HORRIBLE Cinematography...and Other Problems

Horrible cinematography
Amateurish blocking
Wooden performances
Slow editing
Irrational direction
...And TOO LONG

Seriously...what happened here?

A good third of the shots in this film are underexposed, some chronically so - to the point that one can't even see the actors faces. This is especially true for scenes that prominently feature black cast members, Van Peebles in particular, like the cmt had never shot black actors before. Take the scene where Van Peebles improvises the "Bionic Marine" ditty. He's full frame in the center of the shot and it could just has easily have been Rick James as one can't make out a single detail in his face. Later, there's a dimly lit sequence with Eastwood and Mason in the bar with a Budwiser sign so bright in the foreground that it looks like an Austin Powers-esque parody of product placement. How do you miss this?

The blocking, acting, and other directorial elements are pedestrian at best, more often just plain bad. You'd almost assume that this was Clint Eastwood's first go at directing or that he was just altogether bad at it until you consider popular axioms about his directing style - shooting quickly, moving on after one take, etc. - then it starts to make sense. Maybe there were tremendous financial and temporal constraints on the production. Something has to be up as this is a far cry from any of Eastwood's later work, even earlier pieces of acclaim like Unforgiven.

Many scenes appear as though the actors are running them through for the first time with the original off-the-cuff blocking, no interplay - everyone seems to be giving an individual performance they prepared the night before, no attention to subtlety, and an uncomfortable (at best) awareness of what's coming next. You can tell he never took a moment to say "OK. I liked that, but what if instead...". The film suffers for it.

Good pacing could have masked some of the performance issues but it's not there. It feels like they used almost everything they shot and edited as quickly as they were shooting. there's so much that should have been reshot or thrown out (awful lighting, shabby camerawork) it almost feels like someone might accidentally look in the lens and you'd see it in the final cut. Transitions between some sections of the story are abrupt and it arguably tries to wear to many hats to begin with. Following a group of friends from the relatively light mood of things before deployment to the stark, sobering reality of war had been done well before (The Deer Hunter) and would be done well after (Full Metal Jacket) but in both cases the transition and contrast between the two sections of the story was one of the defining elements of the film.

This transition is important, and Heartbreak Ridge tries to lift directly from The Deer Hunter (there's a symbolic hard cut from "at home" to "at war" - FMJ, on the other hand, actually acknowledged the division with title cards) but doesn't really shift it's tone. Though there are plenty of chances, but there's never a real sobering moment with solid performances to signify that the characters understand things have changed. Van Peebles is still cracking jokes all through taking fire and the death of his squad mate - "Oh no - I think Profile might be dead." might be one of the most out of place lines and deliveries in history. It could have been a sharp turn, a sudden, sobering moment, followed later by a mournful contemplation after the battle, but instead it happens quickly and is never mentioned again.

Because of it never goes into true pathos, it's also about half an hour too long. There's some gravitas but it's generally a light-hearted affair - far from a war epic in any sense. No way a story like this should cross the two hour mark. With all the problem shots you'd think they'd have been interested in tightening it up.

It does feel like a more respectable outcome when the budget is considered, but then again that 15 million is in 1986 dollars - it'd be more than twice that by today's standards. The other aforementioned war films in the same era and price range - The Deer Hunter (1978, also 15 million), Full Metal Jacket (1987, 17 million) - managed to cleanly avoid these issues. Yes - those are classics, but who says Heartbreak Ridge couldn't have been one too?