The Great Man's Influence: Wallowing in Agreement?

[Paul Nightingale]

John Bailey makes a good point about Altman being a bit too caustic. He
(Altman) responded to, eg, Vietnam, Nixonian mischief and allsorts, and
could only do so by indulging an elementary cynicism. Perhaps this is the
point I made about Eastwood, distinguishing the radical westerns from more
conservative films with a contemporary setting: Altman's 'now' films (eg
Nashville) are glorious essays in bile that, effectively, offer the reader
an opt-out clause. It's too easy to wallow in agreement. Which should remind
us to prioritise the text as a meeting-place of all the things we might say
about it.

To change track abruptly, I'm reminded of a tendency in many
progressive/Marxian critics of the mid-century. Walter Benjamin's "The Work
of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" is marred by an elitist
distrust of popular (ie mechanically reproduced) culture. The same is true
of Adorno's work. Subsequently, Raymond Williams, a great champion of
popular culture as 'a way of life' nonetheless thought working-class people
should aspire to reading Shakespeare as a means to 'self-improvement' (an
outrageously simplistic gloss - I do admire Williams' stuff). It soon
becomes difficult to assume that the author's personal views are
indistinguishable from any ideas expressed in the text. We can deal with
such conflict/contradictions by accepting that any text is a discursive
formation; having ditched the Author as controlling consciousness, we have
no right to expect consistency.

If you want a polyphony of voices - how about Jacque Rivette's Celine and
Julie Go Boating? Produced/released at about the same time as GR. Is it
inadequate as a 'work of art' because it doesn't mention The War?

Actually, running this film through my head now, I begin to see Terrance's
script in production ...