The second paragraph of the clipped post should actually
read:
"Consider the directors that I have mentioned in reference to
Altman: Losey, Polanski, Bergman, Fassbinder, Coen, Fellini,
Roeg, Huston, Welles, Weir
-- all of them have tremendous artistic distinction, all
control their projects to a very large extent (certain
exceptions of studio interference easily noted), and I would
therefore advance the thesis that none of them ever made a
"bad" film. We need everything they did."
I initially got a double word in there when I was cutting and
pasting.
On 11/12/07, Mark R. Harris <
brokerharris@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Robert Altman is my favorite film director. But
because of that inherent
> bias, and since I haven't seen The Long Goodbye in a
long while and am not
> interested in getting into a debate on its
particular merits, I've held my
> fire up till now.
>
> However, the comment on Altman's presumed failures
Popeye, OC and Stiggs,
> and Pret-a-Porter prompted me to dig back in my
email files and find a post
> I made to another group last year. It's a piece on
the DVD release of
> Images, in which I discuss that film in relation to
the work of a number of
> other directors. I won't reproduce all of it. But
the concluding paragraphs
> capture my credo with respect to Altman, or any
other artist whose work I
> respect, and I stand by this argument:
>
> "In an interview on the Images DVD, Altman
reiterates his frequently-
> made point that all his films are installments in an
ongoing vision
> and that assessments of the installments as being
higher or lower in
> quality don't matter much to him: if you're
interested in the
> vision, you're interested in the vision, right? I
think we should
> take Altman seriously on this: it is a challenge to
us to reframe
> our way of experiencing films. This is not to say
that there are no
> differences of quality between films or that those
assessments don't
> matter in some ways; it is to say that, once a
director has shown
> their artistic distinction and their ability to
control their
> projects without major compromise, everything they
do is interesting
> and of value because it expresses their
vision.
>
> Consider the directors mentioned that I have
mentioned in reference to
> Altman:
> Losey, Polanski, Bergman, Fassbinder, Coen, Fellini,
Roeg, Huston, Welles,
> Weir
> -- all of them have tremendous
> artistic distinction, all control their projects to
a very large
> extent (certain exceptions of studio interference
easily noted), and
> I would therefore advance the thesis that none of
them ever made
> a "bad" film. We need everything they
did.
>
> This business of charting an artist's work strictly
in terms of
> peaks and valleys is pop journalism, not serious
criticism. Pauline
> Kael set the tone for discussion of Altman in her
early reviews,
> which went up and down like a ping-pong ball; loved
MASH, hated
> Brewster McCloud, loved McCabe and Mrs. Miller,
hated Images (and at
> that point she said that since she had discerned a
definite
> alternating hit/miss pattern, she couldn't wait for
his next film).
> She continued on in that opinioneering way
throughout his career.
> Kael wrote much that was interesting on Altman, but
I would submit
> that as his biggest champion, she nonetheless
misunderstood the
> actual pattern of his work pretty completely.
Pauline Kael didn't
> care about Robert Altman 's vision; she cared
whether she liked the
> particular movie. That's a serious flaw in a
critic."
>
> Best regards,
> Mark Harris
>
>
> On 11/12/07, Channing <
filmtroll@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > With Kansas City Altman proved he could do
period. And with The
> > Player he proved he could do noir. But with
Long Goodbye he did
> > neither.
> >
> > I admire Altman's creativity and willingness to
experiment, but on
> > Long Goodbye I feel he missed the point. I also
feel Gould was
> > mis-cast and I disliked various changes to the
plot of the book. And
> > I hated how Gould was such a chump that he
loses every argument, even
> > one with a cat.
> >
> > I am aware that the critical consensus is that
The Long Goodbye is a
> > great film, I disagree and I'm in the minority.
But even if it's a
> > "classic" film it's a bad interpretation of
Raymond Chandler.
> >
> > And I suggest that with films like Popeye, OC
and Stiggs, and Pret a
> > Porter that Altman missed his target by a long
shot and that it's not
> > beyond the realm of possibility that he
could've missed on Long
> > Goodbye as well.
> >
> > --Chan
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Mark R. Harris
> 2122 W. Russet Court #8
> Appleton WI 54914
> (920) 470-9855
>
brokerharris@gmail.com
-- Mark R. Harris 2122 W. Russet Court #8 Appleton WI 54914 (920) 470-9855 brokerharris@gmail.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 12 Nov 2007 EST