What Makes Altman a Great Director or Storyteller?
-
-
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.
-
rascal67 — 10 years ago(May 19, 2015 02:12 AM)
I think Altman, only really started working outside the studio system, as the 80's began. He still pretty much had free reign within the studios, like 20th Century Fox, during the 70's. Yes, his films were looser and more spontaneous, than say Kubrick, who I feel you can sense thinking, when watching his films. Altman's freer style, seemed to fit perfectly with 3 WOMEN and by that same token, his direction could have appeared to be more focused as well. As for some of his other films.whatever!
Sometimes I feel, that Kubrick was too controlledI like a bit of naturalness & spontaneitywhereas Altman could be, the devil may care attitude and was too loose. Interesting that Shelly Duvall got to work with both directors and she was in for a rude awakening with Kubrick. She wasn't used to being manipulated and bullied. Her performance, is the best thing about THE SHINING-80'.well so say I. -
Teriek-Williams — 10 years ago(May 19, 2015 03:45 AM)
Kubrick was so controlled to the point of lacking humanity. However, most of his films were about a lack of humanity. It worked best for 2001, A Clockwork Orange & The Shining (except for Shelly Duvall). I don't think Duvall was fit for Kubrick's style.
Kubrick's most loose moments were Lolita, Dr. Strangelove and the first hour of Full Metal Jacket mostly due to the improv of Peter Sellers & R. Lee Ermey. Eyes Wide Shut, while very interesting, was so controlled that it became mechanical and stiff, removing the impact of the implied betrayal.
I hear David Fincher (Se7en, Gone Girl) is similar to Kubric111ck with numerous takes. However, his actors bring out a lot more than Kubrick did most of the time. Christopher Nolan's writing is similar to Kubrick in that he fails to bring up the emotional impact. He's getting better though.
Altman's 3 Women felt somewhat Kubrickian/Lynchian, but he allowed it to flow more openly than Kubrick did. However, Kubrick, to me, is light-years ahead of Altman and probably most of his era (as a technical director). -
rascal67 — 10 years ago(May 19, 2015 05:09 AM)
Kubrick cast Duvall, because he felt she would be the type of woman, that would end up with someone like Jack Torrance and not the Wendy that King described in his novel. She was a natural and in the moment actress and her head must've been spinning on this film. Kubrick was a pr!@k to her and he really should have let her be more spontaneous and in the moment. Some of her best parts in the film, are when you see Duvall, with her little and real eccentricities.like the little dance\skip she does, when they are being shown around the overlook.
Kubrick was all in his head and cold for the most part. Even the first part of FMJ, I can sense the planning and striving for some kind of technical precision. FMJ, is also too flawed, to be considered technically perfect. Unlike something like 2001. EYES WIDE SHUT, has grown on me over the years; but there is something about it that frustrates me. It could almost be Lynch, directing this film and if he had, it would have been more fluid and arbitrary. I agree with what you have commented about the controlled direction, diminishing the impact of the implicit betrayal.