Haven’t seen these two but I will for sure check them out. Sounds straight up my alley especially relating to my own filmmaking journey. The late bloomers always give me hope!
What are you thoughts on what seems like an almost post-modern approach to film genres (e.g., the war film, westerns, detective noir, etc.)--post-modern in the sense that the genres are part of the content. And what do you make of his attitude towards these genres? Off the top of my head, I want to say his attitude is derisive--maybe mocking and bitter towards Hollywood, with *The Player* being the ultimate expression of this? I haven't seen these films in a long time, so I could be really off base.
(On a related note, do you think that Altman influenced the Coen Brothers with regard to this treatment of Hollywood genre movies? I feel like they also wanted to tinker and update these genres, but they seemed to have a more positive, loving view of them.)
Mel Brooks famously said that he would only spoof something he genuinely loves. I think something similar is at play here. I don't think you'd make a western, even a subversive anti-western, if you didn't find something valuable in that genre.
So I think there is an element of irony and cynicism to Altman's take on classic film genres, but also a genuine connection to those genres and desire to do something new with them. And of course, the broader cinematic and cultural landscape of the seventies was very different than it was in the forties or fifties.
I just watched The Long Goodbye, a movie that the Coen bros. have cited as an influence on The Big Lebowski (stay tuned for an upcoming post!). In some ways, that movie subverts noir tropes, but in a lot of ways, Altman and Elliot Gould's Philip Marlowe is very faithful to Raymond Chandler's Philip Marlowe. Just surrounded by the world of the seventies.
What you're saying makes sense, but that might not be the case if the purpose is to subvert the genre, via a kind of poisoning of it. Again, it's been a while since I've seen the films, so I'm not sure if "poisoning" is the right word, but I think of these movies as having an anti-Hollywood vibe. With the exception of maybe *Barton Fink*, that doesn't seem to be the case with the Coen Brothers use of Hollywood genres.
*The Long Goodbye* might be an exception. That film may be more like an update to fit the 70s then a critique of the genre.
Welp, I may just have to start re-watching these films.
This is an interesting post. I've heard of Robert Altman but don't think I've seen any of his films. What stood out to me though was your mention of characters talking over each other being his style.
In real life, I struggle with conversations in groups. When there are more than 3 people, I just get lost - not sure where to join in, where to end, and trying to listen to multiple conversations at once and not taking anything in. I observed to myself recently that this is why I enjoy dialogue in films or TV because everyone talks one at a time (as they should!), no matter the context or situation - the characters could literally be in a war with explosions everywhere, yet I'll easily understand what each person is saying.
I'm not sure if I would enjoy this directorial style necessarily, but it made me realise that he is at least trying to capture more what real life is like. Just a random thought. I look forward to part 2.
I am so glad you've decided to write this series! As someone who's also never studied Altman at any depth, I'm learning so much already. I'd had no idea about his early use of multitrack dialogue or how late he "broke out," compared to so many. And it definitely makes sense, though I'd never really thought about it in these terms, that we've had to invent a new word to describe what he - or Lynch, for that matter, accomplished. I'm excited for the next installment, as Nashville is one of my all-time favorite films, but I'm equally thrilled to add those you've discussed here to my watch list.
You're writing about Altman with such passionate respect, it's infectious.
And thank you so much for the nod in the footnote! That makes my day. <3
I loved almost every Altman film I saw. I liked the way he avoided repeating himself: MASH was nothing like McCabe and Mrs. Miller, and neither was like The Long Goodbye. (Which IMO was hindered by the casting of Eliot Gould. He was too famous for real-life things, and he just did not look like Marlowe.) Anyway, carry on.
Must admit I’m neither familiar with Altman nor have I seen any of his films even by accident, despite me knowing the works of the other prominent filmmakers that belonged to New Hollywood. It’s really strange, I clearly have some digging to do, thanks to your piece.
He's someone that, despite being championed by a major contemporary filmmaker (Paul Thomas Anderson, his protege), hasn't really been a major part of public discourse probably since he died about 20 years ago.
Looking forward to part two. I haven't seen much from Altman so I think I'll have to throw on the Criterion Channel and do a little homework this week.
While the movies covered in this post are probably for completists, he had an incredible run in the seventies. Currently writing that post. I think I'll have to split it up into 2 posts because there's a lot to talk about.
I like what you’re doing here; my sense is that you’re talking a lot about technique and style, where a lot of film writers don’t do that enough for me. You also do it with efficiency and readability. (It’s hard to write interesting pieces about subpar films, and I usually don’t even try, for fear that I’ll lose people. I saw Countdown in a theater years ago and didn’t love it, but I found your review fascinating.)
I like to get a lot of nuts and bolts from writing about the arts, but it’s rare for critics to commit to that. Some of this is because of the need to focus on politics that many current writers indulge, but I think that trend just exacerbated a common critical habit, where they give you synopsis and talk about characters and acting primarily. I think I’ve read somewhere that this describes American critics more than it describes film critics from outside the US; I don’t know enough to know how accurate that is, but my anecdotal observation squares with that. And of course a filmmaker like Altman— whose style and technique are much more idiosyncratic than what you get with most filmmakers— is a perfect example of a director whose work isn’t illuminated so well by those approaches to criticism.
I think part of it (and this goes beyond film to other media) is that it's just easier, in most cases, to write about narrative, or characterization, or what a work might mean thematically or conceptually, than to talk about style. Because the latter does involve researching production histories to learn about what creative choices were made, etc.
To build off your comment, Altman's legacy is absolutely just as much about his approach to making movies as it is about what his movies 'say' on a thematic or conceptual level.
Oh, yeah. I would argue it’s even more about that than the theme/conceptual level. Could be that some Altman films would fit that thesis less well, but what I recall from watching Nashville and mash and the long goodbye etc. years ago is being emotionally affected by the way he showed us overlapping conversations, and scenes where it wasn’t always clear that he wanted us to focus on a particular strand. I think that richness makes it interesting to watch his best work over and over, hearing and viewing it different ways at different times. Back in my most Altman-obsessive days, I saw a few of his movies that didn’t work as well, but I’m one of presumably a still-minuscule cohort that thought Popeye was underrated.
Well, we haven’t announced the film yet (will be doing crowdfunding campaign soon) but in short, the song during early party scene is a big influence. FYI Dana Altman, Bob’s grandson is one of my producing partners. So, we’ve talked about that song as precursor to how Bob used Suicide is Painless in MASH. Similar gallows humor.
Altman's remark that he wanted to depict problems astronauts faced in real life resonated with me. In a strange way, the film seemed like a precursor to *The Right Stuff* and *Apollo 13*--strange because *Countdown* was purely fictional.
Some of the scenes that featured partially overlapping dialogue were some of my favorites, as they seemed the most real and the most dramatic, as a result.
Altman is right about the cartoonish ending that is in the film. If I understand the ending correctly, Caan's character uses his son's toy mouse as a kind of "compass" (or divining rod?!) to find his way. My understanding is that the ending Altman planned, featured the character panning back, showing that Caan's character was going in the wrong direction of the space station.
That ending would have been better than the actual ending, and it would have been fit with the earlier sequences of the government rushing the mission. It also would fit, with a contempt for those in power, but, man, would it have been a really grim ending (which would not be so uncommon in later 70's movies, I guess). I have to believe NASA and the USG would have protested strongly against that ending.
Haven’t seen these two but I will for sure check them out. Sounds straight up my alley especially relating to my own filmmaking journey. The late bloomers always give me hope!
Thanks so much for reading. Hope you enjoy the rest of the series.
What are you thoughts on what seems like an almost post-modern approach to film genres (e.g., the war film, westerns, detective noir, etc.)--post-modern in the sense that the genres are part of the content. And what do you make of his attitude towards these genres? Off the top of my head, I want to say his attitude is derisive--maybe mocking and bitter towards Hollywood, with *The Player* being the ultimate expression of this? I haven't seen these films in a long time, so I could be really off base.
(On a related note, do you think that Altman influenced the Coen Brothers with regard to this treatment of Hollywood genre movies? I feel like they also wanted to tinker and update these genres, but they seemed to have a more positive, loving view of them.)
Mel Brooks famously said that he would only spoof something he genuinely loves. I think something similar is at play here. I don't think you'd make a western, even a subversive anti-western, if you didn't find something valuable in that genre.
So I think there is an element of irony and cynicism to Altman's take on classic film genres, but also a genuine connection to those genres and desire to do something new with them. And of course, the broader cinematic and cultural landscape of the seventies was very different than it was in the forties or fifties.
I just watched The Long Goodbye, a movie that the Coen bros. have cited as an influence on The Big Lebowski (stay tuned for an upcoming post!). In some ways, that movie subverts noir tropes, but in a lot of ways, Altman and Elliot Gould's Philip Marlowe is very faithful to Raymond Chandler's Philip Marlowe. Just surrounded by the world of the seventies.
What you're saying makes sense, but that might not be the case if the purpose is to subvert the genre, via a kind of poisoning of it. Again, it's been a while since I've seen the films, so I'm not sure if "poisoning" is the right word, but I think of these movies as having an anti-Hollywood vibe. With the exception of maybe *Barton Fink*, that doesn't seem to be the case with the Coen Brothers use of Hollywood genres.
*The Long Goodbye* might be an exception. That film may be more like an update to fit the 70s then a critique of the genre.
Welp, I may just have to start re-watching these films.
re: Altman and genre, you might like the most recent post in this series. https://walrod.substack.com/p/altmanesque-iii
This is an interesting post. I've heard of Robert Altman but don't think I've seen any of his films. What stood out to me though was your mention of characters talking over each other being his style.
In real life, I struggle with conversations in groups. When there are more than 3 people, I just get lost - not sure where to join in, where to end, and trying to listen to multiple conversations at once and not taking anything in. I observed to myself recently that this is why I enjoy dialogue in films or TV because everyone talks one at a time (as they should!), no matter the context or situation - the characters could literally be in a war with explosions everywhere, yet I'll easily understand what each person is saying.
I'm not sure if I would enjoy this directorial style necessarily, but it made me realise that he is at least trying to capture more what real life is like. Just a random thought. I look forward to part 2.
Great article. Long Goodbye and California Split are my two favourites.
I am so glad you've decided to write this series! As someone who's also never studied Altman at any depth, I'm learning so much already. I'd had no idea about his early use of multitrack dialogue or how late he "broke out," compared to so many. And it definitely makes sense, though I'd never really thought about it in these terms, that we've had to invent a new word to describe what he - or Lynch, for that matter, accomplished. I'm excited for the next installment, as Nashville is one of my all-time favorite films, but I'm equally thrilled to add those you've discussed here to my watch list.
You're writing about Altman with such passionate respect, it's infectious.
And thank you so much for the nod in the footnote! That makes my day. <3
If you haven't seen them, you might enjoy the two horror-adjacent-ish movies he made in the seventies, Images and 3 Women.
I’ve added them to my watchlist on Letterboxd!
I loved almost every Altman film I saw. I liked the way he avoided repeating himself: MASH was nothing like McCabe and Mrs. Miller, and neither was like The Long Goodbye. (Which IMO was hindered by the casting of Eliot Gould. He was too famous for real-life things, and he just did not look like Marlowe.) Anyway, carry on.
Looking forward to revisiting The Long Goodbye.
Must admit I’m neither familiar with Altman nor have I seen any of his films even by accident, despite me knowing the works of the other prominent filmmakers that belonged to New Hollywood. It’s really strange, I clearly have some digging to do, thanks to your piece.
He's someone that, despite being championed by a major contemporary filmmaker (Paul Thomas Anderson, his protege), hasn't really been a major part of public discourse probably since he died about 20 years ago.
Looking forward to part two. I haven't seen much from Altman so I think I'll have to throw on the Criterion Channel and do a little homework this week.
While the movies covered in this post are probably for completists, he had an incredible run in the seventies. Currently writing that post. I think I'll have to split it up into 2 posts because there's a lot to talk about.
I like what you’re doing here; my sense is that you’re talking a lot about technique and style, where a lot of film writers don’t do that enough for me. You also do it with efficiency and readability. (It’s hard to write interesting pieces about subpar films, and I usually don’t even try, for fear that I’ll lose people. I saw Countdown in a theater years ago and didn’t love it, but I found your review fascinating.)
I like to get a lot of nuts and bolts from writing about the arts, but it’s rare for critics to commit to that. Some of this is because of the need to focus on politics that many current writers indulge, but I think that trend just exacerbated a common critical habit, where they give you synopsis and talk about characters and acting primarily. I think I’ve read somewhere that this describes American critics more than it describes film critics from outside the US; I don’t know enough to know how accurate that is, but my anecdotal observation squares with that. And of course a filmmaker like Altman— whose style and technique are much more idiosyncratic than what you get with most filmmakers— is a perfect example of a director whose work isn’t illuminated so well by those approaches to criticism.
Thanks so much for your kind comments.
And I agree.
I think part of it (and this goes beyond film to other media) is that it's just easier, in most cases, to write about narrative, or characterization, or what a work might mean thematically or conceptually, than to talk about style. Because the latter does involve researching production histories to learn about what creative choices were made, etc.
To build off your comment, Altman's legacy is absolutely just as much about his approach to making movies as it is about what his movies 'say' on a thematic or conceptual level.
Oh, yeah. I would argue it’s even more about that than the theme/conceptual level. Could be that some Altman films would fit that thesis less well, but what I recall from watching Nashville and mash and the long goodbye etc. years ago is being emotionally affected by the way he showed us overlapping conversations, and scenes where it wasn’t always clear that he wanted us to focus on a particular strand. I think that richness makes it interesting to watch his best work over and over, hearing and viewing it different ways at different times. Back in my most Altman-obsessive days, I saw a few of his movies that didn’t work as well, but I’m one of presumably a still-minuscule cohort that thought Popeye was underrated.
Currently writing about Popeye! Stay tuned.
Very nicely done, and I liked your take on Countdown (a big influence on my next film)
Thanks so much.
Tell me about the influence of Countdown on your film!
Well, we haven’t announced the film yet (will be doing crowdfunding campaign soon) but in short, the song during early party scene is a big influence. FYI Dana Altman, Bob’s grandson is one of my producing partners. So, we’ve talked about that song as precursor to how Bob used Suicide is Painless in MASH. Similar gallows humor.
Thoughts on *Countdown* (some spoilers)
Altman's remark that he wanted to depict problems astronauts faced in real life resonated with me. In a strange way, the film seemed like a precursor to *The Right Stuff* and *Apollo 13*--strange because *Countdown* was purely fictional.
Some of the scenes that featured partially overlapping dialogue were some of my favorites, as they seemed the most real and the most dramatic, as a result.
Altman is right about the cartoonish ending that is in the film. If I understand the ending correctly, Caan's character uses his son's toy mouse as a kind of "compass" (or divining rod?!) to find his way. My understanding is that the ending Altman planned, featured the character panning back, showing that Caan's character was going in the wrong direction of the space station.
That ending would have been better than the actual ending, and it would have been fit with the earlier sequences of the government rushing the mission. It also would fit, with a contempt for those in power, but, man, would it have been a really grim ending (which would not be so uncommon in later 70's movies, I guess). I have to believe NASA and the USG would have protested strongly against that ending.