"The Deer Hunter": Pre-war section too lengthy?

[doubleaapn]

I've had some discussions with a couple of friends who have seen this for the first time recently and both of them said that the first 3/4's of an hour comprised of the wedding/hunting sequences was too long and quite unnecessary. I was a little surprised because I have always thought that the character development in this section was vital and that a couple of the best scenes of the film are to be found here. I find it similar to the opening wedding sequence of "The Godfather" in terms of setting up what follows by allowing one to witness the customs and lifestyles of the main characters - thus getting to know them - even if there's not much forward narrative action involved. I can't imagine "The Deer Hunter" presented any other way, but my friends apparently disagree. Does anyone else have a beef with the lengthy setup of this film?

Aaron

[Butterfly Blue]

No beef here. I like the beginning. I agree with you that the character development in those scenes was vital. No offense but, what's wrong with your friends? ;)

[vinyl anachronist]

I'd go along with the wedding scene being a little too long. The Deer Hunter is a seriously flawed film in many ways, but the big, ambitious films usually are.

[Raunchnroll]

I agree with you completely. Its not so much a war movie as much as what happens to a bunch of local guys, and to get there the background is given in its hum drum details. Most Americans are odd when it comes to what they have to have in movies.

[harmonica98]

Unfortunately your friends just don't get it. The wedding and its aftermath is deliberately in depth so we really get to know the characters and care about them - hence what happens later has more impact. When the guys are sitting around in the bar singing - has male friendship been more realistically depicted on film? I think that complaining about the wedding and hunting being too long shows a deficient attention span - sorry!

Tom

[Ron Stone]

Have to agree with the other posts -- the DEER HUNTER is about the effects of war on a group of friends. The wedding scenes establish the characters in their community and nature. Truncate the wedding scene and all you have is a spectacle.

[jojopuppyfish]

remember, it took Orson Welles in Citizen Kane 2 minutes to show a marriage from Honeymoon to divorce........brevity is the soul of wit.
So I think they could have reduced it somehow.

[DaveN]

The war segments and aftermath only matter if you know the characters fairly well. You have to know what they care about and what their lives are like. The hunting scene is vital because it really gets into Mikes mindset. Later in the movie, you see the change.

I wouldn't change a thing.

[Yankee8156]

Unfortunately your friends just don't get it. The wedding and its aftermath is deliberately in depth so we really get to know the characters and care about them - hence what happens later has more impact. When the guys are sitting around in the bar singing - has male friendship been more realistically depicted on film? I think that complaining about the wedding and hunting being too long shows a deficient attention span - sorry!

Tom

I do tend to think it's too long. That doesn't mean I don't get it. I understand it's point very well. Jojopuppyfish brought up a great point with the montage of Kane's marriage. Now, I don't think that would be appropriate for The Deer Hunter, and the whole beginning does need time devoted to it, but I think with enough work and some more solid writing and directing, the length could be trimmed and still have the opening as effective as it needs to be.

[Phlo]

A wedding is a nifty way to introduce characters. "Godfather", anyone?

[tommy-thewho]

I like the film and feel the long wedding scene is needed to show what happens after the war effects them.

[Dan Halen]

I wouldn't change a thing. You really do need to see them before the war for an extended period of time, for the rest of the movie to have any impact. It feels like you know these people, or actually are one of them.

And who could forget; "You see this? This is this!"

[Beauvoir]

An employee recently asked me the same question.

I have absolutely no problem with the length of any part of the film. To me it all works really well together. I enjoy the fact that the film takes its time showing us the characters and what they are all about. Its actually very refreshing in the current age of lighteing fast edits every 30 seconds..

Same deal for "ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA".


:thumbsup:

[proufo]

I love movies with great ambientation or settings, such as The Godfather Two and The Perfect Storm. The Deer Hunter is in that group too and I love the pre-war scenes.

[wayneklein]

I've had some discussions with a couple of friends who have seen this for the first time recently and both of them said that the first 3/4's of an hour comprised of the wedding/hunting sequences was too long and quite unnecessary. I was a little surprised because I have always thought that the character development in this section was vital and that a couple of the best scenes of the film are to be found here. I find it similar to the opening wedding sequence of "The Godfather" in terms of setting up what follows by allowing one to witness the customs and lifestyles of the main characters - thus getting to know them - even if there's not much forward narrative action involved. I can't imagine "The Deer Hunter" presented any other way, but my friends apparently disagree. Does anyone else have a beef with the lengthy setup of this film?

Aaron

The film would be nothing without the set up of the characters and their relationships. It was an attempt to create a similar feel like "The Godfather" had by Cimino.

Many people have lost patience with a film that doesn't have a rapid fire editing style with funhouse camera work. It's a pity. I had someone tell me once that "Alien" was boring. Clearly these are the same people that don't believe in foreplay.

[Tim S]

I think it could use a trim, not a LOT, the background does have to be established, I think you could establish it just as effectively with about 10-12 minutes less.

[sadie]

I was 15 when I first saw the movie. I was on a double date, and the female in the other couple fell asleep during the beginning of the movie. I was riveted. I had the chance to see it again recently myself and have to concur with what most are saying here. The scenes are important, and I don't think they need to be cut.

Sadie

[Dillydipper]

Those that think this film needs cutting miss one important aspect: They Are Not The Director.

This is the film and the story Cimino wanted to tell. If he is satisfied with that, and history will judge its' effectiveness both as a story, or a setup to a story, then we must conclude he gave us what he intended us to see.

You are, on the other hand, free and welcome to write, direct and produce another film which can dispel his sense of storytelling, if you are talented enough.

[Matt Wittman]

I actually liked the scenes before they went to war better.

[rene smalldridge]

I actually liked the scenes before they went to war better..........That's exactly what I was thinking. IMO the flaws in this movie all come in the later war sequences.

[mikestar]

Those scenes are essential, as well as riveting, IMO.

[BZync]

"It's a Wonderful Life" goes on for 90 minutes with nothing significant happening. But the payoff is so strong because of the ability go get to know the character's and the motivations so well. Would anyone want to change a frame?

The Deer Hunter uses the same method to strengthen a very different payoff. But it wouldn't be nearly as devastating without the long "introduction". The film is called "The Deer Hunter" for a reason, after all.

[nosticker]

I've had some discussions with a couple of friends who have seen this for the first time recently and both of them said that the first 3/4's of an hour comprised of the wedding/hunting sequences was too long and quite unnecessary. I was a little surprised because I have always thought that the character development in this section was vital and that a couple of the best scenes of the film are to be found here. I find it similar to the opening wedding sequence of "The Godfather" in terms of setting up what follows by allowing one to witness the customs and lifestyles of the main characters - thus getting to know them - even if there's not much forward narrative action involved. I can't imagine "The Deer Hunter" presented any other way, but my friends apparently disagree. Does anyone else have a beef with the lengthy setup of this film?

Aaron

The only beef that I had with the film initially was the hard cut to the helicopters and all the action that followed. After a few minutes, it made sense---Cimino wanted to feel how jarring being in combat is. By a lengthy set-up and that cut right to the jungle he scored on both character development and the shock of being over there. A double triumph, IMO.

Similarly, Ridley Scott has mentioned that a few of his films take a while to get up to speed(I believe this was Alien in particular), and that is part of what makes his films great IMO.



Dan

[gener8tr]

This is one of those CLASSIC movies that just doesn't hold a special place for me. I wanted SO badly for it to be an epic, and it just fell short.

Not only do I think the pre-war material is too long, I think the war material is too long and a bit disjointed. The entire movie just fell a little flat for me, and I'm sure I'm in the minority, and that's okay. I am NOT slamming the film, nor do I think anyone should share my opinion... it's just the way I feel.

[canoehead]

How do your friends feel about the pre-Vietnam scenes in Full Metal Jacket and Forrest Gump?