Written by Deric Washburn
Cinematography by Vilmos Zsigmond
Michael...Robert De Niro
Nick...Christopher Walken (Academy Award)
Steve...John Savage
Linda...Meryl Streep
Stan...John Cazale
John...George Dzundza
Axel...Chuck Aspegren
Budget: $15 million
Box Office: $49 million
 |
| Christopher Walken (Nick), Robert De Niro (Michael), Chuck Aspegren (Axel), John Savage (Steve), John Cazale (Stan) |
 | ||||
| John Savage as Steve and Rutyana Alda as Angela |
 | ||
| George Dzundza as John, Meryl Streep as Linda, and Robert De Niro | as Michael |
 |
| "Vietnam" |
And then there's the Russian Roulette.
The Deer Hunter, as I remember it, was The Movie of 1978: everybody was talking about. My junior year lit professor in college one day, when there were several absences, said to the class (as college professors are known to do), "Let's go get some coffee and talk about The Deer Hunter." The movie has been called one of the best American films of the 70s—and it's been called one of the worst, not to mention ugly, stupid, and fascist. I think it's one of the best films of the 70s, one of the great American films ever, and one of the most honest looks at masculinity and patriotism.
1. Your reaction to the first hour of the film—the wedding ceremony? Why do you think Cimino spent so much time on it and in such detail? And to that, what was the effect of it on you in terms of what comes after it: the shocking cut to Vietnam?
2. Here's the scene that the epigram of this post comes from. What do you think "This is this" means? Stan says it's hard to understand Michael sometimes, and he's not wrong. But try for this moment.
3. Go ahead and talk about the Russian roulette scene. Say whatever you want to about it.
Finally, notice the banner: I know you all did.
1. The wedding scene was off putting and disturbing, but I can’t place my finger on exactly why. Throughout the first part of the movie I was subtly aware that I was looking at something bad, but I didn’t see what; the exceptions were the father hitting his daughter, the man in the white suit groping the bridesmaid, and Stan hitting his girlfriend. I kept having this sense that I was looking at dubious people with unhealthy relationships, but beyond the obvious, I don’t know why I felt that; it is probable that I just didn’t see it because I have never had similar experiences in my life. I just knew something was very wrong. I think the first part was so long so it would instill that sense of uneasiness that I talked about above. I think that the cut to Vietnam shows the new soldiers’ feeling of how fast their lives were uprooted; one moment they were dancing and drinking, the next they were bombing civilians . Overall, the parts of the movie we watched today were very confusing and upsetting but I don’t know why.
ReplyDelete2. I think Michael is saying that Stan’s head is “so far up his ass” that he can’t see reality anymore. “This is this” this bullet is a bullet; it is not, nor ever will be anything other than a bullet. Michal is saying how Stan lives disconnected from reality; he is never “connected” enough to bring what he needs on the hunting trips; he is not “connected” enough to see his own flaws. Stan simply tells Michael to give him his boots; “I messed up, now you fix it or you are a lousy friend and a …”
3. Honestly, I was quite happy when they shot the North Vietnamese; the kind of exhilarating happiness that comes from determination. It is uncomfortable to say I was happy to see those men killed because humans have a natural predisposition to refrain from violence (the trolley experiment). I think my happiness shows how the filmmakers humanized the Americans and their goal of survival while dehumanizing the Vietnamese. (Tangent) This also made me think of a story I heard about how the leader of Chong Nhu Martial arts, Ngo Dong, survived in Vietnam: He was a teacher in a University when the Viet Cong came. The Viet Cong lined all the professors out on the field and one by one, they shot them in the head. When they got to Ngo Dong the pistol simply clicked like Russian roulette; they let him go. Sorry for the tangent, you said we could say whatever we wanted about the Russian roulette.
Cimino spent so much time on the first scene in order to develop the characters as human beings rather showing them just as marines. By doing this, the audience is able to contrast the same characters from before and after the war, something we couldn’t really do in Saving Private Ryan. The boys are all shown as goofy adolescents before the war. Their impulsiveness and naivety is highlighted in them dangerously driving and singing in the bar. The wedding ceremony furthers their lightheartedness by showing the men dancing and getting drunk. The ways they act in the wedding scene shows how they not only young and reckless, but also rather entitled, like when Stanley gets away with hitting his girlfriend. The cut to Vietnam is dramatic and terrifying. The men we thought we knew from the first hour of the movie are unrecognizable. The war has drained them of their innocence.
ReplyDeleteMichael seems like a bit of an outsider in the group. He is quiet and mysterious, but also a “nut” as Nick said. Perhaps because of living as an outsider, he knows something about life the other don't know. The “this is this” is followed by him saying Stan is “on his own.” Micheal could be teaching Stan a lesson; that he can’t keep depending on other people to help him. There must be some symbolism with the bullets Micheal shakes when saying “this is this.” A bullet has one use, to kill, a fact you can not glorify. I wonder how this symbol connects to Stan.
The Russian Roulette was especially horrifying. This scene reminds me of the scene in Saving Private Ryan when the men shoot the surrendering man for pure pleasure. The soldiers seem to be forcing the Americans to shoot themselves just for the thrill of it furthering the point that people can be changed by war to do unimaginable evils.
1. To be honest in the start, I was kind of confused by the first hour of the movie. You had told us the movie was more intense than Saving Private Ryan but the first hour looked to me just like a movie portraying a pretty common lifestyle in the 70s with the occasional mention of war and it didn't seem that intense to me. And that's just it. The first part of the movie seems so normal and careless with just a few hints of problems like the drunk father or the guy hitting his girlfriend but other than that it seems like a pretty happy scenario. That is what makes the switch to Vietnam that much more dramatic. We get to know the characters and who they are before the war which is I think is going to be important when we see the impact that the war is going to have on the characters because we are going to have a lot to compare. We know who they were and what that had going for them in their lives before the war so we will be able to tell what they have lost.
ReplyDelete2. Honestly I'm not quite sure what Micheal means by "this is this". He could mean a multitude of things. He might be trying to ground Stan because Stan seems pretty worked up so this is his way of telling Stan to be realistic and remind him of the reality. A bullet is a bullet, it is the way it is. He might be referring to the bullet and how it seems that hunting is way more important to Micheal than it is to the others and he can shoot a deer in one shot and it could be something to do with that. Micheal seems a little bit more mature, reserved, and wise than the other men so he could be trying to teach them a lesson about something but I'm not quite sure.
3. The Russian roulette scene was one of the hardest scenes I have ever had to watch, it was actually probably the hardest scene I have ever had to watch. The anticipation, the fear, the torture, the horror, the lack of morality. It was awful. I was so scared. And then watching them throw the bodies out and watching rats climb through the bodies and the water turn red with blood. I don't remember being this freaked out watching Saving Private Ryan and that's saying something. Also while watching the scene it had me so nervous and worked up because I literally could not think of a single way they could get out of it. Their plan worked by luck and the only reason it worked is because it propelled the storyline. I don't think it would have ever worked out the way it did if this had happened in real life. Literally none of the words that I could use or have used are strong enough to describe this scene and everything that was going on in it and how it made me feel.
1. The wedding ceremony thoroughly establishes who the characters are as people. The ceremony, which seems happy and perfect at a glance, but has some unsettling things happening, shows how our characters aren’t just “the good guys”, like in many war movies, but shows how they fit into a grey area. We, as an audience, become attached to the characters, we see them joking around and can almost see them as friends, but also see some things that make us uncomfortable. At the wedding reception, we see the ‘heros’ getting drunk and acting stupidly, we even see Stan hit his girlfriend. This rounds out the characters, and makes it so that they seem more human.
ReplyDelete2. I think that Michael is saying that Stan spends too much time lost in his own head. Stan seems to be fairly self-centered, from how he demands Michael loan him his boots, and insists that Michael is a lousy friend for saying no. I think that Michael is telling Stan that he spends too much time dwelling on the wrong things, and not what is important, and maybe right in front of him. He says “this ain’t something else”, which makes me think that Stan will make things into something they aren’t. He’ll prioritize the wrong thing, and might think of a small detail as something much larger and much more important.
3. It is hard to explain my reaction the the Russian roulette scene without some expletive that may or may not be classroom-appropriate. The tension in that scene, and the emotion on the men’s faces as they try to get themselves to pull the trigger, is overwhelming. Even though they got out of the situation in the end, they did so on the bodies of their barely-cold friends, and there is no way that they are coming out of that in a similar mental state to how they went in.
Prompt One: I thought that the beginning of the film was important because it established many scenes of masculinity. I remember the beginning, there were men in a locker room, all slapping each other and joking around. Then we drove a car, recklessly sliding between a truck and a cement wall. Next, we were taking shots on the pool table and singing along to the radio. These moments all seem extremely masculine, yet also very distant to those in the Vietnam narrative. There, we were alongside a river, up to our chests in water, fenced in with barbed wire. There, we screamed every time the gun above fired blanks. There, the roles of goofy best man and strong steel worker that we gladly played at home were stripped from us like the perforated stubs which, ten years ago, granted us access to an hour and a half of America’s favorite, Jooooooohn Waaaaayne!!!!
ReplyDeletePrompt Two: You know what Michael is trying to say? Well, it all began when Stan mentioned how “It’s not how I remember it.. What changed??” And we, the audience, know that these boys are no longer in Pennsylvania, and that Stan is noticing that too, but Michael just wants to start hunting, so he says “This is this!” Who cares if we are in Pennsylvania or not? Because that isn’t important. What matters is that we are here, all together, for perhaps the last time in our lives.
Prompt Three: I thought it was nice cinematography to set up, right? We just ended a scene of many explosions and burning homes, yet now we have a peaceful thatched-hut refuge on the banks of a smooth Vietnamese river. The shot is wide, and there are Vietnamese trees and Vietnamese fish, and it’s all really beautiful. Then the camera begins to move in; the background noise is no longer so natural or peaceful is it? There are men up to their necks in water. And then there is that game where you are made to shoot yourself. Yup, we’ve been tricked again!
1. Your reaction to the first hour of the film—the wedding ceremony? Why do you think Cimino spent so much time on it and in such detail? And to that, what was the effect of it on you in terms of what comes after it: the shocking cut to Vietnam?
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, the first hour of the film was very hectic, and a bit hard to understand, much like life is in a way. So many things were happening at once: partying, dancing, laughing, and joking around. However, because of all of the chaos, many events were hidden that were frankly disturbing. For example, the actions of domestic abuse were quite disturbing such as how Linda’s dad hit her and how Stan punched his girlfriend. I think it is really important to spend so much time on it because it reflects the events of what real life is like before the men head into war. It gives the audience a shock of the difference of war and life, giving more background for the characters in the movie as well. Also, it shows what the men have waiting for them if they get back from the war, which could be a motivator for them throughout the rest of the movie.
The shocking cut to Vietnam was horrifying. We begin the scene with a soldier throwing a grenade into a pit full of innocent civilians while latter shooting a mother and her child. It was interesting because unlike Saving Private Ryan, this scene shows more of the civilians and a smaller group of soldiers rather than the battlefield Saving Private Ryan shows.
2. Here's the scene that the epigram of this post comes from. What do you think "This is this" means? Stan says it's hard to understand Michael sometimes, and he's not wrong. But try for this moment.
In a sense, he could be talking about the bullet itself, pointing to how a single bullet could end a life. Before his statement, he shouts at Stan to put away the gun and stop pointing everywhere. “This is this” could be a statement about the impact a weapon has on a person, how a single bullet can change one’s future...or end it.
3. Go ahead and talk about the Russian roulette scene. Say whatever you want about it.
I agree that the scene was intense. In every aspect, the scene itself was very hard to watch. The idea of Russian Roulette put me on edge and the suspense of each shot was horrible. Many times I caught myself trying to look away when one of the men was about to shoot. However, I think it was interesting about what Micheal. Was saying to convince Steve and Nick to take the shot. He kept repeating, “Show them. If you do this, we can beat them”. In a sense, he reminds me of Captain Miller in which he is much like the “leader” of the group. Ultimately, the scene was very disturbing and there aren’t enough words to describe the effect it had on me. After watching the scene, it took time to process everything, and it felt like a weight had been put on my soul. Although the scene itself was not historically accurate, I think it shows about the sheer intensity of war and the decisions and actions it puts soldiers and their relationships with each other.
1. The wedding ceremony reminded me a little of The Godfather Part 1. The music in both of them is very lively and seems like an emphasis is put on the trumpet and oboe. This music reminds me a lot of the music played at Jewish weddings. The scene where the bride and groom are lifted onto the shoulders of the groomsmen also reminded me of a Jewish wedding. The wedding scene reminded me of the Godfather, not only because of the music and Fredo or Stan here, but also there seemed to be an unspoken tension. The wedding ceremony itself had tension, but in a different way. The wedding ceremony had an emphasis on traditional and abiding by the customs of the couples who came before. Maybe just because I kept seeing Fredo, but I kept thinking of the Godfather. The stark juxtaposition between the wedding and Vietnam reminded me of that great scene in the Godfather of the Baptism. The two parallel scenes interwoven of the Corleones in the church and the murders taking place on their behalf.
ReplyDelete2. I think that Michael is telling Stan that he is overcomplicating a situation by not owning up to the fact that he forgot his boots. Michael is saying that he knows what is correct and what is wrong. In this case, Micheal is simply saying that he knows and everyone else knows that Stan is lying.
3. This scene was quite “intense” and there is a lot in it to “unpack.” The scene where Nick and Micheal aim the bullets through their head was the most nerve racking part for me. It was particularly nerve racking because I had just seen Michael tell one of his friends to shoot himself and so I knew that there were bullets in the cartridge. I feel like Nick and Micheal surviving is the epitome of a hollywood movie. There survival is not even dumb luck, but it is almost impossible. I was incredibly relieved when Micheal and Nick killed all of the Vietnamese people who were torturing the American troops. The game had no point except to prolong one’s inevitable death.
4. I was looking at the banner throughout the entire wedding celebration. I still do not understand why there was a banner about the war, and not about the wedding. While the war was obviously on everyone’s mind, the war was not the reason that they were all gathered.
1) I really appreciated the detail and time spent on the wedding scene. I think it was really necessary in order to fully get to know each character. In class discussions, we often talk about people being changed by the war, those sort of “before and after” photos from hell. And yet, with Saving Private Ryan, we didn’t get to meet the soldiers’ “before” pictures. We only saw the “during” and the “after”, which doesn’t give a full illustration of the change that people go through because of war. I think this film will do a good job of demonstrating that change.
ReplyDelete2) I think the phrase “this is this” refers to Stanley’s constant attempts to make snap judgements, get in people’s business and insert himself and his opinions where he isn’t necessarily wanted. He always seems to have something to say, and often his thoughts have little or nothing to do with the task at hand: he’s just saying something for the sake of saying something. “This is this” acts as a sort of place holder for “stop making this into something it's not. Be present and focused and stop extrapolating or jumping to conclusions.”
3) That scene was hard to watch, but the hardest parts for me weren't necessarily when the men were pulling the trigger, but when they were underneath in the water waiting to be pulled up through the hole in the floor. The condition down under the hut were horrifying, with blood dripping through the floorboards, men soaked to the bone surrounded by barbed wire. There was something really haunting to me about how wet everything seemed to be in the scenes in Vietnam: every surface not submerged under water of some kind was slick with blood or sweat. From body parts to landscapes, everything seemed sticky and humid, uncomfortable and suffocating. I’m not exactly sure why that stuck with me as much as it did, but I can’t stop thinking about how disturbing the conditions were in that situation.
This movie is crazy. So much happens and with so little context. What really shocked me about the wedding scene is that NOBODY IS EVER SOBER (like ever.) I think this demonstrates how humanity as a whole drunkenly and blindly believes what we are told. We sing, dance, join the army, beat girlfriends, etc. without ever questioning anything. I don’t remember anybody questioning Stan when he slaps his girlfriend. Everyone just becomes even drunker over the country, God, and the safety in oblivion. Only when Nick stops drinking does he show any concern over the war and being “left behind.” When the scene cuts to Vietnam, I was confused at first because I hadn’t even realized where we were or what was happening until I saw the bombings, etc. It was disturbing.
ReplyDeleteI think this scene speaks to Michael’s personality. I think Michael is an incredibly straightforward man (huge understatement), which then helps explain a little why he is so fully functional during the Russian roulette scene. The bullet is the bullet, death is death, risk is risk. Maybe this scene speaks on the subject of masculinity and how society tells men “a bullet is a bullet.” Society trains men to see things in one light, separate from emotion, and I think Michael is the example of masculinity in this film.
I don’t know what to say about the Russian roulette scene. It was super disturbing. I’ll have to think a little more about what exactly Cimino’s goal was with that scene. Was it more character development for Michael? Apparently it’s not an accurate portrayal of war, so it must be something else, but I don’t know what yet.
1. The thing I was most struck by from the first hour or so of the movie is the sharp disparity between the over abundant opulence of the church and the working class, industrial feel of the town. I think that the lengthy wedding scene brings these details to light and helps create a more complete picture of the world in which these young men grew up. The Pennsylvania town holds a thriving community (eastern European?) immigrants, and religion clearly plays a dominant role in social life. So too, does drinking. Though the wedding scenes appears to be light and happy, there are several moments of foreboding, such as the blatant aggression towards women demonstrated by both Stan and Linda’s father, the few drops of wine the bride spills, and the words of the veteran: “fuck it.” The ominous feeling is furthered by the sharp transition from the wedding scene to scenes from Vietnam. The effect of the transition, or rather the lack thereof, is very abrupt and rather shocking, just as it must be for the soldiers. To me it illustrates how quickly a war transforms someone and how drastically different it is from normal life.
ReplyDelete2. In one sense, Michael is simply talking about the bullet. A bullet is a bullet and it has one purpose: to kill. Yet in another way Michael is referring to how Stan is often too distracted and in his own world to be connected to reality. We often see him admiring his own reflection, he seems to always forget his gear, and interestingly he is not enlisted in the war effort like the others. To me, Michael’s mysterious “This is this” comment refers to how he and his two other friends are going off to a war from which they might not return, and Stan has his head “too far up his ass” to recognize that this hunting trip might be the last time they are all together.
3. I don’t think that I’ve ever been as affected by a movie in my life. Usually I like to think of myself as an easygoing, unshake-able person, but I felt pretty unhinged after watching that. The idea of the game in and of itself is truly terrible and the psychological nature of it is terrifying. Adding onto that, the way that the scene is shot so up close where one can really see the range of emotions and fear of the characters really adds to the intensity. To me, some of the worst parts of those scenes are the shots from the bottom of the hut in which we see Stevie lose complete control over himself. The ability to see a human’s psyche just completely break down is absolutely heart-wrenching and the way in which the scene emphasizes that aspect rather than the blood and gore made it much more haunting to me. Lastly, though I was not aware of this while watching the movie, the fact that the Russian Roulette was not a historical part of the war leaves me with mixed feelings. On one hand, it is a relief to know that that scene was not realistic, but at the same time the fact that no one questioned the historic accuracy of the game simply goes to show how truly fucked up human beings are because torture like that is not unimaginable.
I thought that the first hour of the film was confusing. Especially in the wedding scene, there is significance assigned to each moment but I had trouble figuring out what it was. Clearly the director wants to show things falling apart through images like the wine being spilt on the dress and Stan hitting his girlfriend, but I was unclear as to why. I think part of the reason this intro was so long was to get audiences to understand each character in a fairly familiar fashion so that it could be contrasted with their after war selves. Overall, I think the short cut to Vietnam made sense. It seems as though the director is trying to show an extreme contrast in the film just as the characters are experiencing an extreme contrast in their lives.
ReplyDeleteI think what Mike means by his statement: “this is this” is that reality is black and white. In Mike’s mind things are very clear cut. Just before, Mike stated, “No means no” when referring to whether Stan could borrow his boots. He sees the world without blurred lines, so when Stan has “his head up his ass” Mike decides to give him a lesson on the straightforwardness of reality.
I thought the Russian roulette scene was sort of exaggerated. Movies don’t generally evoke emotion from me because I can always think to myself that it is fake. Knowing that this movie is not based on a true story, I thought the scene seemed sort of Hollywood in a much more intense and gruesome way than usual. I think that there is something to be said about the fact that our three main characters survived the altercation and killed the Vietnamese triumphantly with minimal injuries. It seems unlike the nature of the “true war stories” that we have been discussing in the past. Overall, the scene was horrific but that terror masks the fact that the ending was overall positive.
1. I was very confused for the first hour of the film. Since the movie is a war movie, I kept waiting for a battle to come on screen, but it didn’t. Instead, there was an incredibly detailed wedding, dancing, and lots of drinking. However, as mentioned by others, there was a lot of foreshadowing of war during the first part of the movie: the domestic violence, the soldier at the bar, the blood-like drops from the “good luck” drink during the reception etc. I think Cimino was not only setting up the characters, but also hinting about the violence in the next part of the movie. The extended scene also shows how childish the men are, and the shocking cut to Vietnam shows how much they have hardened and matured. No one expects for a scene with the men messing around on a hunting trip to go straight to a scene in which children are murdered.
ReplyDelete2. I think Michael is saying that the boys must focus on what things actually are. The bullet is a bullet, and similarly, the war that some of them are joining is a war. The men are not just going on another adventure. They could easily die in Vietnam. I think Michael is frustrated with Stan because he doesn’t understand this. Michael is getting into survival mode, and he knows that in war, he is going to have to provide for himself. He won’t have the liberty of forgetting his boots.
3. I don’t really know what to say about the scene. I was utterly horrified, yet riveted. The torture technique of Russian roulette was cruel and disturbing, and the gleeful smiles of the Vietcong when they won their bets were sickening. Also, I wondered if there was any significance of having a Russian Orthodox wedding ceremony and using Russian roulette. I was glad that the men’s plan worked, but I have absolutely no clue how they will ever survive their current situation.
It has the same effect as Kovic telling about his childhood before and probably will also serve to set up a contrast between the pre-Vietnam and post-Vietnam main characters. Even before we see them presumably come home, if we actually care about the characters and where they came from, the emotional impact of the Vietnam scene is much greater. Although the movie can’t effectively follow each character around in the entirety of their upbringing, because the scene involves so much of the community, we get a pretty comprehensive feel for what their civilian identities are and the shape of their everyday lives, including all sorts of tensions and conflicts. For example, while Kovic portrays his upbringing as All-American to the point of being bland, the wedding also makes it clear that they are coming from a fairly Russian, immigrant community without explicitly stating it. Although that dynamic hasn’t come up so far, I do wonder if it will have some sort of impact on their sense of patriotism or worldview. If anything, it doesn’t seem unlikely that it might have made them even more patriotic to their new country. Certainly, they are lauded as heroes before their departure by everyone around them. The tensions within their lives are also magnified by such a central, almost watershed moment as the wedding of the first friend in the group to get married. Honestly, I thought this imperfection made the war even more devastating, because unlike Kovic’s rather annoyingly perfect childhood, what they were leaving behind felt specific and real. There’s something bittersweet about them leaving unsolved problems behind as well as sweethearts. The world goes on without them when they leave. In addition, the fact that it’s a wedding, with all the religious trappings and the feeling of new beginnings makes it an especially striking contrast to the war, and the level of death and destruction. It’s a completely different world.
ReplyDeleteI really have no clue. “This is this” seems to refer to Stan’s inability to treat hunting as an activity seriously, especially considering it’s a bullet Michael is waving around. It’s as if he’s saying that “this” is what matters, not goofing around after driving up the mountains. At the same time, in the larger context, he’s fed up with Stan’s lack of self-sufficiency, but I’m not really sure why it would be a bullet in that case. Considering that they are shipping out to Vietnam, the bullet does take on the connotations of war and killing, especially considering Michael had a whole talk with Nick earlier about the importance of killing the deer with a single shot. Stan is not going to Vietnam, and I wonder if there’s a subtext of some sort of shaming going on there.
Intense is the right descriptor. Although there’s far less guts and gore than there is in the opening of Saving Private Ryan, the buildup and sheer terror while each man convinces himself to pull the trigger is painful to watch. It’s a different kind of psychological torment. It did occur to me that the atrocities that we have seen so far in this war have been very one-sided, and the main characters have so far been rather conveniently able to avoid dying. The fact that this scene is fictionalized and that the movie hasn’t broken up the squad yet makes me a bit nervous that there may be some sort of wildly improbable heroic rescue in store. Although it’s difficult to watch, I honestly don’t know whether I’m relieved or disappointed that it isn’t, in my view, shaping up to be a true war story quite yet. That being said, I’m curious to see where it goes from here.
First sentence should read, “It has the same effect as Kovic telling about his childhood before his enlistment...”
Delete