Essay On The Deer Hunter

Thankfully, I had been able to keep myself spoiler free as it relates to “The Deer Hunter.” For a movie with this reputation and fame, I was quite proud of the fact that I hardly knew what it was about, how it ended or even how its famous Russian roulette scene climaxes. I was excited to finally see this movie, in small part because it was the last film I needed to see to have watched every best picture winner from the 1970s. But, to put it bluntly, “The Deer Hunter” disappointed me.

This film is set during the Vietnam War. It follows a group of friends from a small, industrial Pennsylvania town. Half of the men of the group goes to war, while the other half stays home. Michael (Robert De Niro), Steven (John Savage) and Nick (Christopher) are the three men who go to war. Stan (John Cazale) George Dzundza (John) and Chuck Aspegren (Axel) are the three who stay home, along with Nick’s girlfriend Linda (Meryl Streep) and Steven’s new wife Angela (Rutanya Alda). The film chronicles how war changes those who experienced it, including how they interact with their friends once they return.

De Niro is very good in the lead role as Michael. He is totally convincing throughout the movie, bringing authenticity to the role. He has a certain enigmatic quality and stoicism that serves the character well, especially in the

first hour, but in true De Niro form he can go big and manic when he needs to. This is probably my favorite De Niro performance I have seen to date, partly because I felt let he wasn’t simply playing Robert De Niro like he does in many of his later roles. He deserved his Oscar nod, though probably not a win.
Coming in right behind De Niro in the acting department is Christopher Walken in his Oscar-winning, breakthrough role. Walken is also quite believable throughout the picture. Even in 1978, Walken could clearly go big and a little crazy with his acting, as seen in the first half of the movie. In the second half, however, he becomes much subtler and haunting as war takes its toll on his character. I absolutely bought the effect the trauma had on his character because of his performance.
As far as actresses go, Meryl Streep, in her first Oscar-nominated performance, is the noteworthy one. She is good here, but it’s definitely not her best performance (I’d say it’s my least favorite one I’ve seen). She brings an intrinsic vulnerability to her character, and always feels real, meaning you never feel like she’s performing. She is a little too understated, though, so we never get to see any moments of pure brilliance from her in the role.
Despite all those words about the acting, I wouldn’t say it’s the chief concern with this film, though it is undeniably the best part. I found numerous aspects of this movie I didn’t like. First, I disliked the sound mixing by Darrin Knight. I am baffled as to how this sound department won an Oscar for their work, as it consistently annoyed me. No matter how high I turned up the volume, I often couldn’t make out what the characters were saying. The film is mixed such that background noise often drowns out or nearly drowns out the characters. Personally, I prefer a movie that allows me to hear the dialogue.
I also did not appreciate the cinematography in this movie, especially in the first act. Director Michael Cimino and his cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond shoot the first hour of the film, specifically, in mostly long shots or medium long shots. Perhaps they wanted to let the performances breath, or show us more characters at one time to show the group dynamics. Those are fine goals, but the impression this visual scheme left on me was a distance from the characters. The first hour of the film is all about character development, not plot, but I found myself so distanced from the characters by the camera that it proved difficult to invest in these characters (especially Michael, who seems allergic to anything closer than a medium long shot). Thus, by visually alienating me from the characters early on, Cimino and Zsigmond greatly lessened my connection with these people.
That is especially detrimental given the nature of this film. It’s not a war movie, so much as a character study examining the effects of war on individuals. I appreciate that idea. It’s a good premise, but here it is terribly executed. The story for this film is by Cimino, Deric Washburn, Louis Garfinkle and Quinn K. Redeker. Washburn wrote the screenplay. The problem here is the movie makes “Out of Africa” look like a roller coaster adrenaline rush. This movie is 3 hours and 3 minutes long, and it feels every minute of that runtime because of its glacial pace.
Perhaps the most egregious example of the slow pace is the first hour.

That first hour is all about character development, I understand, showing us the characters interact. But it’s all done too slowly, with a lot of wasted time. There are a handful of important moments, such as when the guys get off work and go to the bar or when Michael can’t take his eyes off Linda at Steve’s wedding, but they come amidst a clinic in gratuitousness. So much of that first hour didn’t do much for me when it came to understanding the characters, in part because I was so bored that those moments only sparked a brief interest that was subsequently quashed by Russian

dancing.
It’s not just the first hour, though. Once the film moves to Vietnam, the most interesting scenes occur, but these are breezed through. Yes, this film is about the impact of war on people, but I hardly understood what these men did in war that impacted them so terribly (save the famous Russian roulette scene). Then, when Michael returns from combat, much of this feels unnecessary. There are so many scenes that aim to show how Michael has adjusted, but many of them seem repetitive, beating a dead horse that another scene already killed. Plus, the movie takes forever to get to the most powerful moments, like when Michael visits a friend who was injured in the war.
In short, add “The Deer Hunter” to the list of classics I dislike. The performances were uniformly good (including those I didn’t mention), but that’s about all the good I can say about the film. (Well, the Russian roulette scene is easily the best in the film. It’s riveting and intense). The sound irritated me because of its incomprehensible mixing, the visuals alienated me from the characters and the amazingly slow pacing left me bored for much of the film. Sometimes, when I dislike a classic movie, I think I missed something. In this case, I don’t think I missed anything.