Re: RARA-AVIS: Re: The Long Goodbye

From: Patrick King ( abrasax93@yahoo.com)
Date: 16 Feb 2007


TL wrote: I can't believe that scamp got away with another one. He was a wiley sumbitch.
*********

I know you're being funny, but, frankly, he didn't
"get away with" it. The Long Goodbye is a low point in Altman's career by any standard. It did poorly at the box office and was not well received by critics. Only from an Andrew Saris pov, "forest" of films as opposed to individual "trees," is this film worth spending the time it takes to see it. If you're studying Altman for his take on the culture he was living through, this film, in context with his other films on either side of it, make some modicum of sense. Standing on it's own, or as a Chandler vehicle, as opposed to an Altman vehicle, it is a total failure.

Patrick King
--- Terrill Lankford < lankford2000@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: jimdohertyjr < jimdohertyjr@yahoo.com>
> >Sent: Feb 11, 2007 5:10 PM
> >To: rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: RARA-AVIS: Re: The Long Goodbye
> >
> >dave,
> >
> >Re your comments below:
> >
> >
> >
> >> "If you don't go in expecting Chandler or a
> straight detective
> >yarn,
> >> you may well fall madly in love with this oddball
> Long Goodbye. Not
> >> Altman's "best" or most ambitiously original
> work, but definitely
> >my
> >> favorite."
> >>
> >> A corollary to this statement I guess would be if
> you go in
> >expecting
> >> Chandler you may well madly hate this film...
> >
> >And I do. Not only because I was expecting
> Chandler, but because I
> >thought, and think, that I had every right to
> expect Chandler, and
> >that Altman had NO right to shit all over this
> perfectly just
> >expectation.
>
>
>
> I can't believe he didn't consult with you before
> filming commenced.
>
> Sounds like you'd like to get your hands on him and
> make him pay for the oversight.
>
> I can't believe that scamp got away with another
> one. He was a wiley sumbitch.
>
> And while you may hate the movie, Altman, and
> perhaps even cats, I don't think you can honestly
> make a claim that he defecated on you or your
> expectations since he didn't know you at the time.
>
> (I would like to think Altman might quote Marlowe
> (as spoken to Marty Augustine) if he had been given
> the option though, "I wouldn't think of doing that.
> Maybe some other time, though, you know.")
>
>
>
> >
> >> Like Terrill, I don't necessary take Altman
> thinking of Marlowe as
> >> a loser as a negative or an indication that
> Altman was trying to
> >> disparage Chandler's work. Hell, Rockford Files,
> which I always saw
> >> as the heir apparent to Marlowe, had Jimbo pretty
> much as a loser
> >> also, but in a sympathetic way, somewhat
> endearing way.
> >
> >Altman disparaged Chandler treatment of the
> character, and, whether
> >or not Altman finds losers sympathetic isn't the
> point. The point is
> >Marlowe is NOT a loser.
>
>
>
>
> He's says he is at the end of the movie. He even
> says that he lost his cat.
>
> But he still gets the last shot in. Isn't that good
> for something?
>
> Looks like he's the winner to me. As much as he can
> be one in the world in which he lives.
>
>
> >
> >And, while you're right about Jim being an heir
> apparent to Marlowe,
> >it's not Gould's Marlowe he's heir to, but Garner's
> own turn as the
> >character in the film version of THE LITTLE SISTER,
> and infinitely
> >better movie than TLG, for all that it's much less
> ambitious.
> >
>
>
>
>
> Now you're talking crazy talk. The only thing that
> movie has going for it is the first scene with Bruce
> Lee. (The second scene is incredibly stupid.)
>
> That movie is good evidence that Altman was right.
>
> It's tolerable, but pedestrian.
>
>
>
>
> >And you misread Rockford if you see him as a loser.
> He triumphs much
> >more often than he loses. He's handy with dukes.
> He's handy with
> >his gun. He's fast-talking and fast-thinking. And
> he's really
> >damned good at basic detective work. Sure he takes
> his lumps, but he
> >bounces back. He lives life on his own terms and
> is basically
> >happy. Finally, speaking as one who was blessed
> with a great dad, no
> >one who has a father like Rocky is a loser. And no
> one who can go
> >through the experience of being convicted of a
> crime he didn't commit
> >and emerge with as positive an attitude as Rockford
> does is a
> >loser.
> >
> >Gould's Marlowe, by way of sharp contrast, is none
> of these things.
> >He's just an ineffectual nebbish who spends most of
> the movie getting
> >pushed around while muttering that, "It's OK with
> me."
> >
> >JIM DOHERTY
>
>
>
>
> That may be his mantra through most of the film, but
> by the end I think we all understand that it WASN'T
> okay with him.
>
> Perhaps you take dialogue too literally.
> Occasionally, in more complex works, people say
> things they do not mean. And mean things they do not
> say.
>
> TL
>

 
____________________________________________________________________________________ It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 16 Feb 2007 EST