What Makes Altman a Great Director or Storyteller?
-
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 -
aGuiltySoul — 10 years ago(May 12, 2015 08:08 PM)
I'm afraid that all I have to say is what I said. I admire Robert Altman's work. Some people don't.
I'm not interested in what you say they teach in drama schools. Although I agree that Altman's style is one to imitate. And I feel sorry for anyone who needs a story to be laid out in a predictable 1, 2, 3 method that does not inspire them to engage their intelligence. As for dismissing a complex multilayered film as a seemingly exhausting jigsaw, there are hardly any words which adequately express my pity.
If you're an actor who only wants to be told what to do by the director and have no input, then you are no actor.
The question was, "What Makes Altman A Great Director Or Storyteller." I believe that there are many other arguments and/or opinions other than my own that can provide reasons and examples. But I stand by everything I've said.
It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it.
RIP Roger Ebert -
Diosprometheus — 10 years ago(May 17, 2015 01:10 AM)
Altman directed and wrote many tv shows over the years. He has a long list of credits doing such popular series as the Millionaire, Combat, and many others. I have always found his TV work more interesting than most of his movies, which seem to ramble and lose focus. I have come to believe his directorial and writing contributions were responsible for the success and popularity of many of them.
-
rascal67 — 10 years ago(May 17, 2015 01:23 AM)
He would have had to work to specific guidelines, for his tv work. Most of his movies, were his own vision\art, when he was given free reign. Sometimes they worked, sometimes they didn't. Maybe, if he had been reigned in more, his films5b4 may have been more accessible and liked. As it stands, he still has an interesting body of work, even if not that inspiring and there are some diamonds in the rough.
-
Teriek-Williams — 10 years ago(May 18, 2015 08:36 PM)
Altman benefited (or didn't benefit from) from working outside of the studio system, giving far more creative control. Stanley Kubrick worked within the studio system, but was given more creative control than most. The success of his work is due to his refined perfectionism and very close attention to detail. Altman was obviously looser, creating space for things to happen and rarely tightening things afterward.