Filmmaking - In Praise Of Robert Altman
One of my favorite modern filmmakers, the
great Director Robert Altman has died, at 81.
Altman made mostly tv from 1951, with two features in 1957,
“The James Dean Story,” and “The Delinquents,” and in 1969
“That Cold Day In The Park,” shot in Vancouver, BC.
Although he’d directed them, and many of my favorite tv shows,
(like “Combat!,” “Route 66,” “Bonanza,” “The Roaring 20’s,”
“Surfside 6,” “Lawman,” “Maverick,” “Sugarfoot,” “U.S. Marshal,”
“The Millionaire,” “Hawaiian Eye,” “Whirlybirds,” “Peter Gunn,”
“Alfred Hitchcock Presents,” and a 1977 segment of “Saturday Night
Live”), for me, his movie career begins with “M*A*S*H.”
I got caught up in “M*A*S*H” in 1970, and watched it many,
many times. Hundreds of times, actually, just to see how
deliciously seamless was this anarchic collection of war
anecdotes. In many ways, it’s still Altman’s best film.
It was his biggest box office hit.
Hollywood said “M*A*S*H” couldn’t be done.
Altman was the fifteenth Director
offered the project.
It said “Korea” at the top of “M*A*S*H,” (at the insistence
of Fox, the studio), but it was obviously an anti-war movie
about all wars, most notably (then-current) Vietnam.
And funny! In my opinion, nobody in that film has done
better work, before or since.
I don’t just watch movies.
I devour them. I study them.
I was studying “M*A*S*H” again recently. DVDs sure make it
easier now. Back and forth, forth and back, frame by frame.
In 1970, it wasn’t quite so easy. I was a self-proclaimed
movie reviewer, 14 years old, a junior in high school.
I’d recently seen my first theatrical movie,
and was ruined for regular work.
My technique was to show up at movie theatres (standard or
drive-in) and show a little card I’d made on a Xerox machine.
They’d let me in, and I’d see the movie over and over, until I’d
absorbed it, and I’d go home and type my review, and mail it to
local newspapers.
A surprising number of them got printed. Getting printed got
much easier once I was in college. They let me write for their
newspaper, and I got access to a better Xerox machine.
Seeing movies got to be much easier when I got jobs as
projectionist and theatre manager, and easiest of all
when I bought my own theatre.
I first met Robert Altman in 1976. He’d made a movie called
“Nashville” the year before. I’d watched it more than 150 times.
Mr. Altman came to speak at my college, the University of
Washington, in an enormous concrete bunker called Kane Hall.
The hall seated several hundred comfortably, and was packed far
beyond capacity. Altman had come to speak, bringing with him
beautiful Sally Kellerman and his very talented protégé
Alan Rudolph, the director of the film they were there
to plug, “Welcome To L.A.” It was a fun film,
a real indy feel, music by Richard Baskin.
Altman talked about his career, and “Welcome To L.A.” and
answered movie questions from the audience.
I asked one about “Nashville,” wanting to know whether the
motorcade that starts the assassination sequence was an
intentional allusion to the 8mm Kennedy/Zapruder footage.
Altman smiled slyly and said yes, they’d set it up that way.
He said nobody had asked that yet.
I mentioned I’d watched it 150 times.
You would have thought I’d slapped him. He blinked, and his
eyes rolled, and he stepped back. I was startled for a moment.
Then he grinned, and said “150 times two bucks…”
(then-current movie admission price), pantomimed working
a cash register, and the audience roared with laughter.
I didn’t have the heart to tell Mr. Altman I’d seen it that
many times for free, but it was clear to me he was a guy who
knew his business, at least as well as he knew his art.
I read his interview in Playboy magazine, where he
said he wrote scripts as bait, to get studio financing, but
would not be confined by them, when he actually made the
movie. His movies were based on an outline, but most
dialogue and action were improvised by Altman and his cast.
I read a similarly-published Playboy interview with Mike
Nichols, who said he was surprised to find himself only filming
things that were carefully written, improvising almost nothing.
(Considering that Nichols and his comedy partner Elaine May, and
their improv mom Viola Spolin, practically invented most of the
rules of what we know now as improvisational theatre, learning
Nichols now-sticks-rigidly-to-scripts was a revelation to me.)
What sticks out most from that interview was Mike Nichols saying
something to the effect of “The things I thought I’d be doing,
improvising whole movies, are now being done by Robert Altman.”
I agree, and so does the box office. Compare Altman’s
“M*A*S*H” with Nichols’s “Catch-22,” sometime.
(Both anti-war movies, both made the same year.)
“M*A*S*H” was made on a shoestring, with a great cast,
and jazzed with an incredible electricity. Hit!
“Catch-22″ was incredibly expensive, with a great cast,
and…very clever, but only a couple of volts. Flop.
Nobody made movies like Robert Altman.
To be specific, nobody made bright, improvised movies,
working with an ensemble cast of similarly-bright actors
improvising brilliantly, better than Robert Altman.
The editing of his films was never short of incredible. It had to be.
Altman gave every actor a microphone. Each mic fed a separate
track on his 2-inch, 15 ips, 40-track Stephens tape recorder.
That gave the cast complete freedom to improvise, knowing each
actor’s words were preserved separately, even when their dialogue
overlapped, and could be edited and mixed any way necessary, to
present only words that moved the story along.
Altman’s soundtracks can sound like a jumble sometimes, but if
you listen, you’ll see just how much they are orchestrated and
trimmed, shaped and sculpted, to allow only story to punch through.
Another thing he was great at was the use of the Panavision zoom
lens. He zoomed sparingly, for a guy who’d shot so much television,
but when a zoom was called for, Altman used it like a virtuoso.
(Kubrick didn’t shoot anamorphic, but he was the other great zoomer.)
I loved (and devoured) Robert Altman’s other ’70s films too.
From “Brewster McCloud” a strange allegory about a young man who
wants to fly on bird wings in the Houston Astrodome to “McCabe and
Mrs. Miller,” a Pacific North Western set in the rainy Pacific
Northwest; “Images” where Susannah York goes crazy; “The Long
Goodbye” with Elliot Gould as Raymond Chandler’s Hollywood detective
Philip Marlowe; “Thieves Like Us” Keith Carradine, John Schuck, and
Bert Remsen as three escaped convicts; “California Split” George
Segal and Elliott Gould gambol and gamble; to “Nashville” of course;
“Buffalo Bill and the Indians” with Paul Newman as America’s first
superstar; and “A Wedding” which was, well, a wedding, only with
a great ensemble Hollywood cast, and Altman, great Hollywood Movie
Director, taking the home movies.
Then I went to Hollywood in 1978.
Long story, but I bought a bunch of Mr. Altman’s 35mm sound
equipment, to take back with me to my home studio in Enumclaw.
He got better gear, and I gave his old machines a good home,
as long as I had them.
I saw fewer and fewer of his new releases, as I was trying to
learn my own chops, but I always enjoyed what I saw.
His movies were great.
I remember “3 Women,” Altman’s dope dream, and “Popeye,”
his kid’s film, which I ran at my theatre.
1982’s “Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean,”
was Altman’s great little 16mm theatrical adaptation of his
Broadway production. I saw it in Portland, Oregon.
I remember the snooty art crowd I was with, who laughed aloud
when Cher’s title credit came up. Cherilyn Sarkisian LaPierre
Bono Allman was great in that picture. She was nominated for
a Golden Globe, and has had a fine movie career ever since.
Emmy, Oscar, Golden Globe, you name it. Go Cher!
1992’s “The Player” was a great back-stab at Hollywood itself,
with an ensemble cast of many top Hollywood stars, a murder
story unfolding over a Hollywood studio backdrop.
Ya wanna know how Hollywood works? See it.
Catch the “ultimate tracking shot,” at the beginning, complete
with actors discussing other movie tracking shots, like Orson
Welles’s “Touch of Evil,” and Antonioni’s “The Passenger,”
within the shot itself. Utterly delightful, a wicked satire.
1994’s “Pręt-ŕ-Porter” is a guilty pleasure picture, where it
all builds to a long runway of beautiful nudes. Delightful!
I saw Robert Altman, for what I sadly realize now was
the last time, at the Academy Awards in 2001. He’d
received his fifth Oscar nomination, for “Gosford Park.”
I talked to him about it, and he seemed happy, although the
irony of having to go to England to make a movie for almost
such an honor here, wasn’t lost on him. He’d won the Golden
Globes Best Director Award that year, which has often meant
an Oscar win, but not this time. No Altman 2001 Oscar.
“Gosford Park” was Altman’s biggest box-office hit,
after “M*A*S*H.”
Robert Altman was one of the very best, but never got a
Best Director Oscar. He did get a Lifetime Achievement
Award, at the 2006 Academy Awards. Wish I’d been there.
Afterward, he revealed to the press that he had a heart
transplant some time back, and he worried he wouldn’t
be hired again.
I can’t check that, but it’s in keeping with the
WWII bomber pilot who later made one of the best
anti-war films of all time. Change of heart, indeed.
I missed seeing “A Prairie Home Companion” this last year,
I’ve been so busy, but I will. Especially now.
What great films, what a great body of work.
Robert Altman, you were great. I salute you.
Filed Under
Exclusive, IndyCine, Movies
Loading ...
23 Responses to “Filmmaking - In Praise Of Robert Altman”
Leave a Reply
(Ref smilies)
Our Comments Policy : The following kinds of comments are troll capped, blocked and/or commenter's identity reported publicly: Verbal abuse, personal attacks, hate statements, spam, trolls, advertising. Please assist us in keeping the comments clean. Use the contact form to let us know if you find unwarranted comments on PFC. Thank you.
-
Advertisement
-
- Random thoughts on Yuv
- Dev.D- Emosional Aty
- An Interview With Oye Lucky Lucky Oye’s Dolly - Richa C
- SORRY
- The story of Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi Reve
- Ada Music Review
- Ajay TG- Man With A Camera.
- Maharathi: Murder is in the Details (Zero Spoiler Review)
- Mukhbiir Versus Chamku – A toss-up between two lone rangers
- Random thoughts on Yuvvraaj
-
Advertisement
Hottest Today:
Recent Posts:
Welcome Sam, love the intro on ur blog!
Ur post brought back memories of my school days when i used to rush back as soon as the final bell rang out as it used to be aired on a local network when cable first started in India.
Keep em coming Sam
- A very warm welcome to you Sam… just today readers were commenting and emailing me on their desire to see a tribute to Robert Altman… and guess what… a few hours later you arrive on PFC with your very first post on the great genius. Thank you for this gift
sam, welcome aboard!
“I don’t just watch movies.
I devour them. I study them.”
you’re at the right place to share your knowledge post-devouring/studying
“Ya wanna know how Hollywood works? See it.”
done. thanks for giving me the next one on my netflix queue!
Hey Sam, a hearty and warm welcome to you at PFC. Looking forward to learning a lot from you
I was just recently inducted/oriented to the cinema of Robert Altman, by a friend. We saw MASH like 4 times, including the extra features on the DVD. I had seen Gosford Park and The Company earlier, but had not absorbed that as much. I now plan to cover all his works(view and discuss them). It is unfortunate to lose such a pillar of cinema, a man who made his own road to walk on, and the world still walks on it.
We will discuss more of his cinema….
Thank you for this. I was just finishing my Altman tribute, but it is nothing as magnificant as this.
I grew up watching his movies; my father was a gigantic fan of his. I came into my own as an adult about the time The Player was released, and I was completely blown away by his mastery of the ensemble cast, as well as his subliminal cultural references.
Then, Pret a Porter, one of my favourite films. This opened here on Christmas night, and the theater was a party - filled with people I knew from parties and clubs and shows, and the final climax was incredible as most of the theater was cheering and clapping, many of us standing, together. It is so rare to have a theater experience like this, and this is still one of my most favourite movie experiences ever.
What many people haven’t written about is Short Cuts. Based on the stories of Raymond Chandler, this study on families and relationships in Los Angeles is a film I have probably seen eight or nine times, and never tire of….
I could go on and on and on, but needless to say I am saddened that there will be no more from him, and I absolutely love your post about him. It is always awesome to see a true fan write from the heart…
Sam .. thanks for this one and welcome to PFC…
I had never heard of Robert Altman before this post. Now I’m running towards the DVD Library …
Welcome Sam,
You are right…you just can’t capture/bind creativity onto pieces of paper (read ’so called taut scripts’)…
Most of the great scenes in cinema were improvised…right there on sets while shooting…what was written in script was not even 10% of what came on screen.
While writing is “mind work” …acting,direction has to come straight from heart, otherwise one fails as an actor/filmaker.
Having you here is really a privilege…I hope we can have lot of discussions about world cinema and learn from your rich experience.
Regards,
Shitij
Hi Sam,
Its a privilege to have you on board!! You must be knowing so many of great Hollywood personalities!
I did not understand the following line:-
(Kubrick didn’t shoot anamorphic, but he was the other great zoomer.)
Whats the relation between anamorphic and zoom?
Anamorphic is an aspect ratio. How is a zoom lense good or bad while shooting in Anamorphic?
Sam, I was wondering who decides the aspect ratio for a film. Is it the director or the DP?
Whats your favourite frame?
Would love to hear your views about digital medium!!
Welcome Sam on PFC. A big thanks for your presence on PFC.
A well mannered and dignified tribute to a great film maker. Thanks again for this marvellous piece of writing.
hope to get second contribution soon.
Dear Manjeet Singh,
> I did not understand the following line:-
> (Kubrick didn’t shoot anamorphic, but he was
> the other great zoomer.)
I meant that both Kubrick and Altman used the zoom (variable focal-length) lens as a sort of “exclamation point” to their photographic compositions.
Both zoomed only for emphasis during a shot, to follow action, or to underline a particular story point.
A zoom lens is a powerful image-gathering tool, and it feels different than a tracking shot.
A tracking shot moves you toward the subject, where a zoom pushes the subject toward you.
Whether an Angenieux spherical zoom (as Kubrick used), or an equivalent anamorphic Panavision zoom for a PSR (Panavision Silent Reflex) camera, used on “M*A*S*H” in 1970 by Altman’s cinematographer Harold Stine, a zoom lens is a two-edged sword.
In the right hands, a zoom lens can augment images that are lyrical, poetic, moving, and rhapsodic. Or, in the wrong hands, a zoom can ruin everything.
In 1970, some camera operators didn’t really know the rules for using a zoom effectively, so they “made it up as they went along.” Many camera operators were self-taught, and zoom lenses had only been around for 20 years.
(Charles G. Clarke ASC told me he was the first Hollywood cameraman to use a zoom lens in a movie, “Miracle On 34th Street,” in 1947.)
I remember how jarring it was in the ’60s, to often see a zoom used randomly, just for shock value. That’s why I appreciate Kubrick or Altman’s masterful touch.
One of the worst “bad zoom” movies in my opinion, is the movie “Elvis: That’s The Way It Is,” shot the same year as “M*A*S*H,” (1970).
“Elvis” is a concert documentary, filmed by Lucien Ballard, who was a very talented man who shot movies from 1930 to 1985, and did a lot of great work.
I love most other things in his career. (He shot Sam Pekinpaugh’s “The Wild Bunch,” for example.) As much as I like Elvis, I don’t care for that particular “Elvis” movie.
Mr. Ballard used the zoom like a slide trombone, rapidly zooming in and out TO THE BEAT of the rock ‘n roll, many times during the show.
Wow! Take a look, but don’t forget your
motion-sickness pills.
With Elvis’s movie on the “TOO MUCH ZOOM” side of the spectrum, and a Jim Jarmusch film or an oil painting on the “NOT ENOUGH ZOOM” side, Altman and Kubrick’s movies are in the tasteful “JUST ENOUGH ZOOM” area for me.
> What’s the relation between anamorphic and zoom?
I didn’t imply one. I meant Altman and Kubrick are both good, tasteful zoomers. Altman shot anamorphic, Kubrick shot spherical zooms.
A great Kubrick example is in “A Clockwork Orange,” as Little Alex looks into the river, contemplating suicide.
There is a slow, almost imperceptable zoom. That was done with an Angenieux 12-120mm zoom, a lens usually fitted to a 16mm camera, using an extension tube, to make the lens cover the 35mm 1.66:1 frame.
> Anamorphic is an aspect ratio.
Not to argue, but “anamorphic” can be any aspect ratio. It’s just the name for a camera lens that “squeezes,” and a projector lens that “unsqueezes.”
In the most familiar case, those lenses squeeze and unsqueeze a 1.18 aspect ratio film image by a factor of 2, to render a screen image with a nominal 2.35 aspect ratio.
> Sam, I was wondering who decides the aspect ratio for a film. Is it the director or the DP?
Actually, it’s the producer. My grandmother told me years ago, “When you see somebody doing something you can’t understand, the answer is always ‘money.’”
Spherical photography needs fewer lights, and rents cheaper lenses. The camera can be lighter weight and easier to shoot.
Anamorphic, or “Scope,” or Panavision, or widescreen (same thing) is generally more expensive.
So, if the movie has a tight budget, it generally will be shot spherically, usually in 1.85 aspect ratio.
If you can afford it, an anamorphic film looks better, because it has a bigger negative area than a 1.85 image. Sharper and clearer.
> Whats your favourite frame?
I’ve shot 5-perf 65mm, and it looks so sharp and bright and clear, I just love it.
I’ve shot IMAX too, and I built an animation camera that will shoot in IMAX. I love all 65/70mm, but it is somewhat expensive.
It is not, however, the biggest frame I shoot.
I recently bought a bunch of 4×5-inch still cameras, and I love how incredibly sharp and clear they are. To scan one image into my computer takes 300 MEGABYTES! Delightful.
In movies, if the story is small and in a confined place, I’ll shoot 1.85 because the lenses can handle that better. (Budget too.)
If the story is big and sprawling, and outside with a lot of action, nothing compares to a 4-perf anamorphic widescreen image.
I love composing for a wide screen. A “Scope” film can play on any projector in any cinema in the world.
> Would love to hear your views about digital medium!!
I’ll write about that soon.
Thank you everyone for your comments. It is good to find others with passion for cinema.
Sam,
Thankyou so much!! You made my fundmentals about Cinema stronger! Really appreciate your efforts in answering the questions in detail ^:)^
Can wait to read your next article!
Thanks Oz for bringing Sam on PFC!
- That itself is an amazing class on cinema and camera you gave us Sam! Thank you so much!
woww.. shripriya, i remember you debating film school some time back. at this rate, you don’t need film school as long as you have PFC
sam, love your grandmother’s quote:
“When you see somebody doing something you can’t understand, the answer is always ‘money.’”
in my review of “the namesake” i was left wondering about why mira nair chose to have nudity in a scene that didn’t warrant it at all. your grandmother’s quote really brings this into perspective and reaffirms vivek’s comment that the nudity was presented under the influence of the studio execs. my review of the namesake:
http://passionforcinema.com/the-namesake-mind-blowing-or-blowing-mind/
thanks for that, sam.
Striker, yeah, this is a great post. In fact, in my short NYU intensive, I did learn about anamorphic, but learned that it was an aspect ratio and not that it could be any aspect ratio.
Very cool.
- where is taxydriver??? he should read this one…
Sam welcome on board. Have seen MASH like 15 odd times. Tried watching Catch 22 but it got a bit boring. Couldnt take the movie so went back and read the book for 6th or the 7th time.
Watched Brewster McCloud on TCM. Couldnt grasp the movie the 1st time so like you watched it again.
Robert was great storyteller. All his movies are seamlessly made.
Good post. Waiting for some more from you.
its nice to have you here. very intriguing post!
Sam, I know I am sounding stupid asking you this question. but cant resist
Is Eva Longoria related to you?
Not at all, Manjeet Singh,
it is a fair question, thank you for writing.
According to her sister, Esmerelda Longoria, the short answer is “yes.” According to my beloved wife, I am unable to give a short answer.
Esme acted as Eva’s faithful publicist for many years, until Eva became famous in 2001, on the daytime tv drama “The Young and The Restless.”
(I acted in a small role on that same show a decade earlier. Nepotism was not involved, in either direction.)
The Longoria family is originally from Italy, where one was king around 400 AD. The name can be translated, “Tongue of gold.”
The Longorias were merchant Jews, who left Italy and went to Spain. The Spanish were holding what would later be called the Spanish Inquisition. The Longorias thought it prudent to leave.
They received a land grant in the New World from the King of Spain, and traveled on to North America. They still control much land, and oil and gas rights in the southeastern United States, and banks in Central and South America.
I have only recently learned all this, from Longorias who write me from around the world.
I am happy to report, Eva’s recent fame has for me an unexpected and welcome benefit - I am not now as often asked to spell my last name.
Best to you,
Sam Longoria
sam, just watched “the player” last week and friggin’ loved it.. thanks for the recommendation! i clocked the “ultimate tracking shot” at 8 minutes and 22 seconds.. i can’t even begin to imagine the complexity with which that one shot was carried out.. to take a single shot like that must’ve taken an insane number of rehearsals, i’d think!
and then while watching him talk about the film, i realized there were at least 2 or 3 cameos that didn’t even make the cut.. jeff daniels being one of them.. all the other cameos were really well utilized too.. am going to make “gosford park” my next altman watch, unless you have another recommendation. thanks again
Striker, definitely watch “Short Cuts” (if u haven’t already) and Altman’s last “A Prairie Home Companion”. A virtuoso filmmaker
zahur, just finished watching “short cuts”.. and was surprised to see that at a running time of 189mins, it was anything BUT short! i didn’t enjoy it at all.. in fact, i kept looking at the dvd menu to see how much more i have left to go.. i think i’ll have to make “gosford park” my next altman watch