The Long Goodbye (1973) Retrospective
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 มี.ค. 2024
- George discusses Robert Altman's The Long goodbye from 1973.
Follow me on Letterboxd to keep up with what I'm watching:
boxd.it/DVbJ
Follow Me on X:
/ filmjournalguy
Patreon:
patreon.com/FilmJournalGeorge
Sources:
The Cinema of Robert Altman by Robert Niemi
www.amazon.com/Cinema-Robert-...
Altman’s Noir Suddenly Gets Plenty of Light- New York Times
www.nytimes.com/2014/12/06/mo...
"Altman lovers, read no further" by Richard Schickle
www.latimes.com/archives/la-x... - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
Unironically, one of the best reads of a postmodern darling, and a great example of letting a film do its thing rather than impose sub-textual meaning upon it, even at the expense of the creator's vision. Godspeed George, one of the best guys we got in the film reviewing space right now.
Wow- what kind words and high praise- thank you very much!
Yeah, I subscribed from this video. Largely indifferent to Altman, always thought he was a pseud and a phoney. Gould is always watchable though, great in Bustin’
@@TECHNOIRAltman is one of the directors to do it hahaha.
This is an incredible film, an iconic film.
I love this movie !
The coolness and sarcasm of Eliott Gould, also the short but explosive presence of a far high Sterling Hayden ! 😂
I saw THE LONG GOODBYE in its initial theatrical release shortly after graduating high school. I found it hard to believe that it wasn't embraced by the so-called movie-going public at the time since I considered it one of the defining pictures of the decade (like McCABE AND MRS. MILLER, CALIFORNIA SPLIT, NASHVILLE and THREE WOMEN). I have the original Jack Davis poster and found the movie to be comically creepy in the best way, like it's director, whom i really like as well. Johnny Williams song score was as brilliant as anything he did after becoming John. I found your perspective excellent by the way.
Never saw this but you've got me intrigued, thanks.
Great analysis. I still love this film, and watch at least once a year, but I think that has to do with how cool 13 year old me thought Elliott Gould was. And I agree with your assessment of Altman. It took me awhile to figure out why I admired the mise-en-scene of his style but not the films themselves: I don’t think he likes his characters very much. As I have gotten aged I have come to appreciate his contemporaries Mazursky, Ritchie and especially Cassavetes much more.
Its okay by me. (*strikes match*)
As if I couldn’t dig this channel even more, you cover one of my favorites. One of the best film channels on TH-cam. Keep up the great work!!!
Wow! That's huge, that's what keeps me going!
One of my favourite movies. Have loved it since I stumbled across it late one night on tv 25 years ago.
Would love to be transported to LA in this period to walk through the scenes depicted in the movie.
Especially the Wade’s house- which was actually Altman’s at the time. Beautiful
Didn’t know that!
Yes the Wade house sits in my mind as a place I’d love to live. I’d sit on the beach with Roger drinking whatever gasoline he gave Marlowe. 😂
Excellent summation of both film and director. Keep up the good work!
thanks so much!
Film’s been a favorite of mine for 30-multiple viewings. Your take-one of the few I’ve come across online-is smart and informative. To be sure, it’s had an impact on so many Gen X filmmakers. I’ve shown it to many people. Only true film fans liked it.
Great videos...great moment in time , the world has changed.
Thanks so much- I’m a romantic nostalgic guy, that’s part of why I make my videos
I remember watching this for a college film class. I didn't much know what to make of it at the time, though that one violent scene and Gould's performance have stayed with me. We had to read James Naremore's book on film noir and I recall he panned this one. Your video makes me want to rewatch it though, even though I have largely the same sentiments about Altman.
We must have taken a very similar class I saw this in college as well and also read Naremore’s book. Another great Noir book, less dense more literary- Somewhere in the Night by Nicholas Christopher.
I haven't watched the video yet. I'm commenting in anticipation of the sheer delight I'll feel while watching it. The Long Goodbye has been in my head lately and I've deemed it one of my favorites. It's the way Gould carries himself on screen. I'm in awe. Also, just found out we share a birthday. I'm happy about that. I'm gonna click play now!
Oh man! I hope I didn’t let you down!
@@FilmJournal You didn't! Thank you for the California Split recommendation by the way :)
Not to be one to Buck the trend, but I hated “The Long Goodbye” the first time I saw it and I still do. It’s not a Philip Marlowe movie, it’s an off putting joke that Marlowe’s 1940s morality and code of honour would be out of place in the Swinging 60s. The problem is that’s a “one trick pony.” It was obvious to me that Altman was skewering the “tough guy detective” films like “The Maltese Falcon “ and “The Big Sleep.” But by making Marlowe such a clueless, ineffectual doofus, Altman created a version of a beloved character who I loathed and had no sympathy with or connection to. Sterling Hayden’s over the top portrayal of Wade was noteworthy, but I felt that it was wasted on a dull, listless movie that drags on forever with very little action, cartoon characters and corny dialogue. I know it’s become a trope of film students to claim that “The Long Goodbye” is brilliant and subversive, but I disagree. I find it a weak, pathetic parody that turns me off on every level. I think Chandler would have hated it too.
@@jeffwarshaw6838the long goodbye is one of the best films ever made. Who cares about fucking film college students. This film is best stoner film ever made. You need to pull the iron bar wedged up your arse and enjoy it for what it is. The film is amazing just to sit with! A clear example of why film is art. Films like the Maltese falcon are good but quite boring honestly. Who cares what Chandler would of thought? He wrote double indemnity. It’s a good film but Eve that can be a bore. I’m not revisiting these films any time soon. I can’t stop watching the long goodbye.
Who cares what Chandler thought? Film is a directors medium, not a writers. It’s an interpretive medium. A screenplay is just a blueprint. Writes can’t cope with that. They don’t understand how hard it is to translate something from the page into something living and alive in reality. That’s why most of them fall back on extreme storyboarding, which is can be really boring visually.
Shortcuts was a beautifully constructed. One of my favourites. Thanks.
Great analysis, can't wait to watch!
It’s a good one dude- check it out!
Just realized Space Cowboy is heavily inspire by this movie.
I've never seen it but will watch it now. Another great video.
Thanks brother!
Awesome movie
Saw it recently and enjoyed it a lot. Interesting time capsule as well.
Thank you for talking about the movie posters . What an odd assortment. Amsel broke into the business when 20th Century Fox had an art school have a contest open to the students. Their challenge : design the poster to the yet-to-be-released ...Hello Dolly (1969) . Amsel won hands down .
He was a very special talent- too bad we lost him so young. His art was incredible. Too bad so many modern posters and photo shop disasters
I enjoyed your essay here. I don't however feel that Altman has contempt for his characters. Rather I'd say Altman has a deep love for his characters (and for the actors who create them). But Altman is also at some level a nihilist and among the many threads that run through much his work is a dialectic between humanism and nihilism. The Long Goodbye is a wonderful example. Thanks.
Altman was a nihilist?
@@curiositytax9360 Was he not?
@@carmaigdeforest7284 not that I can see. So we have become so conformist that now personality is considered nihilist haha?
i don't know what we've become. my thesis is that many Altman movies suggest a dialectic between humanism and nihilism. That doesn't, I suppose, necessarily mean that Altman is a nihilist, which is why the qualification "at some level" in my original comment. Let's leave it there. See you at the movies
@@carmaigdeforest7284 so he’s not a nihilist? Ok.
Fantastic video my man, I'll definitely give a subscribe
I used Jack Davis'artwork as my profile image on whattsapp
Always a fan of Ansel's work. His TV Guides were so fun and quirky.
That Shogun tv guide is amazing
Ended up checking this out because of a recommendation from a friend. I was on a Phillip Marlowe kick and he told me that Elliot Gould was his favorite. After viewing it, he's mine too. Powers Booth is a really close second though.
Gold reads some of the old Marlowe audiobooks too- they're great!
@@FilmJournal yeah, just picked the ones Raymond Chandler wrote a couple days ago. They are indeed great so far!
Great stuff, especially loved the blotchy film and poster analysis in the beginning. Can’t get that from a podcast or just watching the film.
Glad you enjoyed it! Really appreciate your tuning in!
Excellent video
Just so you know.. the Letterboxd link in your description is just a link to Letterboxd's landing page, not your profile. Found you anyways but others may not be so lucky!
Wow! Thanks so much- I’ll get that fixed. Glad you enjoyed it and appreciate the comment
You don’t have to review it but watch The Wanderers (1979) it’s set in 1963 about high school gangs and the pacing is the best I’ve ever seen in a movie
Sounds dope- I will check it out
@@FilmJournal It’s directed by Phillip Kaufman who also wrote the screenplay to Indiana Jones Raiders of The Lost Ark with George Lucas and directed Invasion of the body snatchers and The Right Stuff. It Seems like something you would be interested in watching based on the amazing movie reviews you have been releasing on the channel
Really insightful retrospective. I would love to know if you've ever seen Altman's 3 Women and what you think of it?
have not seen it, but it is on the ever expanding list, if I see it soon - I'll let you know
Roger Wade, not Jack. This film continues to polarize audiences. I've watched it many times, and it's in my top ten. But I loaned it to my neighbors, and they not only didn't make it through but gave me stink eye when returning the dvd.
What are your thoughts surrounding the symbolism of when Marlow wakes up in the hospital and the bandaged man gives him the little harmonica?
I saw the trailer when the movie was first released but saw it on cable years later. I remember people were appalled that Altman produced such an offb eat
...offbeat Phillip Marlowe. Humphrey Bogart, who played Marlowe in The Big Sleep, was a god in the '70s. Fans may have thought the movie and Elliot Gould's portrayal of such an iconic character were unacceptable.
Like this
I think anyone that likes Cowboy Bebop need to see this
Good piece, but a couple of thoughts:you're correct about Gould not being from the 40s as a persona, but what TLG does is place Marlowe's moral code from Chandler up against the moral decay and hedonism of 70s LA... which is why, when Marlowe finally gets to his old friend and learns the full scale of his betrayal and moral rot, and thus revolted, he takes the only morally correct response available to him (in terms of the story). That's what makes the ending shocking: both the surprise, but also the realization that Marlowe has actually acted completely true to his own code. (Gould being Gould is brilliant, because it disguises this conception. Had you cast, say, older Robert Mitchum, it wouldn't have worked so cleverly.) Now, you may argue that "Hooray for Hollywood" over the credits is gilding the lily somewhat, but the irony makes the point clear. And I wouldn't call MASH one of his more celebrated pictures (though it won the Palm d'Or) at this point; those would be TLG, McCabe, and def Nashville, possibly California Split as well. All excellent. Thanks.
What are your thoughts surrounding the symbolism of when Marlow wakes up in the hospital and the bandaged man gives him the little harmonica?
Hey, you know... Once Altman commits "Nashville" to the screen, it doesn't belong to him anymore. It belongs to you and me and anyone else who wants to mock those characters or love those characters. Altman's attitudes toward his characters are interesting, but not dispositive.
Completely agree!
You can take your own personal emotional response to it but it’s way more interesting when you try to put the at with what the artist intended. It challenges you to think and only benefits you. Maybe it can change you? How boring to watch something and it just be me, me, me, me. People really love to ruin great things. Film is a way to talk to the dead. It can capture the past. You can pour yourself into it.
Gould was miscast. Altman's A Wedding was great and Nina V is in it.
Nonsense! Gould is the best thing about it. Pull out the iron bar wedged in your arse. Film is a directors medium. You want to be a writer? Go write a book.
I have the dvd. 😊
it's a super cool movie
Hoping you’ll take a look at OC & Stiggs!
You are rE-ally gooD* at reviewing older films.
I never went to film school, however
it sounds a bit like you* might be a professor at one of the top film schools.
You selected many of the character-actors if not all of the ones that had impact on me at one point or another.
Loved all the notes, the history on the variois folks "very solid work"
Hope to look over & and check out your other videos...
Mike Pessin 17:36
its ok with me
I've been into movie posters for several years now, so I've found it somewhat serendipitous that the marketing problems the film had lead to so many great posters. There is actually another Richard Amsel poster you didn't cover, that is quite rare, featuring a smiling Marlowe with his rather agitated looking cat on his shoulders. Another worth mentioning is the poster that features Eileen Wade's eye, done by the Italian artist Tino Avelli. You can probably tell by now, that I was delighted to see you use some of these posters as the framing device for the video.
I agree with your conclusion on how you view the film, in a less cynical way than Altman may have intended. I suspect this is often the case for me, finding relatable ideas in films that, by simply knowing the world most of these film makers come from, is likely not the way they intended the audience to observe their work. It must be difficult for some of these artists to lose that control the moment another person views their creation. Tough cookies for them, I suppose.
California Split is one of those movies I find endlessly re-watchable. It inspired Mississippi Grind quite heavily, or at least, that's how I remember it. Even the titles mirror each other. Though I still found it worth a watch.
Enjoy your perspective, as always.
Great commentary. But l have seen this movie several times and l still can't quite figure out what is going on. Or what l think is going on. I see something different every time l watch this movie. And THAT'S why THE LONG GOODBYE is a great use of your time. For movie lovers who don't look for the easy answers. Marlowe wouldn't want it any other way.
I agree! Thanks so much for watching!
Arnold was in this with his shirt off
What are your thoughts surrounding the symbolism of when Marlow wakes up in the hospital and the bandaged man gives him the little harmonica?
Something to do with identity, since the other patient is bandaged head-to-toe and Gould denies to the nurse that he's Marlowe? Eh. Whatever its intention, it is very unChandler, who, when he wanted to be funny, was a lot sharper than that.
My thoughts are that it made me laugh
@@FilmJournal Yeah me too. But I've heard people say that that was Marlow under the bandages. I like your commentary on this film. Do you have any other thoughts on this scene? And how he gives him the little harmonica that can transport him back to the past in the end.
@@drobbi I've read things where that's supposed to be Marlowe under the bandages. Some things like that. Certainly it could have to do with identity since in a way he is starting to lose himself in this new environment. The final scene almost reaching and grabbing to stay who he is in a world gone mad.
@@andrewledbetter4112 There remains the question as to whether or not it works. It's in another key than the rest of the film. Would anything be lost by its deletion? Nope.
Could you review "Busting," starring Elliott Gould and Robert Blake?
I’ve got it on Blu Ray and really like it- almost included it in this review to talk more wholeistically about Gould’s personae but decided to keep it simple/got lazy. Another great Gould I’d like to talk about is The Silent Partner from 78
It's funny that the detective accuses Marlowe of being a prep school kid (3:30 in this video), but the Marlowe character seems antithetical to that. Ironically, Humphrey Bogart went to one of the most elite prep schools; the same one as Olivia Wilde
I have seen this film scrolling the streamers and always skipped it because of Elliot Gould because of his Friends day, but will give this another look
Gould's the man!
Incisive analysis of one of the more distinctive Hollywood pictures of the Seventies (in my estimation, the single greatest decade in American cinema). It has been a while since I've seen 'The Long Goodbye' (luckily as a 35-millimeter projection in a repertory screening), and I failed to recall much of the strands of the plot's web. I liked the film, though I don't regard it as a personal favorite (I have mixed feelings for Altman, tending to feel more respect than affection for his efforts).
Altman is often fairly accused of misanthropy, and this film can certainly support that perspective, though the quirkiness of the characters can also frequently register as appealing. I think this reflects Altman's own ambivalence towards the characters and their world--I think he exhibits a love-hate relationship with many of the denizens of his films. Ironically, given Altman's penchant for misanthropic representation of his fictional figures, he was widely esteemed for his deep respect for his actors, giving them wide berth in the interpretation and realization of their roles. He was wont to indulge and even encourage them to improvise, and sought new ways to inflect Hollywood movies with a deeper realism of both tone and presentation. I see him in many ways as an experimental filmmaker working within the parameters of the mainstream American film industry, and as such, he remains a vital figure both historically and artistically.
What are your thoughts surrounding the symbolism of when Marlow wakes up in the hospital and the bandaged man gives him the little harmonica?
@@andrewledbetter4112 It has been several years since I've seen the film, and I don't have the scene at hand for review, but I'm not sure there's necessarily any overt symbolism at work here. And yet the fact that Marlowe plays the harmonica at the end also suggests that this is not simply a throwaway moment. Marlowe emerges from the automobile impact that hospitalized him alive and relatively unscathed, while he attempts to pass off the heavily bandaged patient to the nurse as him (Marlowe), suggesting that this is what could have been his fate, but was not. The handing of the harmonica seems like some passing of the torch, but it's not clear what the precise import of it is. On one level, certainly, the scene can be approached simply as an illustration of Altman's quirky humor.
The idea behind Goulds character isn’t a failed idea or half baked hahaha. This isn’t an intellectual test. It’s not a jigsaw puzzle. He travels through time through the radio. It’s simple. It’s a fun quirky idea. The contradictions persist because it wouldn’t have anything to do with reality without that.
It upset me when you said one of your favourite films is boogie nights. Of course it is. Life is so disappointing. It’s upsetting how people love Boogie Nights more than Long Goodbye but that just seems to be life and it’s shit. Same with big Lebowski. Anderson is a careerist, Altman wasn’t. I think Paul Anderson is a great filmmaker as are coen brothers but he’s not got a nice view of people overall. Same with coens. But everyone seems to love these people, their films more than Altman. What’s interesting is they are heavily linked to writing. They write their own stuff. They like to write. Most writers are smug idiots with giant chips on their soldiers that they mask through irony and a general sense of the feeling that nothing matter and there is no meaning.
Andersons sensibility especially is hard for me to sit with. Magnolia is horrible. If you have ever suffered or experienced real pain and not disappeared up your own arse then that humanity is not present in Anderson’s films. I can’t believe you think anderson has more respect for his characters than Altman. Why can’t you see or respect honesty? The way Altman treated his actors alone means he has more respect for them in his little finger than Anderson ever will.
He’s just honest to himself and true to his vision of the world. When van gogh painted starry sky, 20 people could of been standing next to him but only van gogh saw what he saw and now we have him forever. His humanity, what gives him specific point of view. A soul? Probably not but something like that.
Anderson’s style has a lot to do with SNL, the American comedy sketch series. That’s what I find hard to be with. 90 percent of comedy is cruel bullying. Its not some deep truth reveal. It’s picking on most vulnerable or digging in the most unpleasant parts of life when it could be better. It’s as simple as that. In there will be blood, I don’t like the arrogance on display for the human characters. It makes me feel depressed.
Watch Nic Roeg’s eureka instead. You won’t like that either or think of it as a failure. Anderson ripped that off from Roeg. Like Altman, Roeg poured his heart into his films. They are more than entertainment whilst still being so. People like Anderson come along either their slickness and their careerist mentality and destroy all the hard work. Life is so brutal.
Especially American comedy. Altman is as far removed from that as you can get. But its devastating that many semi serious film fans enjoy something like boogie nights more than long goodbye. You can’t beat McDonald’s. Boogie nights may seem artistic and different but it still has its toe dipped in the water of subway sandwiches. Anderson is a careerist.
Long goodbye is like a piece of music or a painting or poem. Many would say that about boogie nights but it’s not. They are being pretentious because they like it, whereas I’m saying the long goodbye is actually like that.
It’s same with coens. That weird comedy thing that most all filmmakers do now. Laughter should just come naturally through interaction. You shouldn’t go for laughs in drama like this because your just looking down on people in a very smug way. They think their replicating screwball or jacques Tati but they aren’t. They misunderstand. They haven’t got the loved the gentleness’s Lynch is good at doing the Tati thing.
With Altman it’s different. He’s kind of blinding you with their humanity. Even if they are bad people, they are still people. A smugness, a general sense of looking down on someone is present in all Anderson, coens films but that seems to be what people gravitate towards instead of authenticity or honesty and it’s devastating.
Peoples taste in art or films reflects themselves. Look how popular Tarantino is. Lifes great but is also frustrating. Altman was more like a shooting star I guess.
You seem like you have a chip on your shoulder about all this, maybe you should make your own video
What are your thoughts surrounding the symbolism of when Marlow wakes up in the hospital and the bandaged man gives him the little harmonica?
I'm with you 100%, what the creator of a work of art's message is ultimately doesn't matter, it's about what you as a member of the audience interprets it as. This has been something I've planted my feet on personally and won't waver the more and more certain types of dipshits drone on about "media literacy'.
Not really. You can take your own personal emotional response to it but it’s way more interesting when you try to put that with what the artist intended. It challenges you to think and only benefits you. How boring to watch something and it just be me, me, me, me. People really love to ruin great things. Someone created a way to have a dialogue with someone after they are dead and weird nerdy nasally people dismiss it all and then go eat kfc chicken wings
The long goodbye has everything you might want to admire in an auteur made, early seventies movie.
Who couldn't resist a film sold by the director as... 'A satire in melancholy'.
Yet there's a reason it flopped and that reason still perpetuates. It's just not that interesting, or more importantly,
Gould's just not that interesting.
Elliott Gould as the lead is 'smarmy' cool, which feels inauthentic.
Just lazy, rather than inscrutably, beaten and worn down. By whatever it is that relentlessly tires fictional private dicks down.
He may be a walking-talking anachronism, but if the actors charisma is fake... then the entire movie will echo his charmlessness.
He's no Alain Delon, Robert Mitchum or Humphrey Bogart. He's... Elliot "I play everything in the same key" Gould.
The film becomes pure 'surface style' and if you wanted to peek under its hood... there's no engine, no beating heart.
It promises a lot and all of the praise must stem from critics that can see through Gould's presence,
to something elusive and tangental. Something glinting, knowingly somewhere else on screen?
Whatever it is... if this film wasn't directed by Altman, we wouldn't still be talking about it now.
Stupid comment. If it wasn’t directed by Altman then we wouldn’t be talking about it now? What does that even mean? It’s a Robert Altman film. That’s the point. Film is a directors medium, not a writers. It’s a visual medium. To claim there is no substance to this film is moronic. The whole style of the film is the substance. The way it plays with time and morality is beautiful. No stodgy monologues that bore you to tears and say the same thing that’s been said a billion times before.
This is easily one of the best films ever made. This comment is why we have all these shit marvel films that are no different than a Starbucks propped up on the corner or McDonald’s, subway sandwiches, dominos pizza. Or even Netflix now. It’s so depressing. No voices like Altman exists anymore. I don’t care about social issues as a driver of my cinema. I want an individual voice that expresses that voice VISUALLY. Like Hitchcock, Welles the list goes on. Nobody in cinema really exists like that anymore. Most left just make remix films. They have distinct style, like a painter.
I can’t begin to understand how you watch this film and come to the conclusions in your comment. To make it worse, you judge it on how much money it made or infer that it being a box office flop is a measure of its quality. No. Most people I know live on dominos pizza. I’d rather die than be forced to eat that shit. Some people I know won’t eat meat becaue ir has bones in it. And 99 percent of people I know, grew up with can’t put their phones down. Like all they do is stare into their iPhones. Look around you. Look on social media. If you think the majority are a great measure of quality then I don’t know what to say. Enjoy living in hell.
What you say about Gould character is bullshit too. This film and his character specifically moved me a lot because saw myself in him. The ending gave me a real jolt in my seat. A physical reaction.
And then I just revisit this film like a poem or a painting. It’s incredible. Most of Altman’s films are like that. You laugh, your shocked, feel danger, admire the scenery, admire the naturalistic acting. It’s like going back in time, abit like Marlowe travelling forwards in time through the radio. That’s why it opens on the radio.
What are your thoughts surrounding the symbolism of when Marlow wakes up in the hospital and the bandaged man gives him the little harmonica?
I used to be a huge fan of Altman's filmmaking. How he changed dialogue forever with MASH was an extraordinary accomplishment. The man? I have no opinion. I have opinions regarding directors such as Polanski, and I certainly do have an opinion of him, but my opinion does not sway my belief in his talent. Chinatown is a shining example that one can't judge talent by an artist's personal flaws. That might be the best-directed film ever, regardless of Polanski's personal flaws.
But I fell out of love of Altman right here. In this movie. First, it was not in any way faithful to the character of Philip Marlowe. Marlowe, in the novels, is a very different person. This portrayal is essentially a slap in the face to Raymond Chandler, who luckily never lived to see it. Philip Marlowe is likely the most iconic character created in the entire 20th century. We who have read the novels, know Philip Marlowe intimately. Chandler's brilliance is why.
When a movie-goer lays their hard-earned money down to see a film about a character they know and love, they are only going to be insulted when that character is replaced by someone who is not that character and makes zero effort to try to be, who could never be that character, regardless of the mis-placed direction of someone like Altman. Elliot Gould is a brilliant actor, no question. But he is no Philip Marlowe, and that was evident in every single frame of this thing. Bogart captured Marlowe flawlessly. Gould flailed fecklessly. Altman did nothing to get Gould to 'be' Philip Marlowe. All he did, was miscast the lead role. But that is not the worst thing he did.
That is not to say that there are not a lot of truly great things about this movie, some of which you have elaborated on. But what really killed it, is Philip Marlowe would never have shot Terry Lennox. Not in a thousand years. That is not how Philip Marlowe rolls. That is not only a huge departure from the story as Chandler wrote it, It's a huge departure from the character of Marlowe, who he created. It might be the worst ending to a movie, ever. He ruined his own movie.
Altman betrayed us. He betrayed Raymond Chandler. He betrayed Philip Marlowe. He betrayed me.
I didn't know you felt that way about it. I withdraw my nomination.
You sound like one of the biggest turds in existence. Not faithful to the character? Then go read the fucking book then. This is one of the greatest films ever made, easily. This is Altman’s interpretation of it. Film is a directors medium. Not a writers. Hank god for that. Otherwise the stuffiness inherent in your comment would be the death knell of cinema.
What about James Bond? What about Leigh Brackett who wrote the script? The Chandler purists are so boring and close minded. The films characters are cartoon caricatures. That’s not a criticism, because they still feel honest and true. But it is like a cartoon sketch of a particular time and place. It reminds me of a mural painting but fun and yet still deadly serious. Directors are interpreters. How hard is that to understand?
The cartoonishness mostly comes from it being linked to Chandler but also film noir. Hollywood. No one seems to notice how proto Tarantino the Marty Augustine scenes are. His films are basically live action cartoons.
Tarantino didn’t like Altman but he’s studied him closely. In A Wedding from 78, a character in it is basically a Tarantino type. A film nerd who only talks about films and comes across as quite annoying and a pain in the arse. Childish. It’s quite funny to see it.
There is a quality of life in the Augustine scenes that Tarantino has never managed to touch. I mean in the way the characters act specifically. There is realism too it despite its cartoonish nature. Altman was great at that. His Popeye film is the best shot comic strip adaptation ever.
You can’t be angry at Altman if he didn’t like that kind of writing and couldn’t take that kind of hard boiled dialogue seriously, in regards to noir and Cahndler.
I don’t know how Altman did it. This film is a treasure. It has been stripped bare by other directors for its ideas and uniqueness, but luckily the original still maintains.
The casting seems to be key for why this film is so powerful. And location. A lot of the people they cast, their characters reflect their real life states. Jim Bouton betrayed the closest friend in his life, baseball, and Nina Van Pallandt was married to Clifford Irving. Her whole performance is a lie.
I keep saying it but it has this weird but amazing quality of being cartoonish and yet very real. It’s definitely more like painting and poetry than what films are thought of as. It kind of transcends that and yet it wouldn’t exist without Hollywood. It’s an interesting thing to think about and I feel the ending presents a similar thought.
By looking into what Altman meant, it starts to become about the community of LA that he himself lived in. His impression of it.
That party the Wades throw is Altman’s actual home. It’s just a reflection of what he experiences and there is an air of phoniness being depicted. You can see the clear divide between the creatives and the more money driven residents. It’s a great snapshot of a time and a place. A cartoon caricature of it but the truth is still there.
The ending to this film made me jolt in my seat. So shocking. This is basically the ultimate stoner movie. This film is high as fuck. It’s a tragedy that films like this are only appreciated by film students. Life can really be shit like that sometimes. The fact you say it doesn’t matter what the artist intended is a reinforcement of the shit in life. How can someone put a piece of themselves into something and your above exploring that or you dont want to challenge your point of view? Depressing honestly.
This is why pop culture rules everything. Dominos pizza. Subway sandwiches. Meaningless shit that gave someone half a boner so they cherish it forever and wear the stupid t shirts etc. Sometimes you wonder why anyone bothers to create anything as unique like the long goodbye when the audience that awaits it are as shit as they are.
The iPhone thing alone and people inability to put their phones down, even when on the cinema has kind of put a full stop on how evil and selfish people are. No more mystery anymore or space to dream and it’s all down to people.
You can have your initial emotional reaction to the film and what it means but to not explore what the artist intended is so stupid and just ignorant. Don’t you think if you thought about it and took how you reacted and put it with what the artist instances then that could expand your mind somewhat. Give you different perspectives or just reaffirm your beliefs? Someone put their heart and soul into something, lured abit of themselves into it and your just it’s all about me, me, me, me, me. Fits with the social media age. I don’t understand why no one wants to explore artists work? If you see it one way, couldn’t that show you that your trapped in a point of view or need to expand your mind somewhat. So many possibilities but you destroy all meaning by being lazy. People really love to destroy amazing things.
Whoa, whoa, whoa- thanks for the comment boss, but I think in my critique of Altman's worldview I tried my best to accurately summarize/steel man what I think his intentions were with the film and then I offered my counter opinion- which I think I'm in my right to do- as it is my review- i.e. my thoughts. Considering you slandered "The social media generation" of which, I suppose I am a part- I think it's fair that I volley one over to the boomers- as I notice with many boomer hippies if you don't adopt their opinions lock stock and barrel you haven't sufficiently "opened your mind man". I suppose in your estimation you have transcended ideology and aren't "trapped" in your own world view. You landed on the correct path in 1968 and everyone else needs to get on board I guess.
Also I would disagree your characterization of my review as "destroying an amazing thing" I love this movie. I would have hoped that would have shone through as I did devote a great deal of my time to discussing a work of art that I believe it is important to engage with.
@@FilmJournal this reply is hilarious. It’s tone is exactly what I was talking about. Using the phrase ‘boomer’ alone is all I need to know. I can’t believe I just had to type that seriously. I’m definitely not a boomer hahaha. Oh god, I had to type it again. Why are you labelling an entire generation with a snide term like that. Who the f are you? It sound so corporate and teenage like. All internet language does. Like how they use the word ‘troll’. And its so dismissive of people in general.
Social media has just increased indifference and apathy. Everyone is addicted to their devices and if you sit and think about it, this has consequences for other people. What about kids now who’s parents will not give their child enough attention? It was already bad. That’s very basic example but it’s very important because different class levels exist and sometimes the magic moments that make life special could be few and far between in terms of connecting with other people in the moment but I feel Phones have now taken that away further and replaced it with false sense of connection built out of advertisement industry and money and buying products. It has nothing to do with reality. It’s a trap. Very sad.
It genuinely affects people and my generation has done nothing about it and just let it happen. It’s become normal for young people to just straight up blank older people. It’s so dehumanising. Not everyone is strong enough to say something back or if it keeps happening they collapse within themselves.
The fact that in order to engage or interact with other people now requires you to own a device or sign up to a social media platform is one of the most disgsuting things in all of history. It’s hard enough connecting with people. Out of a lot of pain comes wisdom and light. The struggle makes it worth it sometimes. Even mini struggles. Now everyone just goes on their phones. It’s very stressful.
Social media has just given more permission to be this way. I could go on and on and it’s not blind threats or old perosn scared. I’m not old but Iv seen how iPhones have changed and shaped people. Social media has ruined a lot of what was special about life and what makes it worth living. It’s very sad. I was sick as teenager so decided to take step away and when I came back there was no space for anything else and still isnt. Just mindless scrolling and looking at videos of people getting murdered.
The Long Goodbye is as human as it gets. It’s an extension of a person or many people and a time, a place. It’s closer to poetry and music and painting than what we understand film to be. The fact that these films made just before the internet age makes me think there may be something more to life because we being assaulted and yet these golden eggs were laid just before the initial assault. They are like beacons of humanity, whilst still retaining what makes films great in terms of plays with style, story, acting etc.
Boogie Nights what you mentioned isn’t. Some may say it is but they are being pretentious because they like it. The Long Goodbye actually is.
Yes boogie nights is a great film but has that arrogant 20 something year old mentality behind it. A smugness and general lack of understanding or empathy of what it is to be alive.
You don’t have to suffer to make great art but suffering is a natural part of life. It’s life experience. You can’t escape it. One of the reasons Altmans films are so great is he started making films in his 40’s, 50’s so he’s got a great understanding of life that he stays true too and i guess it’s hard to swallow for many? One of the only exceptions is Orson Welles with Kane but look at the life lived before that. He’s lived a full life, been through so much, seen pain, suffered pain. The whole idea of rosebud is genius and so wise. It’s about what I speak. What Anderson didn’t understand then but Welles realised so young. It’s genius and all done through a perfect visual. Visual storytelling. Pure cinema.
It brings me comfort sitting with that kind of honesty Altman has and that honesty can still be within this experimental film with all the style. That’s the triumph. Cinema is a collaboration. It’s a giant moving machine. How someone puts their own stamp on it I don’t know and not just stamp brand style but themselves; their essence into it, like painting or music or poetry but Altman is one of the greats who really did it
Anderson became a better filmmaker as he went along. Phantom thread is phenomenal. That’s a very honest film.
Someone like Tarantino is in his 60’s and his films have all the wisdom of a 14 year old. He reminds me of comedians. He just digs in the misery whilst pretending he’s alleviating it.
Your comment on hippies sounds exactly how he depicts them or sees them in his films. I don’t know much about hippies but if they are for whatever Tarantino is against then I’m all for them. Tarantino hated Altman funnily enough. I love that. Altman’s films are designed to piss people like Tarantino off. He’s a little film goblin.
Altman made a film in 1978 called A Wedding. There is a Tarantino like Paul Thomas Anderson like film nerd character in that that Altman portrays beautifully. He could see it coming decades before. Life isn’t about film but a film like boogie nights only exists because of films. It’s not an extension of life. It’s a teenage wank fantasy. I’m interested in films for adults, about life. Not films that pretend to be for adults or about life.
It’s amazing how youthful arrogance can dismiss an entire essence. If someone feels a certain way then maybe try to understand it instead of dismissing it as a something beneath you. They have the lived experience.
You basically want to punish the filmmaker because he stood out and was courageous enough to have his own point of view and not get lost and blend into the masses. Like it’s something quirky, a funny little endeavour.
Life is so depressing. A man who fought in world war 2, lived through decades of real history and some kid from the valley in La who’s never left, his point of view is preferred over Altman’s. Life sucks. Can’t people see or feel wisdom, honesty, truth? And not in some self righteous way either.
What are your thoughts surrounding the symbolism of when Marlow wakes up in the hospital and the bandaged man gives him the little harmonica?
I’m usually not this mean on here, but I hate this review bc it’s the kind of cutesy academic word salad that serves only to nullify the anxiety this guy had while watching a movie about really tough manly men. It portrays something raw and real about male relationships and power that he cannot allow himself to entertain. I’m no tough guy either, I wouldn’t- couldn’t- hang with this biker gang. But I can’t imagine disparaging the movie and reducing it to a “deconstruction” of masculinity in the movies when clearly it’s about something so much more. This kind of analysis robs one of having a visceral reaction to a film and instead tucks art away into a little box where it’s not scary anymore.