I have learned throughout the course of The Art of Film II, that movies can be just as philosophical as books. I find philosophical art works to be arrogant as opposed to profound. Robert Altman has that issue in the film, Nashville. It is a movie with a poorly orchestrated plot and little to no entertainment value, much like the books that we are given to read in school. Also like the books that we read, Nashville is of the philosophical genre. I hate the philosophical genre. It is like political activism from somebody who speaks in metaphoric proverbs. I am more partial to similes like the previous sentence and this one.
In spite of my hate for the philosophical genre of art, Nashville was a great portrait of American culture. It was loosely connected series of events during the bicentennial of the USA. It portrayed a mixing of a little pop culture in an all-American setting. The setting truly was a good portrait of what America is like on average. The bars and public forums as well as the wide variety of characters were a great snapshot of our country. A snapshot of the USA is not complete without a political campaign. The presidential candidate in the film was campaigning on a generic platform that many senators and governors use even today.
I did not like the way it criticized show business and politics because the audience can not relate. If I were one of the hundred thousand famous people in this country of 300million people, then I guess I could relate to everything he was trying to convey, but I am not a corrupt politician yet.
Another issue that I have with Altman would be his boobs. It is hard to take a philosophical movie director seriously when he has boobs in his films. At least he did not write his own sex-scene (in the movies we saw), unlike Spike in Do the Right Thing. You could speculate that the producers made Altman have nudity in his films, but I would rather speculate that Altman had some creepy addiction.
I would like to say more but my parents want me to go read Leviticus 20:13 repeatedly after they read my last paragraph.
4 comments:
I think you made very good points, and I think anyone who would be annoyed by Altman’s style would agree with you. He seemed to be catering to a very strange target audience, which made it seem like his films were “only for the intellectual”.
My only suggestion, you talk about how his films were philosophical, but you didn’t offer examples. Fortunately, I can totally understand your opinion.
One thing you said really stood out for me. “I am not a corrupt politician yet.”
I’ve got my eye on you.
I think everyone is giving Altman too much credit.
He isn't going for depth in the movies, or rather, he is, but not by making deep movies.
Rather, he tries to feign depth by cramming as much content into the movie as possible, this explains the horrific number of meaningless subplots in nashville, the style of "have 8 people talk at once, hopefully everyone will hear something they deem funny from one of the conversations" and the fact that he broke the one song rule for the long goodbye.
Uhhh... interesting. You might want to take out "his" in "he has his boobs in the movies". Took me a while to figure that one out.
Other than that, you make a good point about how crappy Nashville is. There was no plot. I don't know about others, but I don't enjoy spending half of a movie figuring out who the hell is on screen and what the hell is going on. It may be original, but it's just stupid.
well said ted. however i do not think altman would be so pleased. his audience may be limited, but i think if you try not to over analyze his movies, they still have quite a bit of entertainment value. plus, who can resist the tagline: "sorry, traffic was a bitch" I think his overlapping dialogue and other altmanistic traits worked well and took some skill to pull through with.
Post a Comment