You guys *would* get into a discussion of something
Chandlerian just when I was getting busy at work and trying
to hit a deadline. Anyway, let the cuttin' begin-
Steve Novak wrote:
>I¹d be less gentle than Jim B...Jim D. you need to
watch it, and watch it
>again, and again...and maybe in between repeated
viewings you need some
>Glenfiddish or Lagavulin...or somethin¹...because the
film is excellent!
What a *great* idea!! Why didn't I think of that when I was
suffering through "Ishtar"!?! All you need to do in order to
"get" the collective genius of Beatty and Hoffman in that
movie is to be crocked all the way through it! Genius!
And why not take this idea out all the way to its logical
conclusion? We don't actually need to look for *good*
art/music/theatre/film/beauty. All we have to do is
experience it drunk on really good booze, and hey! Voila!
C'est magnifique! That new Justin Timberlake album is every
bit as good as "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band" and
Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" put together!
Ok, seriously, Altman took chances, and he's to be respected
for that. There is risk associated with taking that sort of
route (See "Welles, Orson"), acclaim to be garnered when you
succeed, and a price to be paid when you fail. "The Long
Goodbye" might have been a success at what Altman was
attempting to do (kill the PI film), but by pretty much any
other benchmark, it's a failure.
Why would he make a movie that made it pretty obvious that he
disliked the original work on which it was based? Only
Altman's shade and the shade of his corresponding ego know
for sure.
> Moreover theres¹ Jim Bouton in it, the pride of
Newark (and Yankees) as Terry Lennox...and for this Frenchman
this is invaluable!
If anything, he's the "pride" of the Seattle Pilots, since
they're gone forever, and "Ball Four" is pretty much all
that's left to remember them by. (Said the guy from
Seattle)
But wait, there's more! See below!
Steve Novak
Cinefrog@comcast.net
Heres¹ a readin¹ for you:
(
http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2001/01/08/the_long_goodbye_1973_review.shtml)
The Long Goodbye (1973) Reviewed by Michael Thomson Updated 8
January 2001
That's riiiiiiight trot out the critics when all else fails.
You know, I recently watched both "The Prestige" and "The
Illusionist." The critics I read panned "The Illusionist"
(too slow, they said) and lauded "The Prestige" ("what an
ending!!!" and stuff like that). Now, I watched both films
before I read a review of either of them, and I had the
reverse reaction. One of the friends with whom I went to see
"The Prestige" actually liked it. The rest of the group
thought it was slow-going, predictable, and the ending was
telegraphed. I thought it was dreck, and was disappointed
that great actors like Michael Caine, Scarlett Johannsen (who
was mis-cast and wasted) and Christian Bale and a good actor
like Hugh Jackman were associated with it. With "The
Illusionist," the scenes between Edward Norton and Paul
Giamatti were particularly interesting.
Then again, as I hit my 40s, I've begun to appreciate
deftness and subtlety more and more, when it comes to
cinema.
Your mileage may vary, and you'll be right for yourself, but
for me? Don't try to tell me that *I* don't get it and that I
have an obligation to *try* see the Emperor's Thirty-Year-Old
Clothes, because you've got the responsibility backwards.
Artists have a far greater obligation to their audience (and
far more invested in their end of the relationship) than the
audience has to the author.
Which explains why those of us who write willingly (or
unwillingly) submit to first readers, re-writes, copy-edits,
back-of-book-blurbs, etc., like we do.
So, in conclusion, Altman's "The Long Goodbye" struck me like
a lead weight and never lightened up.
All the Best-
Brian
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 27 Jan 2007 EST