The quality of his work is spotty.
MASH, The Player, and the Last Picture Show were great.
Short Cuts was an insult to the memory of Raymond Carver.
The Last Picture Show was directed by Peter Bogdanovich.
I agree with you that MASH* was well done. It was a groundbreaker in its time and still holds up. I didn’t watch the TV series for a couple of years just because I thought that it couldn’t live up to the movie.
Nashville was utterly boring and dishonest.
But for me the real gem is Gosford Park. I know that some here don’t like the Altman commentary, but I rate it as the best I’ve heard on DVD. After I saw how meticulous he is, I am in awe. And I understand why so many actors want to work with him.
I haven’t seen many of Altman’s films, but I couldn’t let this pass without comment. MAS*H is one of the most overrated movies (and TV shows, too) of the 1970s. I finally sat down and watched the film a few years ago. I rose from my chair two hours later totally dumbfounded. Why is this film considered “great”? If Altman wanted to make an anti-Vietnam movie, why not do just that? Why obfuscate the location? At no point did I believe a single character in the film existed in the 1950s, or that members of the U.S. military in a war zone who were M.D.s would either wish or be allowed to act as the characters in the film did. Basically, it looked like a movie made by and for a bunch of 1960s hippies, passed off as some kind of “statement” by people who knew virtually nothing about war. (And just because Altman was in the Air Force doesn’t mean his insights on the subject are especially weighty.)
To this day, I don’t get why this movie deserved five Oscar nominations. I can only guess it was a film of its time; probably anything openly anti-war would’ve got noticed in 1970. If the exact same film were released now, I’ll bet it would sink like a stone.
You’re right/
:smack:
I saw MASH last week, for the first time in a couple of decades, and was amazed by how poor it was. It was as if he’d introduced all of these innovations (overlapping dialogue, large ensemble cast, anti-war attitude, cursing, etc.) and never trouble to ask whether his script had any structure or sense at all.
Because no American Studio would let you make one at the time. It’s not unlike what happened 'round 9/11 - erring on the side of caution, anything that even mentioned the twin towers or terrorists was immediatley shelved. Same here.
As a way of getting around the whole Vietnam issue. Notice that there was only only mjor reference to this being in Korea, and it was at the start?
Firstly, see above. Secondly, it’s a comedy, jackass, of course they do things that wouldn’t be allowed. I guess you didn’t like Stripes either.
Should I also point out that it’s based on a book by a surgeon who served in Korea?
Altman’s good at working with actors, but has no interest in telling a story, and appears to have nothing at all to say about the human condition other than vague trendy pessimism.
I think MAS*H is mildly amusing, but very dated and misogynistic in that hippy way. The fact that about a third of the film is about American Football means I may not be able to fully appreciate it, though.
Short Cuts has some great performances, but has nothing to do with the Carver originals. It’s marred by an apocalyptic pessimism, misanthropy and misogyny (lots of gratuitous shots of female genitalia used to illustrate how serious a director he is). It seems to be trying to take a bleak and nihilistic view of human nature and a civilisation on the verge of collapse which isn’t proved in the film (where plenty of characters are perfectly nice) but is just tagged on to make a big ending.
Nashville is bitty and somewhat pointless. The Player was clever, but hardly a serious insight into modern Hollywood.
Fool For Love is utterly inept and as bad a film of a classic of modern American theatre as you’re likely to get. Although Sam Shepard may take some of the blame for that, compare it to Wenders’ collaboration with Shepard, Paris Texas.
Popeye was absolutely appalling, truly bizarre, and the least explicable film in the history of commercial filmmaking.
I agree with the OP in a general sense. It seems to me that many folks (in the arts) put out a couple of seminal works, then are given the “genius pass” for the rest of their careers (see Phil Spector)…
Hollywood loves movies about Hollywood. I think The Player has been overrated for that very reason. Altman cynically takes advantage of this, even to the extent of inserting a (dissonant) Hollywood character in the English drawing room mystery Gosford Park.
You want to get an Oscar nomination, make a movie about Hollywood. That seems to be the theory.
And I agree with the posters who say MAS*H is dated. I like the movie, but it is very much of its time.
I guess it’s too much to ask of movie that’s supposed to be a comedy that it actually be funny, huh asshole?
And Altman took a book originally written by a Korean war vet about Korea, and tried to make a statement about Vietnam with it? How stupid is that? I agree with spoke- and refusal’s posts.
And if “Stripes” is your idea of an unquestionably funny movie, then the debate is over. :rolleyes:
Altman’s not a genius. He’s a dull, mediocre man who makes dull, mediocre movies.
My problem with Altman is this: his good films (“Short Cuts,” for instance) are few and far between, and usually aren’t all THAT good.
His bad films, on the other hand, are both numerous and REALLY bad!
I mean, who else could have crud like “O.C. & Stiggs”, “Dr. T and the Women,” and “Ready to Wear” on his resume and STILL be hailed as a genius???
Actually, Lizard, he DID make a statement about Vietnam with MASH. A strong, even courageous statement that few were willing to make publicly, at least in the filmmaking community. A lot of anti-vietnam statements were made with works ostensibly about other wars: Slaughterhouse-5, and even Catch-22, which came out (the novel) before anyone knew what Vietnam was.
I agree with many of these statements. Altman has made a lot of very bad movies; he’s very poor at structure; his movies are infected with a sort of glib pessimism, etc. etc. I doubt any of his movies would make my personal list of best American movies of the last 30 years.
But you know, none of that really matters. Genius is not a synonym for perfection, or even excellence. Altman brought a lot to American movies, and even if you don’t like his work you can still be grateful for his influence. (In my book, he deserves a place in the pantheon if only for showing other American directors what can be done with ensemble acting.) Most importantly, he has a unique voice and an individual touch. Those are rare qualities that should be treasured, because Lord knows you don’t find them in 90% of the movies that are released.
I found MAS*H very innovative at the time it came out. As Leachboy pointed out, the concepts and innovations that Altman used were very different and novel. They were so effective that they have become standards, and truth be told, others have improved upon them since, so, of course, they do not look like the genius they did at the time.
It was also extremely funny at the time too. But we must remember that humor doesn’t always age well, and often when you take humor out of its original context, it will fall flat. This may well be the case with many of your (collective usage here) dislikes of MAS*H. You also need to take into consideration that you are possibly viewing the film through a memory of the television show, a show that took a completely different view of the concept - a brilliant, innovative show in its own right too.
I apparently am the only person who liked Nashville. I found it fascinating. The whole non-linear concept of story telling was almost hypnoptic for me. Zoe called it “dishonest” I’m not sure I agree with that. Altman is a very “point of view” director and it may not have been your point of view, but clearly it was his and if you let him take you through “his” Nashville, it might address some of the boringness. For me at least, it became almost a ride at some Disneyland-type theme park into a world of idols, nuts, wannabes and almost weres.
Is it the real Nashville? No, of course it’s not. But still, I found it interesting.
TV
Has this thread really gotten this long without mentioning “McCabe and Mrs. Miller”, the one Altman film I really care about? What are others’ thoughts on this one, or did he not direct it?
Is this the guy married to Linda Carter - Wonder Woman?
The majority of Altman’s work is pretty mediocre, except for one of his first films. Brewster Mcloud was utterly hilarious and irreverant, and the films climax is possibly 30 of the most beautiful seconds I’ve ever seen captured on film. Rent it immediately.
Different Robert Altman.
This is interesting. If you dissed Altman on the Salon message boards (back in the day when they were open to the public) you would have heard the high-pitched screams from film school types for miles. Interesting to see that here he’s not worshipped as he was there.