683 Nashville
Re: 683 Nashville
I haven't seen Short Cuts yet, though that's definitely one I've been meaning to catch for a while now. It will probably be my next Altman.
- zedz
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Re: 683 Nashville
Your specific complaints about Nashville seem to me more like a simple description of one of Altman's (most distinctively Altmanesque) modes of filmmaking - the wide-ranging fresco approach best illustrated by this film and A Wedding. It might just be that this mode of filmmaking isn't for you, because most of the problems you identify are what I'd consider strengths of this approach (e.g. the absence of schematic equalization of character 'importance'; the discursions into the texture of the world - here, the music; the diminishment of plot in the extremely narrow Hollywood sense).
I don't know that it's quite accurate to describe this approach as favouring character over plot, because, as you noted, even character doesn't function in the same way it does in a conventional Hollywood narrative (and a lot of Hollywood 'characterization' is really just plotting in disguise: all those tiresome and predictable 'arcs'). For me, these kinds of films are more about world-building, with character and plot as the improvised riffs that populate those worlds.
I don't know that it's quite accurate to describe this approach as favouring character over plot, because, as you noted, even character doesn't function in the same way it does in a conventional Hollywood narrative (and a lot of Hollywood 'characterization' is really just plotting in disguise: all those tiresome and predictable 'arcs'). For me, these kinds of films are more about world-building, with character and plot as the improvised riffs that populate those worlds.
Re: 683 Nashville
Altman's approach is certainly unique, though as you claimed too, it just did not work for me in this case, and I have no problem admitting that. I have not seen A Wedding yet, so I cannot comment on that film, but as I said in my post before, I just did not really find any of the characters or the environment in Nashville particularly interesting. Maybe I would have preferred a more cinematic approach, but then again, this would probably take away from what Altman was trying to accomplish here.zedz wrote:Your specific complaints about Nashville seem to me more like a simple description of one of Altman's (most distinctively Altmanesque) modes of filmmaking - the wide-ranging fresco approach best illustrated by this film and A Wedding. It might just be that this mode of filmmaking isn't for you, because most of the problems you identify are what I'd consider strengths of this approach (e.g. the absence of schematic equalization of character 'importance'; the discursions into the texture of the world - here, the music; the diminishment of plot in the extremely narrow Hollywood sense).
It will be interesting to see whether or not Altman's approach works for me in similar films, like A Wedding or Short Cuts.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: 683 Nashville
What would be a more "cinematic" approach? Altman uses visual cues, sound, actors, script, etc to form a fascinating whole. You didn't find it fascinating, okay, fair enough, but that doesn't make the film less cinematic just because its structure doesn't conform to the conventional narrative you seem to prefercriterion10 wrote: Maybe I would have preferred a more cinematic approach, but then again, this would probably take away from what Altman was trying to accomplish here..
Re: 683 Nashville
That's all I meant when I said "cinematic," just a more conventional way of telling the stories of these different characters. I found Altman's method interesting and unique, but it personally didn't work for me.domino harvey wrote:but that doesn't make the film less cinematic just because its structure doesn't conform to the conventional narrative you seem to prefer
- zedz
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Re: 683 Nashville
You may get more out of Short Cuts, which I personally feel is a very different kettle of fish, since it really is a whole lot of intercut stories rather than the more radical freeform approach of Nashville. As such, I'm afraid I find Short Cuts, for all its strengths, somewhat antiseptic compared to the messy sprawl of Nashville and A Wedding.
-
- Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:23 am
- Location: Florida
Re: 683 Nashville
Its definetly more controlled than those 70s examples. But its also the case that he probably didn't have much new to say with that sprawling interlocking type of narrative. Unfortunately one could say the same for The Player as well.zedz wrote:As such, I'm afraid I find Short Cuts, for all its strengths, somewhat antiseptic compared to the messy sprawl of Nashville and A Wedding.
- colinr0380
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
- Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
Re: 683 Nashville
I do agree with zedz that Short Cuts, despite certainly thematic similarities with Nashville and likely because of the Raymond Caver material to draw from, is occupying the much more structured extreme of the spectrum, where almost all the characters gets arcs and resolutions to their stories (or we get to see the resolutions that they miss)
I haven't fully thought this through (no change there!) but A Wedding is my favourite of those films, though I kind of think the slightly more problematic Dr T & The Women was getting closer to a 'freeform community portrait' similar to Nashville, without even the songs to link the action (with the main linkage of the characters being the unshowable gynaecological examinations!)
This is an interesting debate though. I like all the 'Altman ensemble' films and this is just a way of ranking favourites but I personally think I respond better to the idea of a general organising principle and actual thought through climax moments for specific storylines, moments that may not actually be the climax of the entire film, just one particular storyline that somehow makes the entire experience surrounding it worthwhile and involve not just the central figures in that story but many of the other minor characters too, who might be responding to the action or just looking on (I'm thinking of the death of Keenan Wynn's wife, or the terrible singer-turned-stripper sequence in Nashville, or the Helen Mirren revelation in Gosford Park for example).
Yet sometimes the more 'schematic' moments that are trying to force closure more generally often ring hollow to me, and I sometimes get the impression that they do to Altman too - the deaths, the murders, the hurricanes, the assassinations, the arguments, the accidents, the earthquakes, the dog crap slippages, etc - they tie everyone together in response to a particular event but don't really affect any of the ongoing dramas in the most satisfying ways. They're just the skeletal structure on which to drape character moments upon. I know I often moan about the totally pointless scenes involving Stephen Fry's police inspector in Gosford Park that structure the second half of the film and give an excuse to interact with the rest of the cast (the equivalent of the BBC reporter here in Nashville) for instance, but that is perhaps an exception of the schematic moment of the murder investigation turning out to be totally irrelevant to the rest of the film and most blatantly acknowledged as such (unlike the 'emperor has no clothes' ending of Pret-a-Porter, or climax of Nashville, the murder investigation is allowed to just peter out rather than devastate with irony or cynicism) therefore more easily ignorable than such moments are in other films!
I haven't fully thought this through (no change there!) but A Wedding is my favourite of those films, though I kind of think the slightly more problematic Dr T & The Women was getting closer to a 'freeform community portrait' similar to Nashville, without even the songs to link the action (with the main linkage of the characters being the unshowable gynaecological examinations!)
This is an interesting debate though. I like all the 'Altman ensemble' films and this is just a way of ranking favourites but I personally think I respond better to the idea of a general organising principle and actual thought through climax moments for specific storylines, moments that may not actually be the climax of the entire film, just one particular storyline that somehow makes the entire experience surrounding it worthwhile and involve not just the central figures in that story but many of the other minor characters too, who might be responding to the action or just looking on (I'm thinking of the death of Keenan Wynn's wife, or the terrible singer-turned-stripper sequence in Nashville, or the Helen Mirren revelation in Gosford Park for example).
Yet sometimes the more 'schematic' moments that are trying to force closure more generally often ring hollow to me, and I sometimes get the impression that they do to Altman too - the deaths, the murders, the hurricanes, the assassinations, the arguments, the accidents, the earthquakes, the dog crap slippages, etc - they tie everyone together in response to a particular event but don't really affect any of the ongoing dramas in the most satisfying ways. They're just the skeletal structure on which to drape character moments upon. I know I often moan about the totally pointless scenes involving Stephen Fry's police inspector in Gosford Park that structure the second half of the film and give an excuse to interact with the rest of the cast (the equivalent of the BBC reporter here in Nashville) for instance, but that is perhaps an exception of the schematic moment of the murder investigation turning out to be totally irrelevant to the rest of the film and most blatantly acknowledged as such (unlike the 'emperor has no clothes' ending of Pret-a-Porter, or climax of Nashville, the murder investigation is allowed to just peter out rather than devastate with irony or cynicism) therefore more easily ignorable than such moments are in other films!
- zedz
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
Re: 683 Nashville
I'm catching up on Criterion releases too late to have participated in our awards, but if I were, the Making Of on this would get my vote for extra of the year. So many great interviews with excellent insights, organized with zing and coherence. Joan Tewkesbury has to be the most valuable player, but there was no dead weight on board. And Lily Tomlin either has the best plastic surgeon in Hollywood or bathes in the blood of virgins.
- Magic Hate Ball
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:15 pm
- Location: Seattle, WA
Re: 683 Nashville
Got to see this on the big screen, which was really fun and I would actively encourage it. The opening ad sequence was almost overwhelming, and the large-scale picture format really, really helped sell the Altman style, because suddenly I was picking up on things I'd never noticed watching it on my television, such as how everyone looks at the tricycle-biker as if he were an alien (not to mention actually being able to see Goldblum's expressions), or Geraldine Chapman in the background of one of the Opry songs fighting with a security guard. The audience wasn't huge but it was big enough to have group reactions, so all the funny parts were a lot funnier and there were some quiet, soulful silences (particularly during "I'm Easy", which really knocked me down).
- hearthesilence
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
- Location: NYC
Re: 683 Nashville
I had a similar experience when I went to see a new print of M*A*S*H some years ago. Afterwards, a friend told me that he was able to catch a lot of jokes he hadn't noticed before simply from the audience reaction.
- hearthesilence
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
- Location: NYC
Re: 683 Nashville
A new 4K restoration of Nashville will have a one-week run at Film Forum, September 20-26, but Lily Tomlin will also be presenting it at Lincoln Center on Saturday, Sep. 14.
- T!me
- Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2020 1:05 pm
Re: 683 Nashville
Nashville, to me, is one of those few movies that get better the more I think about it. The way you can feel all these characters pulsating by giving you a 2h 40min glimpse in their lives is just marvelous. The Soundtrack is easily one of my favorites too with the Ronee Blakley penned tracks being the obvious highlights. Altogether I think she's one huge reason why this movie works so well and still feels so alive, 45 years later.
The first time I watched it I had a good laugh knowing Keith Carradine solely for his role in the second Fargo season at that time.
The first time I watched it I had a good laugh knowing Keith Carradine solely for his role in the second Fargo season at that time.
- perkizitore
- Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:29 pm
- Location: OOP is the only answer
Re: 683 Nashville
Now offered on iTunes in 4K DV.hearthesilence wrote: ↑Thu Sep 05, 2019 4:57 pmA new 4K restoration of Nashville will have a one-week run at Film Forum, September 20-26, but Lily Tomlin will also be presenting it at Lincoln Center on Saturday, Sep. 14.
- TheKieslowskiHaze
- Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2020 10:37 am
Re: 683 Nashville
Some thoughts I posted on my blog (which you can see if you click here, though I've also included the piece below):
According to Hal Philip Walker, who haunts (but never appears in) Nashville, politicians only do two things: “clarify and confuse.” This contradiction is the lifeblood of Altman’s masterpiece, its thesis not just about American politics but about the linguistic cacophony of our whole culture. Specific examples of miscommunication abound, but what most contributes to this theme is Altman’s pioneering use of multi-track dialogue, creating an effect not unlike a static of hard-to-discern human voices. Ironic, then, that the most communicative and genuine moment is an instance of un-vocal speaking, as Tom learns sign language in order to tell Linnea that he loves her (something he won’t say, in any language, to his actual girlfriend). But this vignette is a tiny lighthouse of optimism in the tempestuous sea of Altman’s cynicism. In the movie’s best gag, a singer is always either prevented from singing or drowned out by louder noises. This changes in the climax, at which point she finally sings and (surprise!) turns out to be stellar. But as she’s onstage only to distract the gullible crowd from an assassination, is she truly heard? Nashville explores the collision of entertainment and politics, the difficulty of ascertaining what matters amidst a landscape of noise, and the proclivity of people to hear without listening and talk without saying anything. As such, perhaps no movie has more astutely predicted the current moment than this one. To paraphrase Haven Hamilton, we must be doing something wrong for its relevance to have lasted 45 years.
According to Hal Philip Walker, who haunts (but never appears in) Nashville, politicians only do two things: “clarify and confuse.” This contradiction is the lifeblood of Altman’s masterpiece, its thesis not just about American politics but about the linguistic cacophony of our whole culture. Specific examples of miscommunication abound, but what most contributes to this theme is Altman’s pioneering use of multi-track dialogue, creating an effect not unlike a static of hard-to-discern human voices. Ironic, then, that the most communicative and genuine moment is an instance of un-vocal speaking, as Tom learns sign language in order to tell Linnea that he loves her (something he won’t say, in any language, to his actual girlfriend). But this vignette is a tiny lighthouse of optimism in the tempestuous sea of Altman’s cynicism. In the movie’s best gag, a singer is always either prevented from singing or drowned out by louder noises. This changes in the climax, at which point she finally sings and (surprise!) turns out to be stellar. But as she’s onstage only to distract the gullible crowd from an assassination, is she truly heard? Nashville explores the collision of entertainment and politics, the difficulty of ascertaining what matters amidst a landscape of noise, and the proclivity of people to hear without listening and talk without saying anything. As such, perhaps no movie has more astutely predicted the current moment than this one. To paraphrase Haven Hamilton, we must be doing something wrong for its relevance to have lasted 45 years.
- schellenbergk
- Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 12:03 pm
Re: 683 Nashville
Decided to pick this up at the Barnes & Noble sale - $19.99 which is ironically *EXACTLY* what I paid for my VHS copy back in the day - the day being summer 1980; Jimmy Carter was Prez, and I was the first kid on the block to buy a fangled gizmo called a VCR. "Nashville" was my first home video purchase - from FotoMat (!) which back then was the only source for VHS in Manassas VA (that would change drastically within a year).
$19.99 seemed a lot more expensive in 1980 . . .
$19.99 seemed a lot more expensive in 1980 . . .
- Randall Maysin
- Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 12:26 pm
Re: 683 Nashville
Does anyone else think this flick is MASSIVELY overhyped, and perhaps also a film whose reputation is a reflection of a misunderstanding, or mislabeling or whatever, of what kind of creative figure Altman really (quote un quote) is. Ive also found everything Ive ever read that praises the film (actually all ive ever found is praise) to be, perhaps revealingly, intellectually lightweight. Maybe thats just me. The best i can say for all the praise is that it does a good job of talking up an innovative approach to filmmaking and sensibility which i genuinely find fascinating, and which personally is very close to my heart, that the film doesnt really fill the shoes of nearly well enough to justify all the gushing. Okay maybe im not doing a very good job of explaining my opinion or proving it myself, but i think its rather revealing that even *JOHN SIMON*, a critic who can justify his every opinion unto infinity, if ever there was such a critic, says this:
"Still, this is an absorbing film, Altman’s best so far, and look what the drastic cutting has done to it. We encounter, for instance, a mismated married couple: an elderly farmer husband (Bert Remsen) and his flighty young wife (Barbara Harris) who keeps eluding him to take stabs at becoming a country-and-western singer. We see so little of their relationship—almost nothing of Remsen—that the surprise climax, in which Harris against all probability gets a sensational start on the road to stardom, lacks the petty beginnings against which to resonate. Such fragmentation diminishes most of the characters and relationships in the released Nashville, which now comes across rather like a huge novel turned into a telegram. It whets the appetite and then lets it down so many times as to make this a veritable feast of Tantalus."
There is no evidence, so i understand, that any significantly longer cut of the film ever existed. John Simon of all people is giving Altman imaginary credit he hasnt earned! Oh i bet that longer film has the requirements of art that this one lacks! Except that it never existed. There are things in the film i like--Gwen Welles brilliant performance especially, how the heck did she not get an Academy Award nomination when Lily Tomlin got one for, to my eye, merely occupying space in this film and not a heckuva lot more. I like the music, i like the films vague but interesting good intentions, and there are a few moments where the gamble of Altmans, uh, method of working with actors actually pays off, a bit, like when Robert DoQui is being pathetic and mildly-harassing with Lily Tomlin near the end.
"Still, this is an absorbing film, Altman’s best so far, and look what the drastic cutting has done to it. We encounter, for instance, a mismated married couple: an elderly farmer husband (Bert Remsen) and his flighty young wife (Barbara Harris) who keeps eluding him to take stabs at becoming a country-and-western singer. We see so little of their relationship—almost nothing of Remsen—that the surprise climax, in which Harris against all probability gets a sensational start on the road to stardom, lacks the petty beginnings against which to resonate. Such fragmentation diminishes most of the characters and relationships in the released Nashville, which now comes across rather like a huge novel turned into a telegram. It whets the appetite and then lets it down so many times as to make this a veritable feast of Tantalus."
There is no evidence, so i understand, that any significantly longer cut of the film ever existed. John Simon of all people is giving Altman imaginary credit he hasnt earned! Oh i bet that longer film has the requirements of art that this one lacks! Except that it never existed. There are things in the film i like--Gwen Welles brilliant performance especially, how the heck did she not get an Academy Award nomination when Lily Tomlin got one for, to my eye, merely occupying space in this film and not a heckuva lot more. I like the music, i like the films vague but interesting good intentions, and there are a few moments where the gamble of Altmans, uh, method of working with actors actually pays off, a bit, like when Robert DoQui is being pathetic and mildly-harassing with Lily Tomlin near the end.
Last edited by Randall Maysin on Wed Nov 18, 2020 5:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
- ianthemovie
- Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:51 am
- Location: Boston, MA
- Contact:
Re: 683 Nashville
From what I understand Altman played around with the cut of Nashville a lot. Jonathan Rosenbaum writes that at one point Altman intended it to be released in two parts. Pauline Kael, who wrote her famous rave review of the movie in March of '75, three months before it officially opened in theaters, refers to the movie as being "nearly three hours" (the final running time ended up being closer to two and a half). It's likely Altman, with whom Kael was friendly, showed her an early cut. Alan Rudolph says "when [Altman] was cutting Nashville you'd see the same film--well not the same film, but different versions--ten or fifteen times a week." Whether Simon also was privy to one of those early cuts I don't know, though it seems reasonable to believe that at some point the film existed in a slightly longer form, however briefly.Randall Maysin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 12, 2020 10:05 amThere is no evidence, so i understand, that any significantly longer cut of the film ever existed. John Simon of all people is giving Altman imaginary credit he hasnt earned! Oh i bet that longer film has the requirements of art that this one lacks! Except that it never existed.
I get that Nashville may not be for everyone. For me the appeal of the movie (and with Altman generally) has almost entirely to do with the characters. Every time I watch his films I'm moved by how much he clearly loved people, even horrible/annoying/dumb people, and how humane his cinema is, even paradoxically when he takes jabs at the characters or makes fun of them or is otherwise critical of them. So the pleasure of Nashville for me has to do with the large rolling canvas peopled with so many figures, with the character work, and with all of the little moments that come out of that: Geraldine Chaplin with her ridiculous tone-deaf pretentious New-Journalism prattling ("The buses!..."); Gwen Welles taking the rolled-up socks out of her bra and throwing them at the men who force her to strip; Henry Gibson's blithe non-sequiturs (the mention of Julie Christie's name gets him talking about the Christy Minstrels); Barbara Baxley crying about the Kennedys; Robert Doqui telling Welles, with much love, "you can't sing! You ain't never gonna be no singer!"; Ronee Blakley's rambling breakdown monologue. The country songs too I think reflect Altman's love-hate relationship with America, American people, American pop culture-- most of the songs (not all of them) are pieces of utter shit, some hilariously so like "200 Years" and "For the Sake of the Children," and yet they have soul and a kind of pure sincere poetry in them that is somehow admirable and beautiful. I suppose some may have a more cynical read on it but I continue to have immense affection for Nashville because of Altman's amused, ironic, but always generous and loving sensibility that seems to me to just swell and swell throughout the film, culminating in what I find to be an incredibly moving ending.
There are a lot of things to find fault with this film, and a lot of areas in which it could be said to fail (I don't think anybody could call it a carefully designed or formally perfect film--not that that ever seemed to be what Altman was setting out to do anyway). In terms of sketching a huge number of characters and capturing human moments and getting humor and tragedy out of that, I continue to find it extraordinary. Repeat viewings of it help, too, especially as one ages.
- HinkyDinkyTruesmith
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:21 pm
Re: 683 Nashville
I watched The Company last night and have been reading William Gaddis's The Recognitions and I have to say I agree with this statement about Altman. I've always read detractors of his say that he was smug, misanthropic, etc.––but except for The Player, I've never really felt this to be true. Many say the same of Gaddis––that he's a vicious satirist. But reading the long party conversations in The Recognitions, which shift "randomly" and unattributedly through scores of characters like in Altman's films, it's clear he's satirizing them, but at the same time there's such a delight and joy in the characters and in the attention to dialogue that there's a clear love going on too. (I think Altman would have been perfect for an adaptation of one of Gaddis's dialogue novels.) Nashville is obviously more pointed, and more character focused, than The Company, but they both do share very similar vibes of someone just relaxing in the corner at a party or on a park bench and watching the world happen and enjoying it all. I think it's especially valuable now during the pandemic when people-watching is so difficult!ianthemovie wrote: ↑Thu Nov 12, 2020 12:45 pmI get that Nashville may not be for everyone. For me the appeal of the movie (and with Altman generally) has almost entirely to do with the characters. Every time I watch his films I'm moved by how much he clearly loved people, even horrible/annoying/dumb people, and how humane his cinema is, even paradoxically when he takes jabs at the characters or makes fun of them or is otherwise critical of them. So the pleasure of Nashville for me has to do with the large rolling canvas peopled with so many figures, with the character work, and with all of the little moments that come out of that
- hearthesilence
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
- Location: NYC
Re: 683 Nashville
I've always liked Nashville - I should probably see it close to Short Cuts one of these days because I suspect what I've liked most about Nashville is achieved to greater fruition in the later film.HinkyDinkyTruesmith wrote: ↑Thu Nov 12, 2020 1:22 pmI watched The Company last night and have been reading William Gaddis's The Recognitions and I have to say I agree with this statement about Altman. I've always read detractors of his say that he was smug, misanthropic, etc.––but except for The Player, I've never really felt this to be true. Many say the same of Gaddis––that he's a vicious satirist. But reading the long party conversations in The Recognitions, which shift "randomly" and unattributedly through scores of characters like in Altman's films, it's clear he's satirizing them, but at the same time there's such a delight and joy in the characters and in the attention to dialogue that there's a clear love going on too. (I think Altman would have been perfect for an adaptation of one of Gaddis's dialogue novels.) Nashville is obviously more pointed, and more character focused, than The Company, but they both do share very similar vibes of someone just relaxing in the corner at a party or on a park bench and watching the world happen and enjoying it all. I think it's especially valuable now during the pandemic when people-watching is so difficult!ianthemovie wrote: ↑Thu Nov 12, 2020 12:45 pmI get that Nashville may not be for everyone. For me the appeal of the movie (and with Altman generally) has almost entirely to do with the characters. Every time I watch his films I'm moved by how much he clearly loved people, even horrible/annoying/dumb people, and how humane his cinema is, even paradoxically when he takes jabs at the characters or makes fun of them or is otherwise critical of them. So the pleasure of Nashville for me has to do with the large rolling canvas peopled with so many figures, with the character work, and with all of the little moments that come out of that
But Randall is definitely not alone in his criticism. Paul Schrader wrote at the time that the movie felt like an enormous, shallow pool, and besides Dave Kehr (who generally hates Altman's work anyway), Kent Jones didn't think it was a very good film and praised much of Altman's other '70s work. Michael Atkinson has also called Nashville and MASH two overrated behemoths that are the least of his '70s films.
I think Altman mentions in the bonus features for Nashville that the day after John Lennon was killed, he was doing an interview where the reporter (or critic?) linked Lennon's murder to Nashville's ending. It sounded like a dubious question where it was insinuated that Altman's work could have been an inspiration (though one that creepily pre-saged the subsequent attempt on Reagan's life and the deranged man who claimed he was "inspired" by Taxi Driver). But in light of Reagan's presidency and now a horrendous administration that had its roots in reality TV culture, the film seems all the more uneasy and disturbing for the way celebrity culture and politics are blended together.
- colinr0380
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
- Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
Re: 683 Nashville
I think the car crash-turned-traffic jam sequence on the highway leading out of the airport in Nashville is one of the best scenes in Altman's entire body of work. Its difficult to put into words but I like that the way that everyone being trapped together on that stretch of road and the way that characters start moving between cars and making impromptu connections with each other until the carnage is cleared away and they all make off down the road in their separate vehicles again very moving. Like a moment of seeing what 'could be' until the rest of the film shows us 'what is' (which probably ties in with the rather mawkish Bicentennial ballads and fondly reminiscing about Kennedy and Camelot later on. Or the present time political campaigning going on throughout the course of the film. Or even the hopeful but terrible singer turned into another kind of performer) It did not strike me until after a few viewings that it kind of parallels with the ending of 'forced togetherness' after another tragic, maybe deadly, event. But whilst I find the climax shrill and contrived (but intentionally, movingly so in its desperate attempts to affirm that something still bonds people together in the wake of yet another assassination) that early scene feels like the effortless, great leveller, shared cultural experience that the characters spend the rest of the film trying to reattain some sense of.
Lots of his films seem like that. They have gatherings that should be bringing everyone together (and indeed do bring everyone physically into close proximity to each other by being trapped in a social situation) but usually the 'main event' is a bit of an anti-climax (or worse a red herring or something monstrously wrong-headed in their crushing social obligations, like a war, or a wedding) whilst it is often the minor and unexpected crossing paths in the action surrounding the front of stage performances which often end up providing the more touching moments of true humanity.
Lots of his films seem like that. They have gatherings that should be bringing everyone together (and indeed do bring everyone physically into close proximity to each other by being trapped in a social situation) but usually the 'main event' is a bit of an anti-climax (or worse a red herring or something monstrously wrong-headed in their crushing social obligations, like a war, or a wedding) whilst it is often the minor and unexpected crossing paths in the action surrounding the front of stage performances which often end up providing the more touching moments of true humanity.
- TheKieslowskiHaze
- Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2020 10:37 am
Re: 683 Nashville
The Recognitions makes for a great companion piece to Nashville, now that you've made me think about it. Theme of Both: Authenticity in art is more complicated than it seems. Tone of Both: Humanistic Cynicism. The Recognitions is, of course, much more bonkers though. Enjoy.HinkyDinkyTruesmith wrote: ↑Thu Nov 12, 2020 1:22 pmI watched The Company last night and have been reading William Gaddis's The Recognitions and I have to say I agree with this statement about Altman.
- schellenbergk
- Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 12:03 pm
Re: 683 Nashville
Damn now I have to drop everything and finally read The Recognitions ... been putting it off for years.TheKieslowskiHaze wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 10:31 pmThe Recognitions makes for a great companion piece to Nashville, now that you've made me think about it. Theme of Both: Authenticity in art is more complicated than it seems. Tone of Both: Humanistic Cynicism. The Recognitions is, of course, much more bonkers though. Enjoy.
We watched Nashville last night... I just don’t agree with the criticism. I find it a great film, and it gets better with age. I think it speaks to our current politics in a very prescient way.