What Makes Altman a Great Director or Storyteller?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Robert Altman
Teriek-Williams — 10 years ago(May 06, 2015 09:17 PM)
Given Altman films have done well with critics and gained so much influence, what really makes Robert Altman a great director or storyteller?
After seeing 6 of his films, I still have no understanding of what his films are about. Each film I've seen of his is a frustrating, crashing bore of endless dialogue that goes absolutely nowhere with very little story or progression. But maybe I'm missing something, or not looking in the right place.
What am I missing? What should I be looking for? Or is Altman just an overrated director given credit for being anti-Hollywood and anti-conventional? -
Teriek-Williams — 10 years ago(May 12, 2015 03:11 AM)
Yeah, I keep hearing how he kicked Hollywood's a but they never say how. Altman just seems to be a guy with a valid argument about the studio system and Hollywood politics. I guess he and his followers thought that rebelling against all Hollywood technique including storytelling made him different, and therefore automatically good. But with no story, the entire medium is useless.
-
rascal67 — 10 years ago(May 12, 2015 04:43 AM)
I guess he and his followers thought that rebelling against all Hollywood technique including storytelling made him different, and therefore automatically good. But with no story, the entire medium is useless.
Altman was considered a 'maverick' film maker and was making his discerning films, within the big studio system. Most were regulated to the arthouse circuit and film festivals. Although left of center, when he was in top form, he could be very good. I will have re-visit NASHVILLE-75'; but when I did finally see this film in the early 90's for the first time in a cinema, I found more value in the film as a 70's rush, rather than the film itself. Remember, the 70's is considered a defining and revered period in cinema history and Altman was a popular name and had connections, after the success of MAS*H-70. Anything new, different, controversial etc, was welcomed with open arms.
With the exception of 3 WOMEN-77', which I think is an almost masterpiece and possibly SHORT CUTS-93', I have rarely found the need or want, to view his films for a second time or even watch the ones I haven't seen. -
Teriek-Williams — 10 years ago(May 12, 2015 11:42 AM)
Altman was a maverick, but for the wrong reasons. He sacrificed story for realism. Nashville is incoherent rambling of intercut dialogue with no context. His plot based films (Short Cuts, The Player, Cookie's Fortune) have more direction, but it often fetters out due to meaningless dialogue. And as a director, he was never truly impressive except for capturing the visuals of Gosford Park, which was also boring and rambling.
Altman missed what made cinema important and wrongly associated it with "Hollywood." Story is the hallmark of cinema and literature, and without it, it means nothing. I've seen plenty of indie arthouse cinema. But only Altman has made me ask whether the dialogue I was listening to actually important or not, or had me confused to what I was watching. Without the exception of Cookie's Fortune, I can't tell what any of his films are about. That's not a sign of a great storyteller, no less a bad one.
People can talk about anyone from Woody Allen to David Fincher, and describe to me specific hallmarks, techniques and elements that make their films great or enjoyable. All I hear about Altman is that he's a maverick. Being a maverick isn't the mark of greatness in and of itself. But again, am I missing something. If I am, I'd love to hear what it is so maybe I can point it out, because I'm flabbergasted to how Altman found any form of success. -
rascal67 — 10 years ago(May 12, 2015 04:37 PM)
I can't tell what any of his films are about. That's not a sign of a great storyteller, no less a bad one..All I hear about Altman is that he's a maverick. Being a maverick isn't the mark of greatness in and of itself. But again, am I missing something.
I have only seen 9 of Altman's films in their entirety, so I may not be the best person to make an informed judgement on his skill or technique as a film-maker, over his whole body of work. I do believe 3 WOMEN-77' is outstanding and have seen SHORTS CUTS-93' about 4 times, so find plenty of value here. Haven't even seen MAS*H, as the tv series put me off, which I never enjoyed and was just something to view, when there was nothing else to watch.
I could say, that his films are about observations of human nature and behavior and all of their colorful eccentricities; but then you could say that about many other directors. Sometimes the devil is in the details and not everything needs to be straightforward and sledgehammered home. That is the beauty of art, to challenge us and even confuse and frustrate us. I would say that Altman has earned his 'rightful' place and accolades, as a 'maverick' and original American film director. His films, would just not be for everyone. Same goes for Woody Allen, in spite of his popularity, amongst discerning film-goers. -
Teriek-Williams — 10 years ago(May 12, 2015 07:20 PM)
For one, I'd like you to tell me what makes 3 Women good, so I might be tempted to take a look. After 6 Altman bores, I'm about through. But on your recommendation, I would see it (though qualify why).
Secondly, David Lynch isn't for everyone either and he's a maverick. I've like quite a few of his films (proving everything doesn't need to be "straightforward" for me, the trademark defense against any criticism of an indie filmmaker). However, Lynch does tell stories even though they're highly layered and take a bit of interpretation to figure out. When you discover what he is saying, I think it's inspiring and his directorial quirks are aesthetically unique.
As for Altman, he's not telling a story. He's simply observing, which doesn't make a movie, no less an interesting one. "Reality" shows realize that. I also don't get what "details" you're talking about in relation to Altman. I'd like to know. You're probably right that art should frustrate because you still might get something. If I've gotten anything from Altman, it's how not to tell a story, which is a valuable lesson even if coming from a negative experience. -
rascal67 — 10 years ago(May 12, 2015 10:14 PM)
@ teriekwilliams
, you seem annoyed by Altman's films, like he has pushed a button, going by the tone of your responses. I have neither disagreed or agreed with you; but have 'shared' my opinion on Altman, without attempting to undermine your own opinion. I am happy to fill you in, with my take on 3 WOMEN. Please bear in mind though, that it is all subjective and what I connect with, you may feel differently. I definitely give it my own personal seal of approval and would rate the film in my top 10 dramas.
The 9 Altman films I have seen in their entirety are:
McCabe and Mrs. Miller'
Nashville'
3 Women'
Popeye
Come Back To The Five & Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean,
Streamers
The Player
Short Cuts
Gosford Park
I made attempts to watch MAS*H, 'The Long Goodbye' 'Thieves Like Us' and 'A Wedding'. I may have been distracted or not in the mood at the time, and got into 30mins at the most. Since I like Shelly Duvall, I would be keen on attempting 'Thieves Like Us' again, and that was years ago. This brings me to 3 WOMEN-77.
I find 3 WOMEN, to flow calmly and more fluid like in it's presentation, compared to some of Altman's other crammed and hectic works. It is filmed in a dry, dusty locale, which is beautifully captured and has a serene visual style, with some water imagery and symbolic murals, which are relevant to the third woman character in the picture. In a nutshell, it is a character study of 2 main players and how they connect with each other and the people around them. The film can be perceived as being quite enigmatic, yet I don't think it is a complex or mysterious, as many make it out to be. I see it as a film about 'loneliness' and for Millie-(Shelly Duvall), who tries desperately to fit in, yet can't seem to acknowledge that she doesn't and likely never will. At times, she is heartbreaking to watch. Millie is a caring character and works at a geriatric health spa and becomes a mentor, for the younger and even stranger Pinky-(Sissy Spacek). Pinky looks up to Millie as a role model and when a tragedy occurs, Pinky becomes the person, Millie always wanted to be.
Duvall is wonderful and is so real, spontaneous and in the moment, that she breaths life into a character, that could be considered flat and dreary, yet makes her captivating and even humorous to watch. Spacek equals her, with her naive and childish traits and makes a flawless transition, from the childlike Pinky, into a confident, sexy and cocky young woman. May I suggest you read through this IMDB thread I started.
http://www.imdb.com/board/10075612/board/flat/235284815
. If you get an opportunity to view, I would be keen on hearing your opinion.
David Lynch isn't for everyone either and he's a maverick.
I enjoy David Lynch's works, mainly earlier stuff anyway and I think 3 WOMEN, is a film that Lynch could have made himself.
-
Teriek-Williams — 10 years ago(May 12, 2015 10:31 PM)
I dislike films that trade storytelling in favor of documentation, and/or that I find socially repugnant. But when they received unanimous praise with little dissent, that pushes a button. It's like these films need to be challenged. The Hurt Locker, The Wolf of Wall Street, Boyhood & American Sniper are modern examples I hate to death for these reasons. I remember paying $20 to see The Hurt Locker as it was being praised and considered a likely Oscar contender. I felt baited into plot elements that didn't develop into anything for 2 hours with numerous things not making logical sense. I was pissed.
The Altman films I've seen are: Nashville, The Player, Short Cuts, Cookie's Fortune, Gosford Park & A Prairie Home Companion. Very few films got me angry, asking loudly, "WHERE THE HELL IS ALL THIS GOING!?" In that sense, they felt worse those modern examples, because at least I knew what they were even if their storytelling technique were poor.
However, the way you describe 3 Women makes me what to see it. I certainly understand loneliness and having a character to sympathize with helps a lot. It's hard with Altman films because he spends so much time on rambling that I'm concentrating on that instead of the characters, the story or the themes if there are any. But I will make an effort to see 3 Women based on your description (particularly the Lynch comment in relation to it). -
blairbitchproject — 10 years ago(August 10, 2015 09:31 AM)
I agree with everything you're saying. I actually found myself asking "where the hell is this going" watching both Dr. T & The Women and A Prairie Home Companion. Altman is a very boring storyteller who trades plot development for incessant dialogue. Watching his movies is like observing random people on the street having conversations.
-
-
I_Love_Hutch — 10 years ago(May 22, 2015 08:36 PM)
I like Robert Altman quite a bit. When he is on, he can do amazing things (e.g., Nashville, Come Back to the 5 & 10)and when he is off, he can be extremely boring (e.g., Prairie Home Companion, that ballet movie with Neve Campbell). But for "3 Women" alone, I could forgive him anything. I agree that the movie is a masterpiece about loneliness and alienation and identity. Pinky and especially Millie are two of the most fully realized characters I have ever seen in a movie. The atmosphere is hypnotic, the dialogue is beyond uncanny, and somehow the movie manages to be utterly bland and utterly spellbinding at the same time. In fact, I believe this movie derives its charm and power specifically
because
of its own brand of "blandness". (Do not misunderstand my words: this movie is one of the most "non-boring" movies I have ever seen. I could watch Millie and Pinky interact all day long. And for us "3 Women" fanatics, this movie is endlessly quotable. "Do you like yellow and purple?") This is primarily due to how "realistic" the two main characters are and the universal predicament they find themselves in. I adore Millie in particular, and like Rascal mentioned, Shelly Duvall is both heartbreaking and hilarious (somewhat unintentionally, I am afraid, but I can relate to her obliviousness to the outside world so I am essentially laughing at my own somewhat strange way of understanding and observing and relating). Shelly Duvall is absolutely intuitive here (actually, she always is, but "3 Women" is her shining moment) and doesn't appear to be acting at all. Her performance is like no other, she invites the viewer right into her world and without a trace of guile. Duvall inhabits the character so fully that she just doesn't seem capable of doing one thing that is not totally believable and amazing. Her performance, IMO, defies any attempts made toward standard film criticism. Shelly Duvall doesn't make one move that is not absolutely, positively true to her character. In fact, it may be my favorite, most loved performance of all time . (Sissy Spacek in "Carrie", funnily enough, would be Shelly's only competitor for me) Millie's quirkiness and her odd, tragically misguided, yet unmistakably identifiable way of relating to the world around her makes for one of the most compelling film characters I have ever seen. Millie is so "real", and the implications are terrifying if you think about it too mucb68h.
What other movie is hilarious, heartbreaking and horrifying all at the same time? -
rascal67 — 10 years ago(May 23, 2015 08:16 PM)
The atmosphere is hypnotic, the dialogue is beyond uncanny, and somehow the movie manages to be utterly bland and utterly spellbinding at the same time. In fact, I believe this movie derives its charm and power specifically because of its own brand of "blandness".
Because it is so 'real', yet cinematic at the same time, that the film manages to make it's characters relatable, yet also give them a 'subtle' larger than life impression. This is what excellent drama does, without hyping or 'sensationalizing' them. You could say, that it is like viewin2000g a reality tv showthe mundane and bland qualities of these livesyet manages to rise above the drabness and give us something rare and fascinating.
Shelly Duvall is absolutely intuitive here (actually, she always is, but "3 Women" is her shining moment) and doesn't appear to be acting at all.Duvall inhabits the character so fully that she just doesn't seem capable of doing one thing that is not totally believable and amazing.
Is this something that Duvall was able to connect with and the Millie character, on a deeper core and emotional level, or I wonder, if Altman had something to do with this and his direction of her? Shelly was his discovery and he must have had a profound and innate connection with her and intuitive feeling, for her skills and talents. This is not to undermine Spacek's performance either, who gave us, what I would call a variation on her Carrie character and makes her Pinky, totally and utterly believable. I would say, Altman was a highly attuned and perceptive being and this film, was born out of a dream of his.
That said, pretty much all the players in 3 WOMEN, offer something of value and a worthwhile offering to the proceedings. Even that dreary doctor, who seemed more catatonic and out of it, than his elderly spa residents. It appears like he was caught up in a perpetual state of inertia. I bet that Bunweil b!t@h, ran roughshod over him and took control of everything. What a boss from hell, she was. I wonder if she was having an affair with him.
What other movie is hilarious, heartbreaking and horrifying all at the same time?
Hard to think of one, at the moment. All these elements were beautifully blended and realized and it appears to unfold so effortlessly. I would say, that the talent involved in this production and the combination of acting, script, direction, etc was magic and providential.
-
franzkabuki — 10 years ago(May 12, 2015 07:04 PM)
If you seriously think there are no stories in Altman's films, then it's obviously useless to even try to explain you anything; he was no Stan bloody Brakhage, dealing in overt abstraction. And it should also be pointed out that for most of his career, Altman actually worked within the Hollywood system and hardly ever really bit the hand that fed him - as long as he was able to do his own thing without interference.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan -
Teriek-Williams — 10 years ago(May 12, 2015 10:15 PM)
It's not necessarily useless if I'm asking what might I be missing. Altman fans are getting the opportunity here to possibly convert somebody. Many people complain Altman's board is dead. So I'm asking fans to fill me in something on something I didn't get. I could be entirely wrong about what I saw. You have to understand, I want to figure it out. If I didn't, I'd just write "Altman sucks" not "why is he great?"
To your last sentence, Altman did interviews complaining about Hollywood's marginalization of indie arthouse cinema, which seems to be the Academy's bread and butter nowadays. Many pride Altman on sticking into Hollywood by making unconventional work, but I don't think he ever gave them a reason to give him an Oscar with better craftsmen and writers competing. I also don't think the mainstream public saw anything 238in him because he's obviously an acquired taste. -
aGuiltySoul — 10 years ago(May 12, 2015 02:33 PM)
Yes, Altman was a maverick. He spent years directing TV shows and kowtowed to the sacrifices made to it's run and gun style. No subtly. No nuance or subtext. All stereotype and imitative performance.
Once freed from all that, he brought a subversive attitude to his films. Watch MAS*H, and I don't mean the television show which Altman hated. You get the feeling that anything could happen. There's no formula. Yet there is also no sacrifice to viewability. It's never chaotic, except when he is expressing chaos. He married humor with violence and despair and perfectly revealed each. As such, it can take multiple viewings to even see everything his films have to offer.
Altman gave his cast freedom to be collaborative. He said that he was waiting for a mistake to see where it would take them. He loved filmmaking, was in awe of actors, and enjoyed pissing off the studio heads who wanted and still want to pigeon hole everyone.
He respected the intelligence and maturity of his audience. He didn't belabor a point or even explain everything. He let you place yourself within the story and add your input. Some people who seem to want everything explained are very uncomfortable with that. It's all in your expectations.
One of his famous techniques was to have more than one actor speaking at the same time, just like we experience every day. Less oration and more conversation. That interferes with some people's ability to follow along. It is the one persistent criticism I've read from audience members about his films. But it follows along with the multiple viewings directive. Multiple viewings also pisses some people off. But it's a pleasure for me.
It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it.
RIP Roger Ebert