I also like that terrible singer who was forced against her will to do a strip act.
I was just backtracking through the files looking for a mention of this movie, and I came across something "Don" wrote back in March. Cool commentary - sez that the writers who wrote about country for rock mags were offended by this movie. I don't see how - this whole flick plays like a Nick Tosches article come to life, with nearly every negative stereotype exposing itself. Even the songs themselves sound like dead-on parodies. Notice that we really only get to hear genuine, authentic honky-tonk music in the small clubs (Vassar Clements!), but the people playing big stars in the flick are naturally singing the hokey countrypolitan sounds that rock crits love to hate (unless you're Chuck Eddy)? Even the black character patterned after Charley Pride is singing a song similar to those neutered C&W ballads that got Pride all them damn CMA awards! (Ronee's character to the Charley Pride character, from her hospital bed: "oh, there you are, mah little black butterfly!"...or something like that).
Antyway, this flick is so lowdown I love it. Only thing missing is a Waylon-ish type outlaw character...
― Rev. Hoodoo (Rev. Hoodoo), Thursday, 24 August 2006 01:04 (nineteen years ago)
― ivan tasev (Ivan T), Thursday, 24 August 2006 01:28 (nineteen years ago)
i don't think the parodies were particularly dead-on. the songs written by the actors miss the mark when it comes to mid-1970s nashville (or at least take as their mark truly the lowest common denominator of country music of that period, not the big hits and the major stars which the film is presumably intended to lampoon)--formally and otherwise. they strike me as what they are: attempts to create country music by folks with limited musical means and a general unfamiliarity with the genre. (blakely's are a semi-exception.) likewise with the off-key, out-of-tune, uncharismatic performances (well karen black does give it her best but her lack of vocal training shows and the song is terrible). i don't know if all of this makes all the difference or makes no difference at all; some people have defended the film in the very terms i seem to be criticizing it. the fact that i can't make up my mind (about what the missing-the-mark stuff does to the film) suggests that there's something sort of confused about this film.
i have a professor who makes a very careful and strong argument for this film as a deconstruction of certain tropes of the "folk musical," but to me the film doesn't always scan that way, and even when it does, i wonder, "so what?"
(i got a similar feeling for the similarly revisionist "pennies from heaven" tv series, which starts out refreshing and soon becomes hectoring.)
― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 24 August 2006 01:37 (nineteen years ago)
i guess a short way to explain some of my difficulties with this film is: many of the characters, even with the two or three or four attributes they were given, didn't make a lot of sense to me.
― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 24 August 2006 01:39 (nineteen years ago)
― Rev. Hoodoo (Rev. Hoodoo), Thursday, 24 August 2006 01:59 (nineteen years ago)
― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Thursday, 24 August 2006 02:32 (nineteen years ago)
That about sums it up. Altman must be doin' somethin' right to last so many years! Out of all his ensemble films, I think this one ties together the disparate strands the best. Naturally, it's through a guy and his guitar.
― cosmo vitelli (cosmo vitelli), Thursday, 24 August 2006 02:38 (nineteen years ago)
― kornrulez6969 (TCBeing), Thursday, 24 August 2006 02:45 (nineteen years ago)
― a. begrand (a begrand), Thursday, 24 August 2006 02:49 (nineteen years ago)
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 24 August 2006 03:12 (nineteen years ago)
I myself think it's great. Maybe in retrospect a bit shaggier than Altman's masterpiece "The Long Goodbye." The thing that maybe people miss is that this movie has zero to do with MUSIC. Music is a backdrop, just as it was in Nashville 30 years ago and just as it is today, altho we all "hipper" now and so forth. But the thing about this town that Altman got is how everybody is an insider and everybody aspires to not giving a shit while paying lip service to the music, which is then used for various ends, mostly political (as in the movie). In other words, he got the insidious fake populism of the place and of the Industry. And right, the music is far from "idiomatic" but that only helps the theme of the movie, in my opinion; it's such a combination of gross parody and sharp observation that it confounds categories in that Altman way (I don't think it always works in Altman's movies, and as I've said on here a few times, the movie is also about L.A. meeting Nashville, which is prescient and which is still happening here in Nashville). Notice in the film that the few people who really love and have feeling are the losers. Just like Gould in "Long Goodbye." Notice the cool of the guy who takes Lily T. into the recording studio, nothing gets thru to him. Notice the flash of something real in Vassar Clemen's face when he's playing.
I think it's essential text for anyone wishing to understand the place, and since I write about country music and the town all the time, it's never far from my thoughts. The people here--I'm from here--hated the movie, because they thought it was gonna be about music and that's not what it's about. Politics makes them nervous, these music-biz folk, and this movie makes them doubly nervous because Altman truly didn't give a shit about the music, or their investment in it. I think it's one of the greatest movies ever.
― edd s hurt (ddduncan), Thursday, 24 August 2006 12:27 (nineteen years ago)
― hank (hank s), Thursday, 24 August 2006 12:36 (nineteen years ago)
Generally not much, with some minority 'yep that's how it is' support. This book by critic Jan Stuart will answer most any questions about the production and social context:
http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/moviebooks/nashvillechronicles.htm
To say it isn't 'accurate' about mid-'70s country music misses the point; it's about Bicentennial America, not Nashville. Altman says on the DVD the variable quality of the music was fitting.
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 24 August 2006 12:58 (nineteen years ago)
BTW, it's pretty well established that Blakley's character is supposed to be Loretta Lynn, and Ned Beatty is Doo Lynn, right? Who was Haven Hamilton supposed to be, if anyone? He seems sort of the blustery, self-righteous Faron Young type.
― Dan Heilman (The Deacon), Thursday, 24 August 2006 13:15 (nineteen years ago)
― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Thursday, 24 August 2006 13:38 (nineteen years ago)
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 24 August 2006 13:47 (nineteen years ago)
right, but what does it actually say?
i just think its claims to political/social/cultural insight are dubious. mostly because i think altman's status as a cultural commentator is likewise inflated. him not deep thinker.
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 24 August 2006 14:34 (nineteen years ago)
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 24 August 2006 14:37 (nineteen years ago)
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 24 August 2006 15:12 (nineteen years ago)
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 24 August 2006 15:45 (nineteen years ago)
Who can claim the most obscure Robert Altman movie as their favorite? Anyone for Quintet? How about H.E.A.L.T.H?
― kornrulez6969 (TCBeing), Thursday, 24 August 2006 16:01 (nineteen years ago)
altman IS a genius, but he's also kind of a son of a bitch
This is true, but it's never been a problem for me. Altman is perhaps one of the greatest assholes in cinema. He's also one of its finest artists. I've always managed to separate him from his work, mostly because I fell in love with his films long before I Knew who he was. All the sordid details can be found in Peter Biskind's gossipy, overblown "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls".
― cosmo vitelli (cosmo vitelli), Thursday, 24 August 2006 16:42 (nineteen years ago)
― cosmo vitelli (cosmo vitelli), Thursday, 24 August 2006 17:33 (nineteen years ago)
no, because we'd already had george wallace and arthur bremer.
altman is a good director but did any of his "masterpieces" do anything that renoir and hawks hadn't already done better? predictably, the movie of his i like most is "secret honor."
― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Thursday, 24 August 2006 19:09 (nineteen years ago)
― edd s hurt (ddduncan), Thursday, 24 August 2006 22:10 (nineteen years ago)
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 24 August 2006 22:22 (nineteen years ago)
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 24 August 2006 22:24 (nineteen years ago)
But Hal Philip Walker's populist vagueness is much closer to Perot than Wallace.
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 25 August 2006 13:13 (nineteen years ago)
― don (dow), Friday, 25 August 2006 21:31 (nineteen years ago)
― Rev. Hoodoo (Rev. Hoodoo), Saturday, 26 August 2006 15:20 (nineteen years ago)
― Vornado (Vornado), Saturday, 26 August 2006 15:54 (nineteen years ago)
Haven Hamilton=Roy Acuff, Conway Twitty, and/or Hank SnowBarbara Jean=Loretta LynnConnie White=Lynn AndersonTommy Brown=Charley PrideTom, Bill and Mary-lite outlaw country rock ala The Eagles or Pure Prairie League
BTW, I’ll second Morbs recommendation of the Jan Stuart book. You might also want to look out for the published screenplay (actually a modified transcript of the film) that Bantam (?) put out as a pocket book when the movie was released. There are fairly in-depth character descriptions and explanations included in its text (one nugget: Haven Hamilton wrote “Keep A’ Goin” to a cheer up a young Barbara Jean after her mother died in an accident).
As for the film itself, I dig it, but there are probably three or four 70s Altmans I prefer to it (My fave is California Split, which I finally saw on the big screen about a month ago.)
― Picnics and Pixie Stix (Charles McCain), Saturday, 26 August 2006 16:19 (nineteen years ago)
― Rev. Hoodoo (Rev. Hoodoo), Sunday, 27 August 2006 00:43 (nineteen years ago)
― Dan Heilman (The Deacon), Sunday, 27 August 2006 00:45 (nineteen years ago)
― Rev. Hoodoo (Rev. Hoodoo), Sunday, 27 August 2006 03:28 (nineteen years ago)
gypsy mothra & amateur-ist are basically re-stating the Pauline Kael takedown of Nashville, after she had championed his earlier work like McCabe & Mrs Miller. her review is included in the collection Reeling.
re: don. tosches glancingly deals w/the movie in Country calling it "bland & dumb" and comparing it to Porgy & Bess in terms of authenticity. for my money morthland is the supreme authority on 70s country, I can't remember if he wrote about it but wouldn't guess have he'd have liked it.
Thieves Like Us is a good forgotten Altman movie. I liked 3 Women and even saw the one (title?) about a cover band at a Greek wedding -- not A Wedding I saw that, too. yawn.
― m coleman (lovebug starski), Sunday, 27 August 2006 11:18 (nineteen years ago)
― edd s hurt (ddduncan), Sunday, 27 August 2006 13:51 (nineteen years ago)
― Rev. Hoodoo (Rev. Hoodoo), Sunday, 27 August 2006 14:30 (nineteen years ago)
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 27 August 2006 15:32 (nineteen years ago)
― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Sunday, 27 August 2006 21:51 (nineteen years ago)
― m coleman (lovebug starski), Monday, 28 August 2006 00:12 (nineteen years ago)
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 28 August 2006 00:24 (nineteen years ago)
I like Nashville fine, as a place to live. There's plenty to do, the people are mostly cool, there seems to be something in the water so there are many interesting-looking, cool, smart women, and many, many, many, great musicians who, if they had even the inkling of what to do with their talent or the direction of someone who got the bigger picture, could make amazing music. But the closest they come here is like that Kurt Wagner shit and Lambchop. Oh, so you murmur your little tales of hard luck over some tasty '70s-style tracks, with pedal steel. Wow, sounds good, but that's it?? Oh, this is "the Nashville that exists in our heads, we bring it all together." Hmm.
here's my take on the whole thing,the bigger picture as I see it. Maybe I should write a book or something.
the thing about Nashville is that it's a bit smug. It's not remotely rock and roll. If you start thinking about your role here and you're not a country guy or a session guy, you get depressed and then you get in trouble. If people would just relax here and try to make good pop music and accept their place in the world, it would be better, but bands here think they have to push the envelope and be hip and all that shit, and they're not.
There's no edge, except when somebody deliberately tries to act like they're rock and roll, and it's usually just pathetic. Like this guy ____ _____ here, let's just call him that, he's been around forever, I mean he's funny for about ten minutes and in Europe, they think he's the real thing. But to me, it's just a guy acting like he's transgressive. That's the deal in Music City: people think they need to rebel. Against what, and who cares if you do? Music Row doesn't care. Rock fans in town, except Vandy girls, don't care. It's unhealthy rebellion with no sense of humor, as opposed to what happens in places where rock and roll can actually occur, and we all know where those places are. But, a LOT of music is here, and gets made here, and from all that something good often does arise, but it's usually not rock and roll nor is it rocking nor does it rebel in any way that's interesting, whereas the commercial shit is what Nashville is. That's it.
and then you have Americana, all the people who would love to get a cut on a Buffett album but live in East Nashville and think Steve Earle is a good role model. That Americana shit here is just sad, a bunch of sad people, just as useless as Jeff Tweedy but less successful, plus they're in Nashville so they think they need to rebel against the Machine. I listen to a lot of local bands here, and write about them, and they're almost all really, really sad. It's like the city just paralyzes them, or makes them arch in a horrible way.
I just find it ridiculous and the movie catches some of that, in a perhaps dated way, since Americana didn't exist then. There was Barefoot Jerry and some people in town smoked pot and had long hair, like the guy playing in Haven Hamilton's session.
I mean Steve Earle is a great role model for drugging and drinking and fucking up, but a terrible role model for anyone wishing to play music.
― edd s hurt (ddduncan), Monday, 28 August 2006 00:29 (nineteen years ago)
― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Monday, 28 August 2006 00:33 (nineteen years ago)
is steve earle that bad a role model, tho? i mean, if you subtract out the heroin and crack. he's doing better in his 50s than a lot of guys who started on music row at the same time.
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 28 August 2006 00:55 (nineteen years ago)
"But this is a porno movie."
"No, these are the kind that couples go to. They're not like the other movies. All kinds of couples go. Honest. I've seen them."
― The Yellow Kid (The Yellow Kid), Monday, 28 August 2006 05:21 (nineteen years ago)
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 28 August 2006 12:55 (nineteen years ago)
-- they're fictional. But then I like filmmakers like him and Kubrick who take what some would call a 'clinical' view of humanity and its behavior.
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 28 August 2006 12:56 (nineteen years ago)
― m coleman (lovebug starski), Monday, 28 August 2006 12:59 (nineteen years ago)
― m coleman (lovebug starski), Monday, 28 August 2006 13:01 (nineteen years ago)
― Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Monday, 28 August 2006 14:26 (nineteen years ago)
wow, that's a great insight.
I dunno, excuse me re Nashville and "Nashville." Sharon always says, "Edd, you are probably right, but you have your own inferiority complex when it comes to Nashville. You need to stop, and take me to a porno movie right now. Couples do go..."
Anyway, I think Earle is doing OK--alive. And I'm sure he's a fun guy. I just don't like his music. Therein might lie some of my point: Nashville screwed his head up more than necessary, even given the inevitable troubles one encounters in the music biz. he had to be a "rebel." I mean OK, what did that do him? He was a rebel and did a lot of heroin, and made his statement against Music Row. Big deal, I say. Channel your energies elsewhere.
As far as Marcus goes, I don't take him seriously at all any more. He had his say thirty years ago, and I wish I could find some artist to just endlessly parse and milk like he does Dylan.
― edd s hurt (ddduncan), Monday, 28 August 2006 14:47 (nineteen years ago)
― Eppy (Eppy), Monday, 28 August 2006 15:08 (nineteen years ago)
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 28 August 2006 15:52 (nineteen years ago)
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 28 August 2006 15:53 (nineteen years ago)
this feels like a big assumption, based on what? If Orson Welles chronichled his own demise he did so inadvertently and mostly by omission, i.e. the masterpieces he never finished or started while he deteroriated in the public eye. actually, the second volume of Simon Callow's three-part Welles bio is out now and I'm looking forward to it, the first (going up to Citizen Kane)was a great read. sorry about the anti-Marcus rant, he's just the emperor's new clothes IMO, can't believe ppl take him seriously.
― m coleman (lovebug starski), Monday, 28 August 2006 20:16 (nineteen years ago)
― don (dow), Monday, 28 August 2006 21:04 (nineteen years ago)
― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Tuesday, 29 August 2006 00:38 (nineteen years ago)
This was on BBC2 late Saturday night (i.e. early Sunday morning) and yet again it has been scientifically proven that, with the best will in the world, I cannot watch Nashville right through without falling asleep.
― Brother Belcher (Marcello Carlin), Monday, 1 December 2008 09:28 (sixteen years ago)
That's why I videoed it...the film that was on after it is great as well...a kool double bill on bbc2...we have'nt had that spirit since 1982...
― sonnyboy, Monday, 1 December 2008 17:42 (sixteen years ago)
bored the arse off me. and i say that as an altman fan.
― piscesx, Monday, 1 December 2008 18:12 (sixteen years ago)
oh I havent watched it yet...although i tried to watch it bout 15 years ago...got 15 mins in...bored the arse off me then...
― sonnyboy, Monday, 1 December 2008 18:58 (sixteen years ago)
Jeez, what altmans do you like if this isn't among them?
― Eric H., Monday, 1 December 2008 19:12 (sixteen years ago)
this is one of my favourite films ever
― braveclub, Monday, 1 December 2008 19:13 (sixteen years ago)
I love this movie.
― sonderangerbot, Monday, 1 December 2008 19:15 (sixteen years ago)
Is Jeff Goldblum's character given any purpose in the three-hour version of this movie? Surely the longer versions did, but did the official version?
― Cunga, Monday, 1 December 2008 19:48 (sixteen years ago)
Maybe his lack of clear purpose was part of the point. He's outside the system, a hippie-ish drifter, giving some character a bike ride, doing magic tricks for another, not deeply involved in anything but observing a lot of the action. Where those who show passion are shown as losers (as edd points out upthread) Goldblum seems cool, unfazed by the madness around him. So his purpose could be as a stand-in for the director or for the audience, giving them some position above the fray to claim as their own.
― dad a, Monday, 1 December 2008 20:23 (sixteen years ago)
Such a great trailer
He's outside the system, a hippie-ish drifter, giving some character a bike ride, doing magic tricks for another, not deeply involved in anything but observing a lot of the action. Where those who show passion are shown as losers (as edd points out upthread) Goldblum seems cool, unfazed by the madness around him.
"Jeff Goldbum is the psycho-freak who's everywhere the action is."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk25HB9JkLw
― flappy bird, Wednesday, 8 November 2017 07:37 (eight years ago)