TL wrote in response to something Jim said (for those of your
scoring at home):
>Terrill wrote:
>
>"Jim, you're assuming Altman thinks being a loser is
a bad thing. If you look at just about any of his films it is
pretty clear to see that he sympathizes with the losers over
the winners every time."
And then I said:
>Yeah, sure. Take THE PLAYER, for examp- oh...
uhhhh.... that is....
And then Terril said:
>You're saying he's on Griffin Mill's side in that
movie?
Let me be clear, I don't think Altman took a side here. Your
stated position was that he sympathized with the losers. My
take was that for Altman, art ought to imitate life, and thus
he was willing to blur the lines either a little or a lot,
and leave things messy (like he did in nearly every film of
his I've ever seen, success or failure). For what it's worth,
THE PLAYER is absolutely my favorite Altman movie. It's
darkly comic, and Tim Robbins is incredibly successful at
making the odious Griffin Mill a sympathetic point-of-view
character. How could one not root for him, even though he's a
leech, a drag on society, and everything that any sort of
true artistic soul would be against?
More to the point, it's got a strong plot that hangs together
very well. This is something that I can't say about most of
the rest of what I've seen of Altman's work, including "The
Long Goodbye."
> Interesting take. Here I was thinking Altman was
being ironic with the "happy" ending and all.
I don't think it's being "ironic." I think it was his attempt
to screw Hollywood back the way he felt he'd been screwed, by
portraying them exactly as he saw them (and for what it's
worth, I think he nailed it. Griffin Mill is as devastating
and accurate an amalgam portrait of any number of "industry
types" that I've met over the years [Jim Beaver excepted] as
anything I've ever seen in film. But just because I like some
of Altman's work does not mean that I feel the need to excuse
what I perceive to be his failures) . I think he was saying,
"This is how it starts out, and this is how it ends up. See
how much it's been dumbed down for the general pablum-loving
public?" The "artist" who is killed by Mill could easily
stand for Altman's view of his career, or of Welles', or of
Bogdanovich's.
> Guess I better watch that flick again,
too.
If you feel you need a reason, I guess.
>(For what it's worth it always seemed to me that
Altman's sympathies were with Griffin's discarded girlfriend
who makes the mistake of trying to play somewhat straight in
the film business and ends up a great big loser at the end of
the movie. I probably have that wrong as well, but the
illusion was satisfying while it lasted.)
I reiterate here my thoughts on Altman viewing his characters
as chess pieces. Part of the whole fabric of the story,
etc.
And then I wrote:
>>Seriously though, the above statement struck me
as incredibly glib.
To which Terrill replied:
> Not simply glib? INCREDIBLY glib? Damn it! And here
I was trying to be sincere for a change.
Maybe you should stick with the sarcasm? It seems to have
served you well so far.
And I said:
>>For what it's worth, I don't think that Altman's
characters were ever "real" to him. It always seemed to me as
if for him, directing actors was a bit like moving chess
pieces around on a board, and if you've gotta sacrifice a
knight and a few pawns.... well.
> Seems I've completely misunderstood what Altman was
doing all along.
Although I will allow for that possibility, I doubt that you
seriously do.
> Hell, now I've got to sit down and watch ALL of his
films again. (Thanks!)
You're welcome.:)
>>Your Mileage May Vary-
>It does.
As if there was any doubt.
Brian
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 15 Feb 2007 EST