David Sterritt (ed),
Robert Altman: Interviews.
Jackson: University of Mississippi, 2000.
(Conversations with filmmakers series. General editor: Peter Brunette.)
ISBN 1 57806 186 5 (hb)
ISBN 1 57806 187 3 (pb)
256pp
US$45.00 (hb)
US$18.00 (pb)
(Review copy supplied by University of Mississippi Press)

Uploaded 30 June 2000

Robert Altman: Interviews is a welcome and precious addition to this prolific “Conversations with Filmmakers” series. Not only is this an informative edition of Robert Altman’s films and working life, but it also shows the innovative and different ways interviews can be undertaken and presented in written form; it exhibits both the useful and the limiting aspects of the interview. This selection has been made from a variety of source materials: including The New York Times to the book Projections 2: A Forum for Filmmakers; An Interview from Playboy, and such journal publications as Cineaste, Film Comment and Sight and Sound. This book is both non-exclusive and selective with its contributors. David Sterritt points out in his introduction that these interviews “were conducted by critics, journalists, and scholars who share a serious interest in Altman’s work”. (xi) Audience questions enrich the Michael Wilmington, interview which is taken from a discussion between Altman and the Los Angeles Film Critics Association.

The most intriguing aspect to this collection is the way it raises the double-sided nature of interviewing the “artist”. Altman is unabashed and quite fittingly includes himself as one. He does, however, qualify the title and defends it from accusations of elitism: “I admit that I’m an artist. But I think that’s a trade”. (71) On another occasion he says, “I am an artist, possibly of popular culture, but I use the word with a small “a”, as opposed to being a propagandist”.(110) Altman repeatedly points to the dangers of the interview for the artist/director, and of how it may not give a correct picture of the person or else destroy something in the process of articulation. (41, 112) Sterritt commends this ability to be both open and guarded: “one can’t help being struck by Altman’s ability to combine an open, generous approach to the interview process with a lurking suspicion of the pernicious results it may have.”(xiii)

There are some reservations to be made about this collection. Sterritt’s concentration on Altman’s major periods of feature filmmaking neglects discussion on many of the eighties films: Streamers(1983), O.C. and Stiggs(1987), Fool for Love(1985) and Beyond Therapy(1986) are deprived of attention. There is also neglect concerning the nineties films; there is only one interview after 1992, and yet Altman has made a further five feature films since then. Sterritt’s contribution ends the book: “Director builds metaphor for jazz in Kansas City(1988)”. As do some of the other “interviews” in this book, Sterritt’s final essay does not read as a question-answer interview, rather it finely integrates Altman’s words within a critical analysis. More importantly, this final contribution updates the book, if not saves it from ending eight years ago, and deals with the continuing way Altman develops new ground: Kansas City, “breaks the pattern for jazz-orientated movies”.(211)

The book provides a useful and updated chronology of events and filmography; it lists Altman’s industrial and commercial films, miscellaneous shorts, television specials and films directed by others (Altman mainly as producer). One may not need to refer to Patrick McGilligan’s tome, Jumping off the Cliff (1989), as frequently as before. There are seventeen interviews in all which span from 1971 to 1996. Sterritt gives reasons for his selection. One commendable reason is their diversity: “they do not always have a sympathetic attitude toward particular aspects of that work.” (xi) Another reason for the selection is “to cover all the phases of Altman’s feature-film activity from the period of his first major contributions.” (xi)

Unfortunately, this has lead to some gaps and contributed to a repetitiveness. Pret-a-porter (Ready-to-wear), (1994) is mentioned only in the introduction, and yet with this film Altman took enormous risks, held his own reservations about the outcome of the film, and continued to experiment in a new documentary manner extended from Tanner’88 (1988) and The Player (1992). The seventies films, M.A.S.H(1969), Nashville(1975), McCabe and Mrs. Miller(1971) are discussed over and over again. While Sterritt is aware that “a collection of interviews with a single artist will result in some degree of repetition and reiteration”(xii), some accounts become a little tiresome by the time of Graham Fuller’s interview. How 3 Women (1977) was conceived, and Paul Newman’s account of the “tits” in The Player(1992)are repeated from earlier interviews.

Eight interviews occur in the nineties, and five of these interviews take place in 1992 around the time of Altman’s so-called “come-back”. Altman makes mockery of those who call The Player a “comeback”; he knows “the rules of the game” and insists that he is in a different business to Hollywood.(177) The concentration of interviews around this time would appear to parallel the false notion of a “comeback”; nevertheless, these interviews both round up the past and look forward to the future with Short Cuts(1993).(162, 178) Gavin Smith and Richard T. Jameson’s interview is indispensible for anyone wanting to write on The Player: the importance of Tanner’88, its tools and techniques are what made The Player possible.(179) This article also bridges certain gaps that were spoken of earlier, such as “What became of your plans to do TV versions of Nashville and Buffalo Bill and the Indians?” (180)

There are only four interviews from the eighties. They mark important shifts, discuss some of the lesser exposed films and show how Altman continued against the odds, to make films the way he wanted to make them. After the Popeye (1980) debacle with Paramount, and the collapse of a project with another major studio, Altman sold his production company Lion’s Gate and turned to small scale projects based on plays. Andrew Sarris’ interview marks the beginning of this period and it concentrates on Altman’s shift into filmed theatre for video, as well as the deal he made with ABC and the Shubert Organization. While this is not Altman’s most well-known period, it also reads as a very fertile time. Altman says:
What we’re trying to do is really find a new form, where we could use all we know about cameras and backstage visions….move it to a style that isn’t a movie, isn’t a play, isn’t television. It offers a chance for a lot of impressionism, abstraction because you don’t have to appeal to a mass audience – like poetry. (96)

The Richard Combs and Tom Milne’s 1981 interview, “Altman Talking”, is important for discussing Popeye (1980), the lesser known Quintet (1979) and the almost unknown, Health (1980).The Harry Kloman and Lloyd Michaels with Virginia Wright Wexman interview, “A Foolish Optimist”, mainly harks back to the seventies, but it does raise the crucial issue of how critics find problem with Altman’s cynicism and pessimism, especially with endings. (109) The Patricia Aufderheide interview, 1985, is especially good for its focus on Secret Honor (1984) This film was based on a play about Richard Nixon and produced as a teaching exercise at the University of Michigan.(117) This interview concerns a certain politic in Altman’s work; one which is based in art, satire, and the viewer reassessing themselves, rather than in any overt exposition or “propaganda”. Secret Honor, Altman says, is “in a tradition that goes back to Jonathan Swift – look at this.” (118)

Following this 1985 interview, there is a five year gap. Nevertheless, this was the time when Altman was working on mainly television specials, and this book, as stated at the beginning, is concentrating on his feature films. Even though the play-based feature films, Fool for Love, Beyond Therapy were made in this time, silence reigns. Beverly Walker (1991) makes up for some of the lost territory: she raises Vincent and Theo(1990), describing it as “Altman’s most searing, overtly despairing film ever.” (128) Walker goes back to the seventies, partly covers the eighties and looks forward to Shortcuts, or what Altman initially titled L.A Shortcuts. What is particularly good about this interview is the way it is written, and Walker’s admission to her having reservations about some of the films. Walker’s interview reads more as a commentary, and she seamlessly slips Altman in here and there. She calls Altman her “favorite American director…his films pierce the soul, their moments indelible”, and yet she admits that she “still found M.A.S.H. unpleasantly macho” and remains “at odds with Nashville.” (124-125)

The seventies interviews set Altman up as an artist with a radical reputation. The first interview by Aljean Harmetz was written when Altman was forty-six years old. Harmetz calls him Hollywood’s newest 26 -year- old genius.” (4) By this time Altman had made McCabe and Mrs. Miller, and his “peculiarities”, his own special “look” and use of colour are recognized. Altman’s use of colour in McCabe and Mrs. Miller is contrasted with Michelangelo Antonioni’s Red Desert(1964) and most closely associated with John Huston’s Moby Dick(1956). (7) This gives Altman the credibility of a film artist with his own particular style. Connie Byrne and William O. Lopez (1975) raise the special interest of sound in Altman’s films. They mainly concentrate on Nashville: “The sound itself is panoramic – the opposite, say, of Robert Bresson’s sound, in which every visual detail is accompanied by a single precise sound effect, dubbed in afterwards.” (21) They contrast Altman with Jacques Tati and Frederico Fellini and their use of sound.(21) This interview is of particular interest at a time when Robin Wood wrote his evaluation of Altman for Movie.(1975). Wood’s assessment is more cautious; he has “mixed feelings” over Altman, and brings into question Altman’s new rise to fame. Wood describes Altman as “that of the minor artist forced by circumstances into a position where he must be a major artist, a self-sufficient genius, the ‘star’ director”. These early interviews give some credence to the early over-reaction that Wood detects, and yet they form a solid base in recognising Altman’s individual style.

On the one hand, these early interviews show Altman to be “human”; on the other hand, the image they project can form a stereotypical picture, and one that is hard to change. Questions concerning Altman’s personal life, his drinking and his gambling, can be divergent. Bruce Williamson’s lengthy interview covers a lot of untapped ground: Altman’s attitude to critics, and to those who rate his films. At the same time, some of Williamson’s questions border on the intrusive and irrelevant: “Are you a heavy better?”(60) Similarly, “You’re now on your third marriage, but that has lasted 17 years. What do you think makes it work?”(61) Nevertheless, Williamson is writing for Playboy, and his probings make one question the interviewing process: how much can one rely on interviews as “truth”, and how much does their emphatic structure bind a person to a particular set of ideas? Altman is aware of this manufacturing of a personality, one that is no different to his Buffalo Bill character in Buffalo Bill and the Indians(1976):

ALTMAN: The words you guys pick may not give a true picture of the individual, whether it’s to sell magazines or political candidates.

PLAYBOY: Is that why you have been so reluctant to do this interview?

ALTMAN: No I’m just afraid I’ll start listening to myself. I wonder how much bullshit an interview will be, because I have nothing to say about anything. I’m not interested in analyzing myself. What I’m doing right now is a very dangerous thing for an artist to do. (41)

Much to the credit of this interview collection, it throws into doubt the notion of taking interviews as evidence, at the same time as it shows the need for such evidence. This book abounds with “inside” accounts and “facts” about the making of Altman’s films. On the one hand, these “facts” are important: one could be completely on the wrong track when talking about colour in McCabe and Mrs. Miller, without knowing that Altman adds more yellow, or adds more blue to get the acquired look. Wilmington’s interview contributes to an understanding of The Long Goodbye(1973). Altman never finished reading Raymond Chandler’s The Long Goodbye; instead, he “tried to reflect more on Raymond Chandler than his story.”(135) On the other hand, the director may be withholding information. Altman does not give the interviewer everything; he refuses his work to be “pigeonholed”. (109) On one occasion, when asked for his view, Altman says “I don’t know what it is”.(111) Moreover, Altman wants his audience to “understand the movie’s intention without being able to articulate it”. (8) This makes reception problematic, especially if the work is taken literally. Harmetz addresses this problem in regard to M.A.S.H. : “large numbers of people read Altman’s anti-war film as a pro-war statement”.(9) Greater problems regarding reception happen with the insertion of “inside” jokes. There is a story about a piece of skirt being caught in a door in both 3 Women and Popeye. About that deliberate repeat, Altman says, “nobody in the world is ever going to make that connection between those two films, nobody can know the genesis of things like that.” (204)

While this collection shows that it is not possible, or even productive, to know everything about Altman and his films, it remains a valuable recording of an oral history. It is a collection of experiences from Altman, someone who has worked on the cutting-edge of film and television for over the last forty years. Film historians can gain information about the changing trends in Hollywood, from Altman’s dealings with the studios, and the setting up of his own production company in the seventies. Anthony Macklin’s interview goes into much detail about Lion’s Gate; by having his own company Altman was able to support a group of actors and other filmmakers such as Alan Rudolph. The need to preserve film, is another issue realised throughout these interviews. Altman gives credit to Martin Scorsese for his efforts in this area; without Scorsese, McCabe and Mrs. Miller would have been lost. (181)

Robert Altman: Interviews, is not simply a collection of interviews. It is a book that questions the validity of the interviewing process and the different shapes that the interview can take. The interviews are accessible to those who are simply interested in Altman’s films and they are invaluable for film scholars. While this book is commendable for its selection of interviews and its range of source material and contributors, it could have done with some more attention given to the “lost” period of the eighties and with some more recent discussions from the nineties. In an indirect way it has contributed to the 1992 “comeback” notion, something that the content denies. It appears from these interviews that the most harm anyone could do to Altman is to write him an eulogy and turn him into the American mythical figure that he so constantly exposes in his films. Much to the credit of this series, these interviews avoid unqualified praise: they are critical, sometimes interrogative, and yet they are respectful.

June Werrett

Works Cited

Patrick McGilligan, Robert Altman: Jumping off the Cliff. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1989).
Robin Wood, “Smart-ass & cutie-pie: notes toward an evaluation of Altman”. Movie. 21, 1975 (1-17)