Fraud director. Put a dozen actors together and let them improvise
-
Disardor — 14 years ago(September 14, 2011 07:00 PM)
Altman made his share of duds but it's a credit to his genius that even his poorer films tend to be "interesting failures." For example O.C. & Stiggs is by most accounts a terrible movie but Altman's stated intention for the project was to subvert the teen comedy genre by making the two protagonists obnoxious and unlikable. Quintet is 1354generally thought of as a disappointment (I personally like it) but it has amazing production design and the movie itself certainly captures a bleak post-apocalyptic feel better than most movies of its ilk. I could name others, but I guess I just don't subscribe to the same school of thought as you, which seems to be that "geniuses" never make mistakes. Which directors do you consider to be geniuses? I would wager that virtually any director who made anything approaching as many films as Altman did has a dud or two in his filmography.
Also, he did give plenty of credit to his actors and editors and seemed to savor the collaborative nature of filmmaking. His methods were different than, say, Stanley Kubrick's (who tended to control almost all aspects of his productions) but I don't think he's any less brilliant for them. -
SimplemindedSociety — 14 years ago(September 21, 2011 12:44 AM)
I feel ambivelant about the word "genius" and it's meaning, when talent may be a more approriate adjective. If a singer is born with extraordinary pipes,is she a genius, or talented? If Lucy could make something funny like nobody else could,is that being a 'genius' or innate-talent?
That being said, if I had to name a director who could make the ordinary extraordinary, it would be Alfred Hitchcock.
You made an interesting point about Altman giving plenty of credit to his actors and editors and savoring the collaborative nature of filmmaking. Hitchcock wasn't into that; he mostly took control of his projects and wasn't interested in input from his actors. If you helped me with baking a prize-recipe,how I am not less brilliant for it? I think I would be less brilliant for it. Perhaps if Altman didn't collaborate so much, he would have less duds assuming he could do it. -
franzkabuki — 14 years ago(October 24, 2011 08:48 PM)
OK, theres hardly any point to even bother, but a couple of things are in a bad need of straightening out - firstly, Altman did not rely as much on the ingenuity of his actors as the myth has it, and also, the vast majority of the improv took place in the rehearsals, not during the actual filming. Secondly, he never seemed to miss an opportunity to play down his own role in his film-making and emphasize the contribution of his actors so how did he not give credit? Thirdly, he stated he loves all his films equally, no matter if its a hit or a miss (how can a director only take credit for his hits, anyway? They all bare his name). And fourthly, about honoring the editors - Im sure they were all fine craftsmen, but the fact remains that while Altman employed close to 20 different editors during his career, his style always stayed more or less the same, somewhat depending on the nature of the material. Wonder why that was.
As for your personal taste or opinion, I dont particularly care. Itd just be better if you made sure you know what youre talking about before hitting the forum.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan -
SimplemindedSociety — 14 years ago(October 24, 2011 09:02 PM)
It not that you shouldn't bother, but you don't undertand my point. The irony is that what you just said is the basis of my OT.
If I am an actor, I don't want a director telling me "go for it, let's see what you got". Not to say that actors don't have ideas and suggestions that can punctuate the director's vision, but my job as an actor is to enact the script that was written,otherwise give me credit as co-writer for my 'contribution',while we're at it. I am not necessarily there to create and improvise until the director sees it jive. Let him hire Second City if he jives on being so artsy and experimental. I know exactly what I am talking about before I hit the forum. If Alfred Hitchcock told you the same thing, would my opinion suddenly take on a higher stature? -
franzkabuki — 14 years ago(October 25, 2011 01:12 AM)
What the hell does the knowledge that Altman actually did direct his actors, that it was him thats responsible for his signature style and not his editors, that he was not an arrogant, ungrateful and hypocritical sonofabitch who only took credit for his successes and blamed his flops on his collaborators, have to do with elitism?
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan -
SimplemindedSociety — 14 years ago(October 25, 2011 01:33 AM)
Because some people say that his misfires were the result of viewersperhaps not 'sophisticated' enough not getting him(or the film),when in reality the viewers were too busy falling asleep.
I have no idea about the personality-stuff you brought up; I never accused of him of that. -
franzkabuki — 14 years ago(October 25, 2011 02:34 AM)
"Not sophisticated enough".
Well take it up with those "some people", then - Ive never implied any such thing & Ive never considered Altman particularly "artsy", anyway (with a few exceptions such as 3 Women or the failed experiment Quintet). Mostly, hes pretty fun.
"The viewers were too busy falling asleep".
Their loss. Most people are just unwilling to venture much outside of their comfort zone or reshape their ideas of what cinema oops, movies can be or do. You seem to be insisting that any different kinds of films should not exist at all - why else are you so offended that youve seen fit to complain about him for several months, on several threads.
"I never accused him of that".
"Give the editors the credit then". "If the films a hit, hell take credit". Your words from OP. Clearly implying Altman was a selfish as-hole who was wilfully robbing his actors & crew of their rightful accolades.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan -
claudja777 — 13 years ago(October 19, 2012 03:30 PM)
u are entitled to your own opion, but what's the point to go to his forum where obviously poeple like his craft?i know in forum that's what happens, BUT you should at least articulate in order to recieve a real answer and starts a debate.
-
SimplemindedSociety — 13 years ago(October 19, 2012 03:40 PM)
Fair enough.
Yes, it's a board for Altman, and of course many people don't value what I say, however it's not a fan board.
If Altman is that superior, then why such a ratio of FLOPS to successes? For example,if you were a filmmaker staring out, and made those flops first, you would likely never have a career.
Even Robert Ebert had a saying about a certain filmmaker(not Altman)that "the Emperor has no clothes"
Why must it be either 'great' or 'poor' on every imdb board? -
claudja777 — 13 years ago(October 19, 2012 04:37 PM)
ok, good point ,I'll try to answer
why could he afford making all those movies if they all bombed? I'll answer with how he answers from the book "altman on altman"
he practically says that 1)the success of mash (78 million in 69,costed 3)helped him have some kind of "trusthworthness" which of course is not enough,other reasons are-he listed them-alan ladd jr at fox really liked his work ,and greenlit all his work in the 79's;(he got fired after some clashes regarding his work)2- pauline kael was a HUGE fan who made enthusiastic reviews of all his movies until buffalo bill,and she was like,a very important voice back then 3- big name actors accepted to work for him for little (as happens with allen, for example)
on a more personal side, i don't love all his movies, but for me ,tecnichally speaking, he is the best director ever.I'm talking the way he shot, simple yet recognizible.very lean,very moving,precise.i love it.some shots he made are so artistic yet so fitting.like on mash,when they come back from the golf trip and exit the elicopter.DAMN!anyway.
to make an example, im a huge billy wilder films fan (don t like all his movies too,btw, if u ask me the only directors who never failed are hitchcock-and im not even fan,but still, and lubitsch)but i dont consider is direction recognizable,impressive and or catchy.
id say altman best movies are the same that national film institute recognize as that.mc cabe, mash and nashville. -
SimplemindedSociety — 13 years ago(October 19, 2012 04:56 PM)
But those films are isolated to the 70's period.
and why the huge cast in her almost every film? It's almost like the concept of throwing some many people/things on the screen, and having some of them stick. -
claudja777 — 13 years ago(October 20, 2012 01:47 AM)
those films are from the 70.i think the huge cast concept stuck around after nashville.but he doesnt use huge cast like always.dr t,mc cabe, quintet, a perfect couple, popeye, mccloud, stiggs and oc , california split, long goodbye 3 woman and mash don t have big cast.
-
franzkabuki — 13 years ago(October 22, 2012 02:40 AM)
Altmans "ratio of flops to successes" is completely acceptable; hes actually much more consistent than often given credence for, with only 4 movies out of 23 Ive seen being bad. Even his relatively less-than-accomplished works, like Brewster McCloud or Kansas City, are at least interesting and adventurous, one of the few true original visionaries as he was. And btw, he DID start out with the rather poor That Cold Day In The Park.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan -
SimplemindedSociety — 13 years ago(October 22, 2012 02:46 AM)
'That Cold Day In The Park' is not considered poor from what I have read. Actually, his best regarded work is from the mid 70's. Maybe that is before he became too self-absorbed.
Weigh it for yourself.