Why were there no great films between
-
lcrews — 14 years ago(March 30, 2012 08:56 PM)
Altman's greatest years coincided with the "New Hollywood" of the '70s, where idiosyncratic directors were free to pursue their muses and create some truly unique films. Directors that scored some hits got to keep on directing whatever they wanted for a while, and Altman had two certifiably huge hits with MASH and Nashville. But by the end of the '70s, the Jaws/Star Wars mentality had taken over, and Altman had to move to live theater, independent film and TV to stay working. (It was either that or go mainstream, and Popeye was his attempt to go mainstream. 'Nuff said about that!)
The reduced funding and the need to compromise surely did hamper his '80s work, but he came back with a vengeance in the '90s, which saw a brief resurgence in popularity of films in the "New Hollywood" style. -
buby1987 — 13 years ago(July 18, 2012 08:48 PM)
In the 80's, a lot of 70's auteurs either didn't work or were forced to make dumb studio films. Altman went underground, making low budget films. He had no choice, but he made the best of it.
I feel that he had exhausted his artistic approach with Health, in which he worked with a large ensemble and a fairly large budget. In some ways the 80's stringency was a blessing, because it forced Altman to be creative with not only smaller budgets, but stage plays that presented creative restrictions and challenges that he met with ingenuity.
Altman's four main play adaptations Jimmy Dean, Streamers, Secret Honor and Fool for Love show Altman starting back at square one, reinventing himself. He found creative ways to film these plays and make them cinematic. Secret Honor is especially impressive, considering it's a one man play compare Altman's film to the 1975 Give 'Em Hell Harry, another filmed one-man play that is pretty good but is pretty standard and devoid of cinematic imagination.
I didn't much care for Beyond Therapy, but the script was weak, and nobody could have made a good film out of that. O.C. and Stiggs was a return to big-budget major studio filmmaking, with a larger cast and multiple outdoor locations. Of course, the studio shelved it and it went straight to video a few years after it was filmed.
Tanner 88 was yet another comeback, this time in a new medium for Altman cable TV. Nowadays, many major film directors do projects on HBO, but Altman blazed a trail back in 1988. Tanner 88 is one of the best things ever done for cable, and it's one of the greatest political satires ever.
In retrospect, Altman's 80's output was highly respectable. Compare his 80's films to the 80's work of Michael Ritchie, who did stuff like Golden Child and Wildcats, or Hal Ashby, who made some awful films like Slugger's Wife. Altman had the right idea walk away from the studio system and find creative freedom on a smaller budget. -
franzkabuki — 13 years ago(July 28, 2012 02:26 AM)
Well, yeah, the decline experienced by some of the 70s big directors cannot really be blamed on lack of opportunity or finances - look at Roegs Eureka, for instance, which was a fairly lavish, extravagant production featuring big stars like Gene Hackman yet is a terrible mess. Coppola or that same Ashby werent operating on a shoestring budget, exactly, either.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan -
DreTam2000 — 13 years ago(February 17, 2013 05:08 AM)
Ooh, so
that
's what happened. That must be why Coppola's films also took quite a dive and never recovered after the 70s. His post-70s movies never really saw a return to his crisply shot and flawlessly edited films from before.
If what you say is true, then I am newly educated as to why so many directors seem to have had issue with films after a certain point. Studios interfered in ways that are not so apparent to us viewers who do not research the situations well enough.
It seems to me that the last twelve years or so have had their own switch which has caused directors who began around the 80s to really have issue with making new movies as crisply as they did befor111ce (namely due to CGI and green-screen reasons).
I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way -
SimplemindedSociety — 13 years ago(February 19, 2013 05:10 AM)
well, I don't know about "crisp",but maybe he did what they call semi-tasking:
If things went right, Altman took the credit,if it was a bomb,others took the blame
I think when you put 30 characters on the screen with 12 plots, some are bound to stick. It's like taking a roll of film as an amatuer, and via the law averages,at least one will turn out great. -
SimplemindedSociety — 13 years ago(February 19, 2013 08:05 AM)
what did Altman say: 'people don't get me", or "audiences don't relate to my art"?
NO, it's because the films are boring and uninteresting.(Carol Burnett sure had her bubble burst after dying to work with him)
You don't need to like my opinion. -
SimplemindedSociety — 13 years ago(February 19, 2013 04:08 PM)
I don't know,sounds like you need a remote understanding of your very bargain-basement use of thoughts and vocabulary(etc.)
In other words,how shall I say this on your level.. "get off the weed,man"
Just "cuz" -
SimplemindedSociety — 13 years ago(February 22, 2013 01:10 AM)
'Your moronic babbling would be funny if it wasnt so sadly symptomatic of larger tendencies of IMDb discourse'
oh my..
Now franzkabuki is turning all 'professional' and verbose on me;changing tracks.