anymore? I mean, it's not about whether this sort of person is impatient, easily distracted, looking for quick entertainment instead of high art -- we've all been there.

The problem is that you can't expect to be taken seriously at all -- AT ALL -- if you approach a film like The Deer Hunter as if it were something to be "gotten through", or rapidly mined for any possible worth. Next time, take the time you might spend writing about Movie X and, like, actually watch the damn movie instead.

Clearly I just can't stomach this board. Three years ago I went on a tirade about a similar topic. You can probably still find it somewhere on page 5. I just need to avoid this place.

But come on, people -- skipping parts of a movie? Next let's replace toilet paper with copies of Henry IV.

[–] augustine-zairemtluanga3 8 years ago

wtf did I just read?People will do whatever they like.It's none of your business. This isn't a fan board. People are entitled to their opinions. They have every right to mention their disappointment.This is a DISCUSSION borad ,not a fan page