What Makes Altman a Great Director or Storyteller?
-
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. -
Teriek-Williams — 10 years ago(May 19, 2015 02:00 PM)
If Duvall was picked because of her perceived weakness, Kubrick's harshness might have been a film theory in practice. When William Friedkin wanted Gene Hackman angry in The French Connection, he did repeated takes and provoked him. The anger you see in the car chase is heightened by that anger. Duvall might not have been ready for that, though she probably should have asked around about him. Many actors will do that.
David Fincher notably does numerous takes. The reason is make actors familiar with surroundings, and to replace their initial controlled approach with something fluid. Like Fincher, Kubrick used takes as rehearsals and planning sessions. However, his personality was obsessive compulsive, but doesn't such a word not describe his films? Still, he got great performances from Peter Sellers, George C. Scott and R. Lee Ermey.
FMJ altogether is very flawed, but the best parts feature R. Lee Ermey as the drill instructor who Kubrick gave the freedom to improvise lines and actions due to his experience as a Gunnery Sgt. It is also the only film I've seen to showcase Marine training on Paris Island during the Vietnam era. Unlike other Vietnam films, it focused on the brutality, cruelty and inhumanity of the war ONLY rather than the usual "victimized soldier" story often told.
The biggest problem with EWS is 16d0that Kubrick concentrated on the coldness of infidelity rather than the pain associated with it. If that was his intention, he should have veered more into the dark Illuminati world he teases to the audience. However, if you analyze that movie, there's so many things you notice from the unusual Christmas ornaments to the mentioning of the House of Windsor (the British Royal Family's royal house), all associated with Illuminati folklore. -
gorgsharpy — 10 years ago(June 17, 2015 03:43 PM)
Altman revolutionized film language and broke genre forms. He let the actors speak at the same time. He made non-movies about life behind the clichs and behind the facade. He refused to give us the gift. Instead, he showed us how difficult it is to wrap up the gift and the costs at it. He was sometimes an outsider a la Welles and went his own way. He leaves a great legacy, which is only waiting to be dusted off, described and discussed. Movies about human cruelty, vanity and pretence. And even without being the great visual artist. In return, he mastered the man-filled scenes, the live camera and the ability to create afterthought.
Take three films: Pret-a-Porter, Gosford Park and Prairie Home Companion. The Player could also be mentioned.
There is an apparent reality. The models in the papers or on the catwalk, the upper-class' upper-class-life or the voices and music on the radio. The reality is fictitious, it has its very own game, it is false, based on the desire to give it an expression, roles taken that slowly takes over the man who plays the role, as man becomes pure pretence. The characters are like wax figures caught up in their own body without life and personality.
But more importantly, behind the false glamor reality, behind the facade hides a new apparent reality, the "manufacturers of the glitter", be it fashion world journalists / designers / money men, be it upper-class servants, be they employees of the radio station. Dirty Pretty Things. All these groups seem honest and sincere, but they also play the game, fake, feigning, socially caught, weighed down by the "stars", body doubles or alter egos, without which these underdogs could not even exist. So they are not really interested in the truth about the total package coming for a day. Cf. reality TV shows.
(It would have been interesting to see Tristram Shandy in Altman's lens, not as Winterbottom's super funny Russian doll-play, with endless copies without Baudrillard-original, but as an ethical challenge created by Altman's ever-present insistence on a social and realistic sense).
Altman's three films is a new kind of world theater. The game is played and acrocities committed, even murder. But the game ends - the fashion fair ends, the hunting party dissolved, the radio program disbanded, and all forgotten, as if the reality behind the facade was as false and pretended as the fiction it should sell. A collective guilt, "production cost" becomes a necessary consequence of maintaining the pretty picture. Hollywood. It creates lot of repression rather than ideal redemption. A split screen so to speak, splitting personalities. Much more than water under the bridge, when Altman's characters meet. It is Altman vanitas painting. The picture is a lie, but the picture behind the picture is grim.
He is in my eyes the greatest American director of the concrete, man in the 1:1 dimension. -
Teriek-Williams — 10 years ago(June 17, 2015 05:45 PM)
You may have to go into greater detail about how his films highlighted the things you've mentioned. To me, Altman's legacy was he was an outsider, nothing else. He certainly wasn't a great visual artist (which is a huge part of great directing) and he relied on a very loose way of working to create stories, many of which were meandering bores (with the exception of 3 Women).
However, I am willing to discuss further the analysis of his work because I find Altman the worst director to ever achieve any acclaim, but I gather I could be wrong. 3 Women is the only answer I've received of that possibility. Everything else I saw of his was a confirmation of how overrated he was.
In terms of greatest American director, it's difficult to mention Altman among the likes of John Ford, Orson Welles, Charlie Chaplin, Stanley Kubrick and Martinb68 Scorsese who balanced story and visuals, piercing the minds of the casual public and cinephiles. At best, Altman seemed to influence directors to think outside the box, which they did better than he ever did in my opinion. -
gorgsharpy — 10 years ago(June 18, 2015 12:08 AM)
Hmm. If you already have watched the movies I mention I would assume that you would either be able to see my point or not. If you don't there's really not much I can do about it. Apart from being sorry that you are not receptive to his ideas. But I agree, he is not for everyone. He is artsy, in a French-ish way, to the point of being self-centered. But he is an auteur, no doubt about that. I can only recommend to try to take in his movies instead111c of refusing them. How did you get to the point of being irritated with him? Try to contain the aestethics in stead. If you can't then you can't. There is a lot of psychology going on. Altman makes fool of boths sides of society, as does Minnelli and partly Burton. Those are better cinematic references when it comes to Altman than Scorsese and Kubrick.
From what you write, no offence intended, I don't reckon you to be very versatile when it comes to movies. I would think you would have a hard time with Sofia Coppola, Antonioni and Cassavettes, too? Am I right? They have partly the same way of telling a story as Altman because they cheat the viewer into believing nothing is going on, so you have to look elsewhere for the theme. It's what Henry James called the Figure in the Carpet, if you ever read that.
"You couldn't be much further from the truth" -
several