Upcoming
Youth in Revolt
January 15
January 22
Drool
The Girl on the Train
Altman Forever
Responding to a fierce putdown of the late Robert Altman by Time's Richard Schickel in a review of Mitchell Zuckoff's Robert Altman: The Oral Biography, director Alan Rudolph has written an equally stern rebuke.
Earlier today L.A. Times columnist Patrick Goldstein posted the Rudolph letter and laid into Schickel also.
"The power of a major artist is that he or she is a force, standard, guide," Rudolph wrote. "What [Schickel] doesn't grasp is that great artists always lead the way. The torch gets passed, the message out, the influence permanent. You don't have to be aware of originators to be modified by them.
"Bob's insistence on doing things his own way was essential. It's the major struggle. And Altman won. Which is the ultimate defeat for the studio ruling class and establishment apologists. [Schickel] uses Jules Feiffer's troubles with Bob as an example of overindulgence, but glibly dismisses Feiffer's description of Altman as a genius. In the critic's mind, Bob wasn't the right kind of genius.
"Altman never changed. To have 'comebacks' shows he never went away. Some of his films might have been less than others, but each had the stuff of brilliance, and was part of a larger collection. Bob knew that continuously working in the rough was the best way to find the jewel. His biting humor never spared reality nor himself. The painful absurdity of it all. There was nobody like him during his professional peak, and there isn't now."
For what it's worth, Hollywood Elsewhere stands with Rudolph and Goldstein.
Schickel wrote that "none [of Altman's films] whatsoever will survive as anything more than historical curiosities. [They] do not transcend their times; even the best of them remain trapped within those times." And that, for me, is glorious enough. Because those times -- the '70s, mainly, when Altman had his great creative run -- delivered a rich and flavorful kind of filmmaking (and film-watching) that has inspired and nourished tens of thousands of film lovers, and will continue to do so. I didn't say "millions" because the Altman movies never reached...okay, were never intended to reach the popcorn multitudes, even when they were firing on all eight cyclinders. But what a delicious feast they are, and always will be.
Schickel states that Zuckoff's book "provides massive evidence that people had lots of fun making" Altman's films, the implication being that relatively few these days have fun watching them. The above clip from Altman's California Split (which I initially posted last February) disproves Schickel's suggestion and then some. It isn't just funny but exhilarating. It makes you smile at everything and everyone. I laugh every single time I see it, and if Altman had done nothing more in his career than create moments like this, he would still be in my pantheon with a gold star next to his name.
I only wish I could be in LA for the upcoming UCLA Film and Television Archive Robert Altman tribute, which begins on Sunday, 11.1. Included will be an 11.13 screening of Altman's The Long Goodbye, which Goldstein calls "a personal favorite." Me too, and for two reasons in particular.
The first is a scene in which Mark Rydell, playing a vicious and oily gangster, mentions to Elliott Gould's Phillip Marlowe that he was always afraid of getting undressed in the locker room at the end of gym class because he "never had any pubic hair until I was 15 years old," and Gould deadpans "Oh, yeah? You musta looked like one of the Three Little Pigs." The second is a third-act scene in which a small-town Mexican official refers to Marlowe's friend, a sociopath named Terry Lennox (Jim Bouton) who may have committed suicide, in heavily accented English as "the deceased," and Gould -- probably improvising -- says, "The diseased...yeah, right."
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on October 29, 2009 at 2:49 PM
comment #1
Pynchon8
says ...
Just bc there is no conventional narrative does not mean there is no narrative. Schickel's piece makes him sound like an incredibly lazy film viewer.
Posted by Pynchon8
at October 29, 2009 4:06 PM
comment #2
PopcornEyeglass
says ...
Schickel's an idiot. I didn't think anyone who'd seen Nashville, McCabe and Mrs. Miller, The Long Goodbye, The Player, Gosford Park, and most certainly The Long Goodbye could regard Altman as anything less than a major artist.
Furthermore, not only do his movies most certainly "transcend their times", Altman's influence has been monumental. Wes Anderson and Paul Thomas Anderson certainly owe the man a whole lot.
Also The Big Lebowski is pretty much a spiritual sequel to The Long Goodbye.
Posted by PopcornEyeglass
at October 29, 2009 4:08 PM
comment #3
Lost_Contacts
says ...
How has "MASH" not survived the test of time? Or "Nashville"? Or "Short Cuts"?
Altman was a master because of his misfires as much as anything. "Popeye" is some kind of train wreck, but it's one only a genius could create.
Posted by Lost_Contacts
at October 29, 2009 4:46 PM
comment #4
lonniechung
says ...
The best directors not only create films that stand on their own and transcend their era, but leave behind a body of work which taken as a whole can expose the portrait of a man/woman. The art becomes a living being that exposes the human condition - in my opinion Altman is the ultimate example of this.
Posted by lonniechung
at October 29, 2009 4:58 PM
comment #5
lazarus
says ...
Nice to see Alan Rudolph pop up, even if it's just in the newspaper. I don't know anyone else who's a fan, but I always liked his dreamier variation on the Altman technique. Trouble In Mind in particular is a favorite, and then there's Choose Me, Mrs. Parker in the Vicious Circle, Afterglow, The Moderns, and of course his very underrated adaptation of Vonnegut's Breakfast of Champions.
My favorite Altman, for the record, is probably California Split.
Posted by lazarus
at October 29, 2009 5:04 PM
comment #6
Mr. Fabulous
says ...
I will never read another word written by that tool Schickel. He's probably a DePalma fan.
Posted by Mr. Fabulous
at October 29, 2009 5:48 PM
comment #7
DeeZee
says ...
California Split's now online @ http://www.imdb.com/video/crackle/vi947585561/
Posted by DeeZee
at October 29, 2009 6:31 PM
comment #8
scooterzz
says ...
i don't think schickel is an idiot but his take on this seems to suggest an agenda other than just review...
Posted by scooterzz
at October 29, 2009 6:49 PM
comment #9
lipranzer
says ...
I'm another fan of Rudolph (though not, sorry to say, of BREAKFAST OF CHAMPIONS, though it is the type of failure only truly talented people make), and in addition to the ones you list, I'd also recommend LOVE AT LARGE (any movie that's bookended by Leonard Cohen's "Ain't No Cure for Love" gets my vote) and, though atypical of him, MORTAL THOUGHTS and THE SECRET LIVES OF DENTISTS.
And while I normally like Schickel, he definitely has issues with certain types of directors, and Altman seems to be one of them. I certainly feel he'll stand the test of time.
Posted by lipranzer
at October 29, 2009 8:31 PM
comment #10
Edward
says ...
I love Altman's films, even "Popeye."
Posted by Edward
at October 29, 2009 8:55 PM
comment #11
Gordon27
says ...
Judging from what he says in the article, he never liked Robert Altman's movies, or at least quickly grew tired of them. Therefore, I don't think he's impartial enough to say the movies won't stand the test of time.
A more impartial, if somewhat arbitrary, criterion... in 1998, the AFI compiled a list of the top 100 American films, voted on by all sorts of people; that list had one Robert Altman film. in 2007, they voted for a new list, largely comprised of the same movies. That list had two Robert Altman films, and MASH was higher than the first time. That seems to be standing the test of time, at least by the "wisdom of crowds" theory.
Posted by Gordon27
at October 29, 2009 11:14 PM
comment #12
Terry McCarty
says ...
Imagine the gaskets Schickel would blow if someone wrote with the same kind of irrational, stunted hatred about the lives and films of, say, Woody Allen and Clint Eastwood.
Posted by Terry McCarty
at October 30, 2009 12:44 AM
comment #13
Gaydos
says ...
Searching for consistency in this dimension is folly but I can't stop my quest. There are many many voices here asserting that Ebert has gone all soft on us and bemoaning what a drage iit is that he likes everything and now Schickel stands up and articulates why he never bought the Altman oeuvre and you'd think the site was visited only by delicate souls who tremble in their homes at the sound of critical dissent.
I think Schickel overstates the critique, but a) that doesn't render everything wonderful he's ever written suddenly declasse and b) he's questioning the lasting value of some of Altman's directorial flourishes and how well they've stood the test of time and c) he's asserting that a director without a fully formed world view is not, in his opinion, a world class filmmaker.
I think that's a refreshing attack and a reminder that all the multitracking and improv in the world won't mask (what he perceives as) an absence of wisdom and compassion and profound understanding/reflection of the human condition.
In other words, If I stopped reading David Thomson because he doesn't think Nic Roeg has a sense of humor (wrong!), I'd be missing all of his wit and insight that has illuminated the works of dozens of other filmmakers for me.
Ditto the Schick Man. He's a world class film historian/critic and even if you think he's bat shit crazy on this one, toughen up, folks.
And open your minds to the kinds of questions he's asking. How many filmmakers drop a few notches when you apply his rigorous appraisal of the qualities that separate the major artists from those who are merely riffing - in Bob's case - spliffing.
Posted by Gaydos
at October 30, 2009 10:11 AM
comment #14
Strangeways
says ...
Schickel is moralizing...he disapproves of boozing and dope so he hates Altman. He also doesn't like Alltman's style of filmmaking or point of view.
To suggest that Altman's best films won't live on is beyond ludicrous. Nashville will have a long, long life because it's one of the Great American Films because it's about America.
Schickel likes his directors mainstream and safe...he could be writing and reviewing films in the 50's, where he belongs.
Posted by Strangeways
at October 30, 2009 11:53 AM
comment #15
lazespud
says ...
Wow. Schickel seems staggeringly angry, which is the last emotion I would have used to describe him. Wow.
For what it's worth when Jeff says this:
"that has inspired and nourished tens of thousands of film lovers, and will continue to do so. I didn't say "millions" because the Altman movies never reached...okay, were never intended to reach the popcorn multitudes, even when they were firing on all eight cyclinders. But what a delicious feast they are, and always will be."
He might note that adjusted for inflation, MASH made almost $400 million dollars. A GIGANTIC hit, certainly loved by millions, but I completely get Jeff's point nonetheless. Thank God he wasn't making films designed to appeal to everyone...
Posted by lazespud
at October 30, 2009 12:10 PM
comment #16
Gaydos
says ...
By the way, I have the Altman bio and several folks here have wondered if there might be some "issues" around Altman and Schickel.
Don't know, but if you read the chapter on Altman's long-time producing partner, Scotty Bushnell, you might find some clues. Clearly the rule of not speaking ill of the departed was put aside as virtually everyone who ever worked with Altman piled on the vitriol for this troubled woman.
Posted by Gaydos
at October 30, 2009 12:26 PM
comment #17
Terry McCarty
says ...
A question re Schickel:
How is it that he did a complete turnaround on Chaplin from a scathing essay in SCHICKEL ON FILM to making a reverent feature--length documentary?
Posted by Terry McCarty
at October 30, 2009 12:44 PM
comment #18
AitchCS
says ...
What?! Is RS nuts? I recently saw McCAbe and Mrs. Miller and it holds up extremely well. it could have been made this year!
Posted by AitchCS
at October 31, 2009 9:00 AM
Post a comment