NP: Robert Altman (not from the LA Free Press)

[Peter Petto]

This reminds me of IV somehow (of Doc in particular.)

> From the LA Times
> PATRICK GOLDSTEIN ON THE COLLISION OF ENTERTAINMENT, MEDIA AND POP  
> CULTURE
> « Previous Post | The Big Picture Home | Next Post »
>
> Get out the boxing gloves: Richard Schickel vs. Robert Altman
> October 29, 2009 | 11:27 am
> -
> I usually try to avoid getting into dust-ups with critics writing in  
> my own newspaper, but I can't avoid coming to the late Robert  
> Altman's defense after reading Richard Schickel's nasty, dismissive  
> review of "Robert Altman: The Oral Biography" by Mitchell Zuckoff, a  
> new book about the man who brought us "MASH," "McCabe & Mrs.  
> Miller," "Nashville," "The Player," "Short Cuts," "Gosford Park" and  
> any number of other smart, funny and challenging films.
>
> My primary problem with the review is that if Schickel has no  
> respect for Altman as a filmmaker, how would he possibly be in a  
> position to give a fair review to an exhaustive biography of the  
> man? And it's certainly obvious that Schickel loathes Altman's work,  
> since he starts out by ridiculing "MASH" as "a basically witless  
> film," then moves on to trash the rest of Altman's oeuvre, saying  
> that "misanthropy -- with a strong admixture of misogyny --  
> essentially substitutes for ideas in his movies and his characters  
> are, in effect, characterless."
>
> Schickel seems especially aggrieved that Altman was a boozer and a  
> pothead who -- as Schickel puts it in the first sentence of his  
> review --  "never passed an entirely sober day in his life." In  
> fact, Schickel seems obsessed with Altman's licentiousness,  
> admonishing Altman over and over for his freewheeling ways, as if he  
> were the first filmmaker ever to use and abuse a variety of  
> intoxicants. He comes off like a schoolmarm, rapping Altman on the  
> knuckles for having a good time, calling him "permissive," "addled  
> by his addictions" and claiming that even in "MASH," everyone in the  
> movie "appeared to be perpetually, mumblingly stoned."
>
> Largely because Zuckoff writes admiringly of Altman's work, as have  
> so many other critics, Schickel throws the filmmaker's biographer  
> under the bus, claiming that Zuckoff "basically knows nothing about  
> filmmaking and film history." I could go on, but you get the point.  
> It would be an understatement to say that Altman admirers were  
> outraged by Schickel's dismissive attitude to one of the great  
> filmmakers of the late 20th century. Speaking to this point, I  
> received a letter from Alan Rudolph, who linked up with Altman as an  
> assistant director on "The Long Goodbye" before carving out an  
> important career as a filmmaker himself, making such movies as  
> "Welcome to L.A.," "Choose Me" and "Afterglow."
>
> Rudolph's entire letter is attached at the bottom of this post, but  
> here is his artful description of Altman's special gifts as a  
> filmmaker. As Rudolph writes:
>
> "Altman was an innovator. His films might seem casual, but  
> intentionally so. They were behavioral in appearance, but carefully  
> crafted with ideas, and strong on consequence. Having served as a  
> screenwriter for Bob, I can personally attest to his rigorous  
> attention to writing. He just didn't want the result to seem  
> written.... Bob knew that continuously working in the rough was the  
> best way to find his jewel. His biting humor never spared reality  
> nor himself. The painful absurdity of it all. There was nobody like  
> him during his professional peak, and there isn't now."
>
> Well said, Mr. Rudolph. As for me, all I would ask of anyone who  
> might be on the fence about Altman is to seek out one of his many  
> adventurous films and watch for yourself.
>
> You'll never be bored and you'll almost always be amazed by what an  
> original, unsentimental approach Altman had to the art of cinematic  
> storytelling. The UCLA Film & Television Archive has a salute to  
> Altman coming up soon, starting with a Nov. 13 screening of "The  
> Long Goodbye," his 1973 comedy that is a personal favorite of mine.
>
> I'll keep you posted on future events as they unfold. Now, here's  
> Rudolph's letter in defense of Altman:
>
> Dear Editor,
>
> Obviously your reviewer waited safely in his lair until Robert Altman
> moved on, then bravely said what's been eating at the traditionalist
> core of his film soul for years.
>
> He negates Altman because of his life style. Would he dismiss
> Huston's drinking or Hitchcock's sexual repression as influences on
> their film gifts? Basically, this review says Altman was something new
> and different when he made his mark, but the reviewer never really
> bought it. So now Altman must be overrated and unimportant. What
> has been universally accepted -- that Altman was the one of the  
> greatest
> American directors of his generation, an honor automatically inserting
> his name into every serious evaluation of cinema forever -- your
> reviewer claims was wayward opinion. He simply knows better.
>
> Altman was an innovator. His films might seem casual, but
> intentionally so. They were behavioral in appearance, but carefully
> crafted with ideas, and strong on consequence. Having served as a
> screenwriter for Bob, I can personally attest to his rigorous  
> attention
> to writing. He just didn't want the result to seem written. This  
> wasn't a
> dismissal of screenplays or writers, but Altman creating. Your  
> reviewer
> belongs to the legion of unsuccessful detractors of important artists
> when bold work never before encountered was first unveiled. Some just
> can't break with the past.
>
> Directors, writers and actors don't have to replicate Altman for him  
> to
> have impacted their sensibilities. The power of a major artist is that
> he or she is a force, standard, guide. What your reviewer doesn't  
> grasp is
> that great artists always lead the way. The torch gets passed, the
> message out, the influence permanent. You don't have to be aware of
> originators to be modified by them. Bob's insistence on doing things
> his own way was essential. It's the major struggle. And Altman won.
> Which is the ultimate defeat for the studio ruling class and
> establishment apologists. Your reviewer uses Jules Feiffer's troubles
> with Bob as an example of overindulgence, but glibly dismisses
> Feiffer's description of Altman as a genius. In the critic's mind, Bob
> wasn't the right kind of genius.
>
> Altman never changed. To have "comebacks" shows he never went
> away. Some of his films might have been less than others, but each had
> the stuff of brilliance, and was part of a larger collection. Bob knew
> that continuously working in the rough was the best way to find the
> jewel. His biting humor never spared reality nor himself. The painful
> absurdity of it all. There was nobody like him during his professional
> peak, and there isn't now.
>
> Alan Rudolph

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20091105/cc413137/attachment.html>