You definitely gotta be in the right headspace for IBM—and hey, being a little buzzed isn't exactly a crime.😁
But I'm glad you're feeling it; honestly, I thought you’d be running for the hills from this kind of talk.
So, since we're talking about anxiety, hopelessness, and all those other things that can actually be pretty beautiful and inspiring—and since we mentioned those legends in the last post—here they are. Without fail, one of the most noble and gorgeous love songs out there, and just so simple yet totally genius: "And the sun don't shine anymore/And the dawn don't rescue me no more...".
That constant (semi)riff is such a killer way to suggest existential dread—it really nails that sense of hopelessness, especially with that line: "I ain't livin' like I should."
Jamie Davis9 said:Making a ton of money isn't even the issue here.
That comment—not sure why, but it hit me—reminded me of one of the most powerful anti-capitalist (?) tracks I've ever heard. It really captures how sneaky this whole system is. Plus, it has one of my favorite openings ever: "No one means what they say/And you can tell as clear as deep-sea fish/All internal organs and glowing eyes".
Oh, I know he’s brilliant—believe me, I do. And honestly? That’s part of the problem too.
I couldn't care less about his intellect, but it drives me nuts when someone pulls in a $60k salary they haven't actually earned. It’s not even just an annoyance—it literally gives me hives seeing these loudmouths with massive egos and zero substance to back them up. Alright, seriously though, enough—this is actually getting under my skin.😁
Jamie Davis9 said:man, good old Milac. 😁 who cares! after surviving a pandemic, massive earthquakes, and endless lockdowns—all without losing every cent we own to lifetime debt (which honestly could've happened to some of us)—it feels pointless to stress over Americans, Mexicans, extremists, Milac, or whatever weird stuff is happening in China. life's way too short for all that drama. 🙄
"music to shoot your cousin to" 🤣
I'm not saying don't stress, I'm just saying you should take responsibility for what you put out there publicly. Or at least don't whine about your rights being violated or claim the government is hiding some massive conspiracy—you don't live in an absolute monarchy. In a place like Mexico, for example, you definitely wouldn't be allowed to write that Americans have an inferiority complex or make caricatures like that.
I mean, yeah—but I’m mostly talking about how the camera and photography actually work.
Just to give you an idea—when I think of the absolute masters of atmosphere, I'm looking at guys like Carl Dreyer, Alfred Hitchcock, Antonioni, Tarkovsky, Polanski, Rohmer, David Lynch, or Haneke.
Jamie Davis9 said:Man, at this rate, we might actually end up treating Miljenko Jergović like some kind of cultural North Star.
I remember reading somewhere that he claimed Americans are basically just Mexicans with an inferiority complex—basically just caricatures of them.
There’s a massive difference between being a provocateur—you know, a professional troll acting like a high-brow cynic in the vein of Igor Mandić—and being a public figure who people like me actually pay to get screwed over. As if the legal system and life itself aren't doing enough of that already.
When you're writing for a public audience, watch your step—there's a moral obligation there. You aren't some random fassgodard in that situation.
Check out this scene—it’s right around the 3:30 mark. Mann manages to pull more eroticism out of a single conversation than ten porn flicks combined. I honestly don't get what it takes—what kind of specific talent does a director need—to make actors feel that natural. It's wild.
Bryan Rogers87 said:Hmm.. The vibe and Mann? Yeah, I get that—but his real strength is how he handles actors. He builds characters so well, from the leads down to the supporting cast (you can really see that in The Last of the Mohicans—it’s a movie where you wouldn't necessarily expect deep character arcs, yet the side characters play such vital roles and Mann never lets them fade into the background).
I'd say if Mann took this good movie and added that specific dimension, it would be a total masterpiece.
No way—Mann is a master of atmosphere, especially those night scenes. Just look at the nighttime shots of L. A. in Heat or the general mood in Manhunter.
Also—since you brought up working with actors, I’d add that he has this incredible knack for highlighting the beauty of his cast, or at least their unique physical presence.
Like Amy Brennemann and Diane Venora in Heat, or even Al Pacino and Robert De Niro—they never looked more sharp or glamorous than they did in the 70s. Then there's Natasha Stowe and Daniel Day-Lewis in The Last of the Mohicans, the whole Manhunter crew—especially that quirky wife and son of Willow's—and the entire cast of Miami Vice, which is such an underrated film...
Honestly, I think this movie would’ve hit its full potential if Michael Mann had directed it—maybe somewhere in that sweet spot right after The Last of the Mohicans. It could’ve easily been a perfect 10, the kind of masterpiece you’d find mentioned in the same breath as The Godfather, Vertigo, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Tracker, Scarface, or Chinatown—all those absolute peaks of Hollywood cinema. Or—well, back to Mann again—the incomparable, beautiful Manhunter.
It was practically made for him, Maestro Mann. As it stands, I'd put it at an 8 or 9, though I actually gave it a 9 in my IMDb log.
I mean, I know Mann would've squeezed every bit of juice out of those potentially killer dynamics between Kristofferson, Hurt, and Walken. He probably would’ve leaned even harder into the atmosphere too—more night scenes, more mood—and maybe swapped Cimin's slightly manic obsession with wiping out farmers for a bunch more poetic, visual moments.
But then again—would people have even labeled this thing "leftist" if Mann had been the one behind the camera?
What exactly is being exoticized here regarding the peasantry (though if I'm not mistaken, the working class is a different beast entirely under classic Marxist theory)? Don't you think there's enough of a realistic linguistic and cultural backbone to ground it? We're looking at raw, straightforward people who work themselves to death—raising kids, drinking, singing, dancing, and watching cockfights. I highly doubt a lifestyle like that leaves much room for fancy, high-brow intellectual development.
Like I said before, Cimin's goal wasn't to deliver nuanced psychological portraits of peasants.
As for the comment about Ellin's choice—yeah, that's possible, but I'm worried biology is playing a much bigger role in the whole thing. Or his. It isn't fleshed out enough, which is the issue, but he says it plain and simple: "I hate aging."
wiredbison82 said:Cimin's "Heaven's Gate" is probably the most important leftist film in American cinema—alongside Sayles's "Matewan," maybe even the only one of its kind.
Hey, Mom! Brian De Palma definitely makes leftist films too.
The whole argument about the peasants being sidelined just doesn't hold water.
First off—Cimin's treats them as a collective unit, which is super obvious during those key scenes in the tent. He isn't trying to give everyone a deep backstory—that’s just his stylistic choice. If we start nitpicking that, we’re basically just talking about personal taste—like saying, I don't know, Kristofferson should've worn glasses because they'd look better on him.
Second—and this ties back to my first point—this isn't some faceless crowd movie like an Eisenstein film or an ensemble piece like an Altman film. It’s a movie with three leads, where the most central one is clearly Kristofferson's guy. Actually, I'd go as far as to say it's really a movie about *him*—about an individual soul seeking redemption by merging with the collective, or washing away the "sin" of wealth through contact with the downtrodden—the Other. Don't forget, he's constantly being judged because he can't truly represent the oppressed—he carries the mark of a wealthy family background.
Yeah, it's a character study—just like how in that anthology-style finale of The Godfather Part II, it becomes crystal clear the story is actually about Michael. Sure, maybe he won at life, maybe he fulfilled his moral duty by siding with the underdog, but—and you can see this perfectly in those meaningful looks he gives his partner—he's ultimately a loser. He failed on a personal level—lost the only person he ever truly loved and settled for a pathetic compromise.
So, if I had a complaint, it would be about the potential lack of depth in his characterization. And I say "potential"—because Cimin isn't Tolstoy; he doesn't have 900 pages like Tolstoy does in Anna Karenina, he only has three and a half hours. And honestly? What he achieved here is masterful.
Regarding the love triangle setup in both movies, I find the one in gates of heaven more interesting because of how unique her personality is—even though both are handled well. Though, going back to that critique—Ellino's hesitation isn't totally clear; was it her own fickleness or a mistake on Cimin's part? Either way, it's a flaw—in the first case because it's left hanging, and in the second, because we aren't told why.
Comparing it to McCabe & Mrs. Miller works, and I'd add that the recent Matewan is just as brilliant.
Fine, call it a "flop," say it "ruined the (New Hollywood) western," or claim it "wrecked Cimin's career"—we've all heard the noise.
But honestly? If the mainstream crowd is out here celebrating mediocre, borderline amateur stuff—like Dark Knight, for instance—or just decent enough flicks like those various Rings, Star Wars, or Forrest Gumps... what's actually stopping them from embracing a film this beautiful, tense, and soul-crushing?
Look, I get it, the movie isn't perfect. For me, the tonal shift between the intimate moments and the historical scale feels a bit off; John Hurt is such a powerhouse actor that making his character feel like a caricature feels wrong; and Ellino’s constant wavering between both love interests is pretty questionable. But that first point is just nitpicking—trying to find a hair in an egg. You can't force the personal and the historical to be perfectly coherent; that's just Marxist nonsense. Of course the feeling of touching a loved one's chest is going to hit differently than killing peasants. The other two issues are minor to me, though, because they basically vanish when you're faced with Cimin's tragic, powerful vision and masterclass acting—it's no exaggeration to say Walken and Kristofferson, and maybe even Huppert, are giving performances of a lifetime.
And don't get me started on the pacing. Those little "pockets" outside the main plot are actually where Cimin shines most—just look at those atmospheric stretches and ceremonial scenes in The Deer Hunter, which, in my eyes, the gates of heaven doesn't just match, but actually surpasses.
I put a question up on my feed, but I figured I’d ask here too—anyone else still obsessed with Heaven's Gate?
Rewatched it last night—probably my first time seeing it since I first got into movies decades ago—and honestly, it hits even harder than I remember.
I see people tearing it apart in reviews, but how can you stay objective when the directing, the acting, and the cinematography just pull you in that deep? Seriously though, why does everyone hate on it? After The Godfather, isn't this easily one of the greatest epic films ever made?
We were just talking about folk music and country stuff down there—but this one feels more like a deep blues ballad, if you know what I mean. It’s absolutely brilliant. Honestly, it’s one of the most haunting and gut-wrenching tracks I’ve ever heard.
Jamie Davis9 said:It’s not really about the album, or even the violin. Before that, there was the harmonica 😁 I don't know—to me, it just feels like such an intimate Bob Dylan track. It's been beautiful to me since I was a kid. And your suggestion works too.
I always realize too late that someone’s replied to me—so I can never quite pull off a coherent, deep dive post like those "Ask Lastan" columns.😁
Sara is probably one of his genuinely tender love songs—alongside stuff like Simple twist of Fat or you're a Big Girl Now. Not that he’s incapable of those emotions, but he’s much more convincing when he’s being sarcastic—think Positively 4th Street or don't think Twice...
You can really hear how much this song meant to him back then—especially in this live version, which I actually prefer over the studio cut. It sounds even more vulnerable than it does on Desire, and his voice hits these emotional notes that only a few people ever truly reach. I'll say it every time—Bob Dylan is one of the greatest singers to ever do it.