When I saw this film at its first release I was twenty or twenty one. I seem to remember being slightly baffled by it. A western is not supposed to spend half an hour dwelling on the antics of students at the ivried towers of Yale. Why did the students appear to be middle aged men? Later, over the years, I decided that this is a great movie. I have to confess, I now do not know why. Maybe because of the very fact that it does confound our expectations of a western. After all, in the old style western the good-guys are trapped in a waggon-circle attacked by bad-guys in the guise of Indians eventually to be saved by the U.S. cavalry. Whereas in this version, the bad guys are still those-guys-who-killed-the-Indians but find themselves trapped in a circle attacked by good-guys who happen to be Russians, Ukrainians, Poles and Germans! Then the bad guys are saved by the U.S. cavalry. Confused? Maybe, on the other hand, this is a cynically realistic version of events.
The encirclements are only one manifestation of the circular motif that utterly dominates this film. From the waltzes at the start, through the roller-dances in the middle to the view out of a yachts portal at the end. I recall reading many years ago in Studio International about a film by an East European director, about a peasant rebellion that was told through a sequence of circular battles. Presumeably this compositional ploy is a deliberate reference to it.
Having just re-watched it again, aged forty-four I find that I am rather disenchanted. Why has it taken twenty-two years for me to figure out that what the bearded horseman in an argument with Christopher Walken early on mumbles as he rides off is "Ella ain't yours she ain't no ones." Why? Because the dialogue throughout is abysmally unclear. I now realise that my younger self found the film baffling because much of what is mumbled and muttered and slurred by the cast is often almost unintelligible. Moreover, I know why the students were middle-aged! It was simply the directors ineptitude in expecting John Hurt and Kris Kristofferson to be able to depict themselves as younger versions of their characters.
I also find myself belatedly agreeing that most of the scenes are simply several times as long as they have any reason to be. Such as that Waltz at the beginning. What exactly happens in it? A man tells a girl she is attractive. How long does that take? About three minutes! Now I also find that the all-pervasive miasma in the indoor scenes, which I had earlier regarded as an atmospheric allusion to dust, reminds me of the romantic clichés of Nineteen-Seventies photo and cinematography. Loads of haze, back-lighting and soft-focus. In fact, this film now strikes me as being shot in the style of soft-porn of the time!
The strong lasting aspect of the film is its characters. Particularly the threadbare Nate, struggling to better himself by wallpapering his log-cabin with news-bills and teaching himself to read. He goes along with enforcing the bad-guys' laws, with absolute ruthlessness, only so far. Then, when the Barons push him too far, he becomes a martyr to resistance!
I would choose as a tag-line the Kristofferson characters comment regarding his decision to go West "...so my life turned out differently."
The encirclements are only one manifestation of the circular motif that utterly dominates this film. From the waltzes at the start, through the roller-dances in the middle to the view out of a yachts portal at the end. I recall reading many years ago in Studio International about a film by an East European director, about a peasant rebellion that was told through a sequence of circular battles. Presumeably this compositional ploy is a deliberate reference to it.
Having just re-watched it again, aged forty-four I find that I am rather disenchanted. Why has it taken twenty-two years for me to figure out that what the bearded horseman in an argument with Christopher Walken early on mumbles as he rides off is "Ella ain't yours she ain't no ones." Why? Because the dialogue throughout is abysmally unclear. I now realise that my younger self found the film baffling because much of what is mumbled and muttered and slurred by the cast is often almost unintelligible. Moreover, I know why the students were middle-aged! It was simply the directors ineptitude in expecting John Hurt and Kris Kristofferson to be able to depict themselves as younger versions of their characters.
I also find myself belatedly agreeing that most of the scenes are simply several times as long as they have any reason to be. Such as that Waltz at the beginning. What exactly happens in it? A man tells a girl she is attractive. How long does that take? About three minutes! Now I also find that the all-pervasive miasma in the indoor scenes, which I had earlier regarded as an atmospheric allusion to dust, reminds me of the romantic clichés of Nineteen-Seventies photo and cinematography. Loads of haze, back-lighting and soft-focus. In fact, this film now strikes me as being shot in the style of soft-porn of the time!
The strong lasting aspect of the film is its characters. Particularly the threadbare Nate, struggling to better himself by wallpapering his log-cabin with news-bills and teaching himself to read. He goes along with enforcing the bad-guys' laws, with absolute ruthlessness, only so far. Then, when the Barons push him too far, he becomes a martyr to resistance!
I would choose as a tag-line the Kristofferson characters comment regarding his decision to go West "...so my life turned out differently."