Choosing a particular scene to analyze in this film, as well as probably any Morris film, proved to be pretty difficult initially. First of all, the largely documentary style was rough to deal with in terms of deciding on what actually constitutes a “scene.” There’s no real set standard so you just have to more or less improvise. The second difficult aspect was the fact that this film is largely and purposefully ambiguous making the overall meaning completely dependent on the viewer. How can I, being only one person, try to legitimately analyze all these different views and opinions in just a few minutes?
My solution was to just give an idea of the two (or maybe instead of “the two” just “two”) extremes or ideals in terms of ways to take this movie. The two extremes I speak of are largely related to Baudry’s FTC article about Apparatus theory, which is about how films tend to play towards the ideology of the viewer. But, unlike most films, Morris is kind of playing with this idea. I would say that very few people share these complete extreme views and most peoples opinion lies somewhere in the grey area but it is essential to know these extremes in order to understand what I think Morris is trying to do. And after figuring that out I decided to analyze the contrasts between Floyd the failed pet cemetery owner and Mike the renderer (as I like to call him) in the few intersecting scenes they had toward the beginning of the film.
The first extreme view I’m going to talk about is the “Good vs. Evil” view of these two characters:
The very first shot of this film is a very beautiful one of Floyd sitting under a tree. The key word being “beautiful.” By the time we get to the chats with him and Mike we already know that Floyd is a simple minded–not necessarily stupid but simple-minded– man with what seems like good intentions. Viewing him in the so-called “Good vs. Evil” sense you would see him as a “God-like” or maybe better yet “Good-like” character. Next we soon see a somewhat balding man sitting at a desk with some kind of power plant behind him. He starts talking to us about his job and how it seems to be an industry that people just ignore. We aren’t 100% sure of what he’s talking about at first but we soon get the idea. Mike is in the business of rounding up dead animals and boiling their remains in a giant pot to make some sort of recycled bio-product. Sticking with the very simplistic approach, this idea would seem barbaric.
We soon cut back to Floyd who speaks of this “Rendering Center” as if it were the incarnation of evil itself. He preaches to us about how horrible and alien of a process it is and tells us of the terrible ways it has affected the community. So if the audience has already accepted Floyd as the “Good” character they are going to essentially side with him that this rendering company is in fact evil. We cut back to Mike the renderer who starts telling us some typical humorous rendering stories and he starts to appear more smarmy and insincere. He doesn’t seem to have any compassion for people who don’t like hearing about boiling dead animal carcases. Something about him just seems crooked. He’s sitting in a black chair by a black telephone and from what we see sitting on his desk, he likes to sport big black sunglasses. Floyd’s surroundings however are usually some pretty setting outdoors, almost paradise-like. Morris seems to have deliberately contrasted these two characters, painting one of them good and the other evil. I can’t really think of a more complex meaningful way to explain this approach other than the classic battle of good and evil. Of the two basic approaches I spoke of, this one is by far the more simplistic way of looking at it and doesn’t seem to require as much deep thinking.
The second extreme approach to looking at “Gates of Heaven” is what I like to call the “Reality vs. Anti-Reality” approach. Looking at these inter-cut scenes again with a more complex intellectual perspective the film begins to take on new meaning. Instead of looking at these two characters and just quickly labeling them off as good and evil we look at them much closer and try to understand their motivations and where they are coming from.
Mike represents the “reality” side. From what we are shown he only tries to think about things from a rational perspective. He can’t understand why other people are so repulsed by his line of business. “We are recycling” he boasts. According to him, his company will not only rid your property of any inconvenient dead animals in a timely manner but they will also use that dead animal to make something useful instead of harming the environment. What’s not to love about that? Looking at his surroundings from this perspective, he seems to be a pretty normal guy. He works an office job, reads the newspaper, and has funny work stories to tell just like everyone else. He’s an average Joe.
Floyd however represents the “Anti-Reality” side. The reality here is that animals in that area usually end up in the rendering company. Floyd cannot accept this. The idea of a reality where cute and friendly pets wind up melting together in a huge vat does not sit well with him at all. He cannot accept it. The ritual is barbaric to him and he does not understand the intentions behind it. Therefore he must give everyone his “Good” alternative: a pet cemetery. The reality however is that your pet is dead and, even buried underground, your pet is going to decompose into something that will be unrecognizable and essentially not your pet. So Floyd decides to make up his own reality that if this pet is buried properly then he’ll be “at peace.” As I mentioned before, Floyd is often seen outside in a very beautiful garden-like setting. And in these scenes when we hear him speaks he rambles almost deliriously about his failed pet cemetery. It’s almost as if all of this has been one big fantasy and he just lives in this unrealistic or, better yet, anti-realistic but beautiful fantasy world.
This first portion of the film is ended with a speech by Floyd about his intentions. He believes them to be whole-hearted. “I put my heart over the dollar sign,” he says. And then, in one of the most off-putting parts of the film, Morris cuts from Floyd to a pad of paper and a hand with a pencil. The hand then sloppily draws a heart, a line below the heart, and under the line, a dollar sign. Surely Morris must have wanted to get across the importance of that statement…but why?
That sentence, “I put my heart over the dollar sign” was one of the last things we hear from Floyd in this film. And I think that’s no coincidence. This ideal is what led to the demise of his pet cemetery. Thinking more specifically about it: What does the heart represent? Well, its his heart. We know that. The heart represents his desires. This pet cemetery is something he’s always wanted and desired. The heart also represents his good intentions. He only wanted to bring joy to people, or so he says. Now, what does the dollar sign represent? Money, of course. But what does money do? You could say that money runs the world. To be economically sound money is always needed. So basically money is a necessity to running a rational life. Floyd put his well-intentioned desires above economic rationality and this is what led to his demise. If a person views this film with a mostly “Reality vs. Anti-Reality” perspective, this is ultimately the point that they’re going to pick up.
Now going back to the other extreme of “Good vs. Evil.” What does this sketch mean to that person? Well, as we said before the heart represents the good in people. That’s simple enough. So if the heart represents “good” then we’d deduce that the dollar sign represented “evil,” which is certainly not a stretch. Everyone knows the “money is the root of all evil” cliche. So Floyd put good over evil. This obviously seems the right thing to do but the simple reality that I believe Morris is trying to convey is that life is just not as simple as Good vs. Evil. This Heart vs. Money discussion is what leads us into the next half of the film and makes us think about Cal’s cemetery and why it is successful where Floyd’s was not. But that’s a whooole different discussion.
To start off the 2nd part of the final essay, I’d like to comment very broadly about the entire Morris unit. I think Leighton was one of the first people to comment on the idea of Morris making “Non-fiction films” rather than documentaries. This is something that everyone should know going into seeing an Errol Morris film. Although Morris does film real events and people, his artistic methods are largely different from the methods used by most traditional documentarians. When I think of popular documentary features, I think about strong political or social commentary that is usually slanted to a very obvious side. Such is certainly not the case with Morris. Morris’s films, while often about seemingly random and scattered people or situations, always feature something very deep and philosophical under the surface. At the same time, he never looks to push any kind of ideal or lack there of on the audience. Morris’s films are about highlighting the ambiguities of life and drawing our own conclusions from those ambiguities. This description of his cinematic styles is not to say that Morris is trying to show us the most direct and unaltered form of real-life; there is still obviously quite a bit of editing done to his films. I agree with what Robyn said in her blog that Morris’s editing these people to his liking is justifiable simply because he is not trying to paint the most accurate portrait of these people as possible but instead trying to teach us a bit about life. Morris has no more power of skewing people’s personality than any other documentarian but unlike most documentary film-makers the editing is done to make the meaning of the film that much more ambiguous rather than obvious. This was a very different idea for the “documentary”; one which took awhile to really gain Morris his proper recognition.
One of the reasons that I decided to do my final paper on this film (the other being that I assumed everyone else would be doing Vertigo) was that, some time after I saw the film but before I decided to do this paper, I found out online that Roger Ebert had named it as one of his top 10 greatest films of all time. I certainly found Gates of Heaven to be intriguing but going into it I had no idea that a film of its stature would be so highly regarded by someone as revered as Roger Ebert. Being somewhat of a big Ebert fan I decided that I would get to the bottom of it and see what he found to be so “great” about it. I may not be as knowledgable as Roger Ebert but certainly I am knowledgeable enough to understand his opinion? I first looked at his original 1978 review. He gave it four stars and praised it thoroughly but I don’t think he had realized at this point how great he would eventually view this film. That page had a link to another article about the film from 1997. In the first paragraph he again praised it by saying, “I have seen this film perhaps 30 times and I am still nowhere near the bottom of it: All I know is, its about a lot more than pet cemeteries.” Among other highlights of the review, he said. “‘Gates of Heaven’ remains in a category by itself unclassifiable, provocative, tantalizing. When I put it on my list of 10 greatest films ever made, I was not joking.” Sure “Gates of Heaven” seemed to be all of those things but I’d made the opinion that I’d have to see this film a few more times to really accept his opinion in my heart of hearts.
I talked a very good deal about the first 30 minutes of the film in the first half of my paper so I think I’ll just introduce and attempt to explain the Harberts who are more or less the stars of this film. But before I do I don’t think I can really get by in this paper without talking about the incredible monologue by Ms. Florence Rasmussen that seemingly separates the two main sections of this film. I haven’t gotten a good grasp on this woman’s purpose in the film yet but I guess it doesn’t really hurt to speculate. In Tyler’s blog he praises her scene but gives the impression that it all just seems a little too good to be true. I get the same impression that this scene was almost too perfectly absurd to be truly authentic (especially the sound of the car). But all the same, if this scene were in fact heavily doctored by Morris that would make it all the more important to the film. I have yet to come across a good theory as to her purpose but I kind of see her as a preparation to the next part of the film. The first 30-35 minutes of the film, upon first viewing, seem to be a pretty straight documentary style; they aren’t, but I think that’s the initial impression that audiences get. But then we get to Ms. Rasmussen who starts off by talking about this failed pet cemetery but then goes off topic about her son almost without our notice. This is also the way of the entire film. When we see this rather long monologue for the first time we get the impression that maybe we’re supposed to be looking at this thing a little more closely. And then, Morris comes in with the Harberts which are arguably the most important characters in the film. So, now I’ll begin with them…
The first person I’d like to talk about is Cal, the patriarch of the family. Royalewithcheese (sorry I couldn’t find this person’s name) said they thought Cal was the most interesting of the four. I can’t say I necessarily think he’s more interesting than any of the other four but I certainly agree he gives us a lot to think about. But what they talked about in the blog was how Cal seemed to be the only person of the family that didn’t seem like they needed something more in life. I don’t think he’s found the meaning of life as much as he’s found his meaning of life. Every time we chat with Cal he seems to be explaining some aspect of his business. Whether he’s theorizing about the cause of the “pet explosion” or he’s telling us why his business will remain successful, Cal just wants to get a good grip on the world of economics, more specifically “pet economics.” He is a very rational person who’s found his niche in life in this very rational field. He is even rational when speaking of religion. “People don’t want ‘pie in the sky,’”he says “They just want things to make sense” He seems very smart but at the same time very simple. All of the interviews with him feature very plain backgrounds signifying he is not a showy, materialistic person. He just simply strives to be efficient and for the most part he seems very satisfied with his work.
The other members of the family don’t seem to have had as much success in finding their purpose. Mrs. Harbert speaks mostly of her sons, Phil and Dave. They seem to be her main focus in life (royalewithcheese noted how they are her pets in a way) although there is a faint feel of dissatisfaction in her voice when she speaks of them, as if to say she wishes they were happier. Dave, the younger son, is Cal’s number two man in running the family business. In many of his scenes he attempts to explain the family business as if this is how he plans to spend the rest of his life. This seems honorable enough but we seem to pick up the same tone of dissatisfaction in his voice when he speaks of it. Deep down he seems to feel he should be somewhere else. One of the last scenes we speak with Dave, he speaks of “dreams” of becoming a famous musician. He tells us “As you get older, you notice that your dreams don’t always turn out the way you want them to” but then he says they’re good to have because they make life more enjoyable. I believe this to be one of the most important lines in the film. Could these “dreams” he speaks of be the same idea behind God, Heaven, and ultimately the pet cemetery? Death is something that every living thing must face but could the idea of religion and life after death just be our “dream” of not having to face an end? This is something that neither I nor Morris can tell anyone, but something that people have to decide for themselves.
Last but not least is Phil, the oldest son. I believe Phil to be another very interesting character indeed. Phil seems to be trying to embody every ideal his father speaks of in his interviews. Phil desperately tries to see the world from an objective view in order to understand it better. But he doesn’t seem to be grasping it nearly as well as Cal. Cal knows exactly how the rest of his life is going to go, and he is completely fine with it. Phil, on the other hand, is desperately trying to gain control of his life but just never seems to turn up with a good grip. The first shot of Phil at his desk covered with trophies is one that always gets a chuckle from me. He might not be able to grasp life properly yet but he’s certainly going to make us think he can.
But after studying all these characters thoroughly, you just have to ask “what does it all mean?” Well, I think that Morris has shown us these characters in this specific way to help us learn a little more about ourselves. I can’t speak for everyone but this film always makes me think about my own state as a human being. All week I’ve been thinking about these big questions like “Am I satisfied with myself?”, “Where do I want to end up in life?” and so on. I believe this to be the idea that Morris had when he shot and edited this film. And I can pretty honestly say that this film has been as successful as that as probably any other film I’ve seen. Kudos to Mr. Morris and kudos to Mr. Ebert for noticing. 