683 Nashville

Discuss releases by Criterion and the films on them. Threads may contain spoilers!
Message
Author
oh yeah
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 7:45 pm

Re: Nashville (Robert Altman, 1975)

#26 Post by oh yeah » Tue Feb 01, 2011 4:19 am

Coincidentally, I just finished watching this for the second time a minute ago. Definitely was somewhat lukewarm on first viewing (it was my first Altman as well, so his style took a bit of getting used to), but this time it hit me like a ton of bricks - the ending in particular packs a real wallop. And there are so many little details, barely-heard snatches of dialogue and subtle humor that I feel like you could watch this one endlessly. The characters across the board feel utterly real and human; it's just a pleasure to watch them interact no matter how banal the conversation.

I couldn't agree more jbeal; Ronee Blakley is fantastic. I'm probably not alone among fans of the film in not particularly liking country music, but I find all of the songs she performs incredibly poignant somehow; I dunno if it's simply her vocal talents or the way Altman beautifully frames her with those slo-o-o-w zooms of his, but I've re-watched those scenes several times in the past couple weeks just because they're so affecting. Definitely a masterpiece, and I'm already deep into checking out as much Altman as humanly possible...

User avatar
tojoed
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Cambridge, England

Re: Nashville (Robert Altman, 1975)

#27 Post by tojoed » Tue Feb 01, 2011 7:51 am

jbeall wrote: But the main thing I wanted to post was that it's amazing to me that Ronee Blakley didn't become more of a star, either as a singer or as an actress. She's great in this film!
Yes indeed, Blakley being passed over by the Academy for "Best Actress" is one of their bigger crimes.
She released several albums in the seventies and beyond, which I still listen to with great pleasure. When I hear her sing "In the Garden" in "Nashville" it always brings a tear to my eye.
She's been retired for some time now, which is a shame, as I always thought she would become a great star. Shows what I know.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Nashville (Robert Altman, 1975)

#28 Post by zedz » Tue Feb 01, 2011 4:10 pm

I'm such a fan of Blakley in this film that I even think she was robbed by her own co-star in the Best Song stakes, since 'Dues' is one of the great musical moments in movies. I see that song, and Blakley's performance of it, as the lynchpin of the movie. In context, the song practically needs to be a masterpiece in order for the character, and the film, to work, and Blakley pulled out all the stops. I don't know how some people can watch those few minutes and still think Altman was only interested in making a snide parody.

Blakley was Wim Wenders' girlfriend for a while in the late 70s, and she appears in and wrote the theme song for Lightning Over Water.

User avatar
jbeall
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:22 am
Location: Atlanta-ish

Re: Nashville (Robert Altman, 1975)

#29 Post by jbeall » Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:45 pm

zedz wrote:In context, the song practically needs to be a masterpiece in order for the character, and the film, to work, and Blakley pulled out all the stops. I don't know how some people can watch those few minutes and still think Altman was only interested in making a snide parody.
I think one of the reasons this film blows me away is because of how Altman subtly undermines, or at least introduces a comic counterpoint to, the film's best musical scenes. Even during the performance of "Dues," Opal tries to interview Scott Glenn's character, even as his expression shows he's clearly absorbed in the musical performance.

And of course, there's the slow zoom into her assassin's face, which is matched by the long take of Lily Tomlin's face as Carradine sings "I'm Easy." She's clearly so moved by it, but as their tryst is ending, he's already on the phone with another of his lovers. So the two most moving musical moments have these comic and/or disturbing twists, either during or after. Altman is definitely not making only a snide parody, but I can see how these counterpoints might be grating to some (although I think it's brilliant).

I was also struck by how this film is in some ways a bridge between M.A.S.H. and Short Cuts. Like the former, Nashville uses the ever-present (and in Nashville's case, roaming) loudspeaker as a framing device, but he's also moving in the direction of a multiplicity of fractured narrative lines. While it's been quite a while since i watched Short Cuts, IIRC there isn't one framing device that is used throughout, although several events affect multiple families (spraying for the medflies, the earthquake). For this reason, I tend to think Short Cuts is slightly better than Nashville, but only to the extent that they're 1a and 1b in my Altman canon.

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Nashville (Robert Altman, 1975)

#30 Post by Matt » Thu Sep 05, 2013 4:54 pm

I'm reading a collection of interviews with Altman and came across this amusing quote from him in reference to the "disappointing" box office performance of Nashville (which was released one week before a certain Steven Spielberg movie): "Commercially the biggest problem with the film is that it doesn't have a shark."

User avatar
repeat
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:04 am
Location: high in the Custerdome

Re: Nashville (Robert Altman, 1975)

#31 Post by repeat » Fri Sep 06, 2013 12:30 am

Is that the Mississippi Uni series one, Matt? It's a good one, lot of similarly great quotes in there - I don't pay attention to anyone's opinion of Altman unless they read that book first

"Fact is, I don't drink while I'm working. But I work a lot while I'm drinking."

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Nashville (Robert Altman, 1975)

#32 Post by Matt » Fri Sep 06, 2013 10:47 am

repeat wrote:Is that the Mississippi Uni series one, Matt?
That's the one.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: 683 Nashville

#33 Post by zedz » Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:30 pm

Can't wait!

Decent set of extras, though if the commentary is a direct port there's quite a lot of dead air in there. Perhaps Criterion will augment it with other material. If not, maybe they should have filleted into a 'select scenes' job.

Jgh8xxx
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 12:41 am

Re: 683 Nashville

#34 Post by Jgh8xxx » Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:38 pm

Anyone else disturbed that Ronee Blakely, Academy Award nominated for her performance in this film and for a lot of people its standout, is not included on the film's cast list page? I suppose her inclusion in the documentary would've been too much to ask for given her reclusive nature, but that exclusion is just bizarre.

A minor gripe. As Nashville is my all-time most desired wacky C release, I'm otherwise overjoyed.

User avatar
Feego
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:30 pm
Location: Texas

Re: 683 Nashville

#35 Post by Feego » Mon Sep 16, 2013 4:23 pm

Jgh8xxx wrote:Anyone else disturbed that Ronee Blakely, Academy Award nominated for her performance in this film and for a lot of people its standout, is not included on the film's cast list page? I suppose her inclusion in the documentary would've been too much to ask for given her reclusive nature, but that exclusion is just bizarre.
I'm a little surprised by the large number of actors in general who are missing from the documentary, considering how many are still living. Is Blakely really reclusive? I know she's shown up on some of the Nightmare on Elm Street features. I guess she joins Barbara Harris and Shelley Duvall in this respect, but I would have though Geraldine Chaplin might show up somewhere in the features.

But as you say, this is only a minor complaint. This looks to be an amazing release.

britcom68

Re: 683 Nashville

#36 Post by britcom68 » Mon Sep 16, 2013 4:41 pm

What a pity that Criterion, err, I mean Paramount, couldn't get their act together in time for Karen Black to contribute to any of the special features before her recent passing. Altman's commentary track on the OOP dvd makes it sound as if he felt Ms Black was not entirely sure of her role in the film, it would've be interesting to hear a response from Black herself.

User avatar
Lowry_Sam
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 3:35 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: 683 Nashville

#37 Post by Lowry_Sam » Mon Sep 16, 2013 4:54 pm

I hate posting another bitchy complaint about a title I've been waiting for & definitely will buy. But it is another release that I expected more from, 2K? (vs. Investagation's 4k), only one commentary track (which looks like just a port from the existing dvd, which is rather sparse.)? 2 hr. 40 min color film + 5.1 + all extras on only 1 disc? Maybe they just couldn't get any involvement from people and felt the need to get it out sooner rather than delay it further. Hopefully the new doc is top notch.

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: 683 Nashville

#38 Post by Matt » Mon Sep 16, 2013 5:02 pm

I won't say I'm disappointed in the release because it's exactly what I expected, but I did hold out a little hope that Criterion would unearth the 4-hour TV edit Altman mentioned in some interviews in the 1970s. I can't find any evidence it ever aired, but one gets the impression from the interviews that the cut was finished and a deal made to air it.

User avatar
PfR73
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 6:07 pm

Re: 683 Nashville

#39 Post by PfR73 » Mon Sep 16, 2013 5:13 pm

Altman later said that stuff from those interviews was blown out of proportion:
O: The new DVD version, I noticed, didn't have any deleted scenes. There's said to be hours of footage from Nashville that weren't included. Did you want any of that to see the light?

RA: There weren't any deleted scenes. Almost everything we shot is in that film.

O: Just in shorter versions?

RA: No, that whole thing that has been said for 25 years—that we cut another two or three hours of film, that we could have cut another version—just isn't true. That all stemmed from when we went to network television, because the film was so long at that time. I said we could add footage and put it on two different nights: in other words, make two two-hour films out of it. Because if you're not seeing it all in one sitting, and it's going to be separated by a week, you can afford to do a little reprise and repeat some stuff a little bit.

O: But that never happened?

RA: No, they chose not to do that. Nashville... There's nothing I would do to change it. I'd probably cut it a little bit, but that isn't what it is. Most of the time trimmed is music.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: 683 Nashville

#40 Post by swo17 » Mon Sep 16, 2013 5:15 pm


User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: 683 Nashville

#41 Post by Matt » Mon Sep 16, 2013 5:20 pm

PfR73 wrote:Altman later said that stuff from those interviews was blown out of proportion
That's what I get for reading only 1970s interviews.

User avatar
Randall Maysin
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 12:26 pm

Re: 683 Nashville

#42 Post by Randall Maysin » Mon Sep 16, 2013 5:32 pm

Nashville seems to be one of the most discussed and analyzed of all the 'classic' seventies American films, so this release needs at least one substantial scholarly feature. Also, Altman has definitely mentioned in interviews that there is, or was, a scene with George Segal as himself, that was cut, for what it's worth.

onedimension
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 4:35 pm

Re: 683 Nashville

#43 Post by onedimension » Mon Sep 16, 2013 7:41 pm

Anyone know why it's a 2K restoration and not a 4K? My eyes won't notice, but I thought 4K was increasingly the standard..

Arthur House
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:20 pm

Re: 683 Nashville

#44 Post by Arthur House » Mon Sep 16, 2013 8:23 pm

Randall Maysin wrote: Also, Altman has definitely mentioned in interviews that there is, or was, a scene with George Segal as himself, that was cut, for what it's worth.
IIRC, the Segal scene was really just a shot of him attending one of the church services in the "Sunday" sequence of the film. He and Gould were both in town on a promo tour for the then-just released California Split and were invited to join the fun. Supposedly shortly thereafter Segal bashed Altman in an interview, so his moment was cut from the film.

User avatar
Moe Dickstein
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:19 pm

Re: 683 Nashville

#45 Post by Moe Dickstein » Mon Sep 16, 2013 9:01 pm

onedimension wrote:Anyone know why it's a 2K restoration and not a 4K? My eyes won't notice, but I thought 4K was increasingly the standard..
Because Criterion take what Paramount give 'em

Brianruns10
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:48 am

Re: 683 Nashville

#46 Post by Brianruns10 » Mon Sep 16, 2013 9:30 pm

onedimension wrote:Anyone know why it's a 2K restoration and not a 4K? My eyes won't notice, but I thought 4K was increasingly the standard..
Well it's kind of a gray area. 2K is basically the same frame area as 1080p and therefore entirely suitable for home viewing. And I've seen stellar 2K presentations on very large screens, so it is also entirely suitable for larger scale exhibition.

Where 4K really is crucial, is if you're restoration with a mind to create a new preservation master or negative. Because it really is the minimum necessary to capture ALL of the useable information in the OCN, or interpositive, or best available elements. And even when a film is scanned in 4K, generally the restoration work is done in 2K (as Criterion does quite frequently). So really 4K is needed if you need new protection materials. And evidently that was not deemed the case with Nashville, whether because the OCN is still in good condition, or there are separation masters, or it's already been preserved on low-fade stock. And really, Criterion isn't in the game of film preservation, but rather presentation and any restoration needed to ensure that quality of presentation.

So all in all, Criterion is pretty much doing what is necessary. It's up to Paramount to do a proper 4K scan to ensure the elements are protected for future use.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: 683 Nashville

#47 Post by MichaelB » Tue Sep 17, 2013 6:00 am

Indeed - if the target format is a Blu-ray, there's no point going to the extra expense of doing the digital cleanup in 4K. You'll just end up pushing four times as much data around with no visible improvement on screen. Even if there is a tiny visual improvement on the master, the chances are that it'll be counterbalanced by the compression needed to reduce the file size to less than 50 gigs.

Someone on Arrow's Facebook page was hoping that their revamp of Withnail & I would be 4K, but what's the point? It's not exactly one of the great visual masterpieces of its era, and it'll be downscaled to 1080p regardless - so Arrow are very sensibly doing everything in 2K and diverting the cost savings onto other projects.

yashin19
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 7:42 am

Re: 683 Nashville

#48 Post by yashin19 » Tue Sep 17, 2013 7:45 am

I'm not really worried about a 4K transfer for this edition, more that in this day and age, preservation of a film like Nashville should be top of mind for the studio. I can understand a 2K negative transfer back in the early days of BD, but with 4K on the horizon for serious consumers, and is Nashville a film for serious consumers, so you'd think Paramount would put two and two together here.

Perkins Cobb
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:49 pm

Re: 683 Nashville

#49 Post by Perkins Cobb » Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:31 am

Feego wrote:Is Blakely really reclusive?
Maybe she's just mad that no one ever spells her name correctly.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: 683 Nashville

#50 Post by MichaelB » Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:57 am

Perkins Cobb wrote:
Feego wrote:Is Blakely really reclusive?
Maybe she's just mad that no one ever spells her name correctly.
If you've got a name like Ronee Blakley, I suspect this comes with the territory.

Post Reply