Ebert's Great Movies, Part 14: "McCabe & Mrs. Miller"

Ebert is right--this is a perfect movie. It is my favorite Altman. And I love a lot of Altman's other films.(I think he has done a few other perfect ones, but I'm not going to argue that point here.) The greatest review of MCCABE is the one that Pauline Kael did when the film opened in New York, which is contemporary rather than retrospective like Ebert's.

Warren Beatty and Julie Christie were never better than in this film. Zsigmond's stunning cinematography can only be compared to the very greatest work by anyone in the history of film. The final 20 minutes, the soundless chase through the snow which ends with McCabe's foreordained death, shows Altman's total mastery of film grammar and language. Overall MCCABE is a landmark in the Seventies Golden Age of American film--an astonishingly beautiful work that proves, as Kael said, that Robert Altman has poetry in him.

Having said that Altman has made other perfect films, I suppose I should back up my contention. Here's my list:
THIEVES LIKE US
THE LONG GOODBYE
CALIFORNIA SPLIT
VINCENT AND THEO
THE PLAYER
GOSFORD PARK--a trifle, but a perfectly executed trifle

These are not necessarily Altman's greatest films, but they are all gemlike in their formal perfection.

This may be a no-contest.

McCabe & Mrs. Miller is, indeed, a perfect film. The best of Altman.
A perfect film about how the West was built, about the impossibility of love, and about the small holders of the greedy American dream having their lives run over by true makers of America: the even greedier corporations.
McCabe & Mrs. Miller are beautiful losers. Leonard Cohen is there to sing about it. The cinematography is superb. The script is tight.
The climate made it even better. Isn't life sometimes too cold? I am also fond of "Northerns", as opposite to classical "Westerns".
And, wasn't Julie Christie the epithome of beauty in the seventies? Can we forget her lost look in the opium den?

I do appreciate Kael's essay more than Ebert's for it is one of her finest. In fact, it made me go out and see the film again.

I found more in "Gosford Park" than what is on the surface and the DVD with the commentary by Altman and his son who created the production design (and there is no fault in the artistic excellence of the look of the film) made me appreciate it even more. The film outdoes "Upstairs, Downstairs" in its pointed sociological commentary on the rich.

"McCabe and Mrs. Miller" is watchable each year like clockwork, usually around this time of year when the theaters are showing such commercial junk. Glad I have digital cable -- was absorbed once again by "Monsoon Wedding" last night and "Six Feet Under."

I've only seen GOSFORD PARK once, when it was in the theaters, and I considered it a trifle--Altman having fun with the conventions of an Agatha Christie murder mystery. Granted, there are plot elements about the evil dead victim and the inquities of the British class system, but I didn't take them to be the point of the movie. You, lightwizard, have the advantage of seeing it again and reflecting on it. When I see GOSFORD PARK again I may change my mind too. But I would hardly consider GOSFORD to be a major Altman effort or one of his best movies, no matter how many layers of subtext it contains!

I saw McCabe & Mrs. Miller when it came out and have seen it at least once again since then. I always think of it as a story of hopeless love. I suppose about a man who felt love for a woman who knew about love but who was somehow beyond the point where she could love. There is a lot of pathos in a situation like that. Then factor in that McCabe's obvious joy of living, and Mrs. Millers sense that maybe something might go right for once, is all dashed by the arrival of the killers. It is a tragic comment on the ephemeral nature of happiness or the possibility of happiness, and beautifully filmed in an etherial atmosphere.

I too agree that Pauline Kael's review is better than Ebert's.

Kael was the best film critic of her time. Ebert is at best a competent reviewer. The distinction is that a reviewer writes for those who haven't seen the movie, the critic for those who have.

I entered the comments on "Gosford Park" because it did appear on your perfect list, larry. The final half hour of the film where all is revealed as to the relationships of the characters brought it way above the level of any Agatha Christie efforts which are all ingeniously contrived murder mysteries. I thought Altman went one step further and the Dickensian portraits of the characters and their past make it a much more fullfilling movie. It is a perfect script (with perfect improvisations when Altman lets the actors create their own dialogue). As a period piece, it's miles ahead of many other efforts in the idiom and at least on a level of Merchant/Ivory. Altman's son had a lot do do with this and it's a hoot to listen to their joint commentary as they disagree an interpretation.

Ebert is often only a competant reviewer when he has only a few minutes on television to recommend or criticize a movie but by-and-large I do enjoy reading what he's written about a film after I've seen it. He does write in a less articulate language than Kael (maybe it could be characterized as more down-to-earth) but I often find his reviews just as effective as Kael's, especially her later reviews which often seem to be a bit too pedantic and quirky.

I think there's room for both of them on the planet (I still go back and read Kael as if she never left us).

I don't read Ebert regularly so I shouldn't judge him too harshly. As you know, Lightwizard, I am a huge fan of Kael's, although I agree her quality dropped off a bit as she got older and the movies themselves got worse. Also, don't forget that Kael was battling Parkinson's disease at the end of her writing career.

GOSFORD PARK will have to wait for a second viewing before I decide where it fits in the Altman canon. I think he was lucky to have such a good British screenwriter. I doubt there was much improvisation from what I've read of the making of the film--how could there have been, given the murder mystery structure? You compare it to Merchant/Ivory, whose films I detest as being basically interior decoration with nothing much going on dramatically or cinematically. GOSFORD PARK is a hell of a lot better than their crap.

"Jefferson in Paris" was an extremely weak effort by Merchant/Ivory but I still appreciate and enjoy "Howard's End," "Maurice" and "A Room with a View." I would certainly not refer to them as "crap." I don't remember if Kael had the opportunity to review any Merchant/Ivory so we'd have to surmise what she would have thought of their efforts.

We don't have to surmise, Lightwizard. That was foolhardy of you!

Kael dismissed the Merchant/Ivory production of "The Remains Of The Day" in an interview as "achieving a dull splendor." She savaged their inept 1984 adaptation of Henry James' "The Bostonians", saying:
"(IT) is the Henry James novel without the revelations...so unconvincing that the movie falls to pieces. The whole last section is nightmarishly mangled; it's as if the director had said, "Let's really foul this thing up."'"

Now do you see why I call Merchant/Ivory movies crap? I have Saint Pauline on my side for precedent.

She's right about "The Bostonians" and "The Remains of the Day," but I don't think that's enough proof to assume she would summarily dismiss everything they have made. The films I mentioned have received accolades from many critics but since I know you're not prone to agree with them on something you don't like, it still won't prevent my enjoyment of Merchant/Ivory's best efforts.

You are still falling back on your standard weak argument of "accolades from many critics." So what? Some of the worst movies of all time got great reviews, and some of the best movies got mixed-to-weak reviews, including, I might add, MCCABE AND MRS. MILLER which was NOT widely hailed as a great movie when it was first released. HOWARDS END was a travesty of a good (not great) novel, mostly because Emma Thompson's performance was so poor. I didn't see MAURICE but perhaps its homosexual theme inspired the homosexual Mr. Ivory to do better than usual work. A ROOM WITH A VIEW Kael actually liked, and I found it watchable enough because of Judy Davis--but it is certainly nothing to write home about. The only M/I film I can remember ever actually LIKING was QUARTET, thanks to a splendid central performance by Alan Bates and fine work by Adjani as his mistress/victim. But what they did to my favorite Henry James novel in THE BOSTONIANS was a sin and a shame.
It is hard for me to take them seriously as filmmakers after that debacle.

You used one critic to back up your statement that all Merchant/Ivory is crap -- your favorite word of criticism. I have no weak argument because there is no argument. I stand by appreciating the films regardless and you can't have it both ways -- supporting your dislike by two negative Kael statements and then discounting that she liked "A Room With a View." There are few directors who haven't produced a poor film in their career. Remember "The Agony and the Ecstasy." Talk about crap.

Lightwizard, I too found Gosford Park, because of the depth of its character development, to be far better than any of the Agatha Christie films that I can recall at the moment. I have to say that it was only after two viewings that I was able to put it all together. It's for sure that I will see that movie again, if for no other reason just to watch Maggie Smith, and when I do, I suppose I'll notice things I didn't see before.

Larry, I freely acknowledge that I do not approach movies with anything like the critical acumen of either you or Lightwizard; however, I like Ebert, with some reservations, and frequently read him after I've seen a film. I often don't see movies for some time after they come out, so I'm limited to Ebert's archive and that of the NYTimes. I also have several of Pauline Kael's books.

I'd like to know from both you and Lightwizard, who your two favorite critics are.

Paulene Kael and Roger Ebert.

Of the current critics, all of the critics at Sight and Sound magazine are highly readable but too lengthy for most readers.

Kael has left us, so of the living critics, I would pick Kenneth Turan of the LA Times.

That's nice of you to, Hazlett, to note my critical acumen and yet I don't consider myself a film critic. I have studied film history and might be considered more of a film buff (except it's not my only interest). I don't actually allow any film critic to influence whether I enjoy a film or not but they often write things about a movie that put it into more deft words explaining why I did or did not care for the effort up on the screen better than I can. I am also not a journalist or essayist and hope to never give the impression that anything I write is anything more than personal opinion.

Hazlitt, thanks for the compliment. My favorite critics of all time are Pauline Kael and Manny Farber, both unfortunately dead now--there's nobody on their level writing today. Among living critics I admire J. Hoberman of The Village Voice the most, and a distant second to him would be Kenneth Turan of the LA Times, whom Lightwizard also likes. Turan's dissection of GANGS OF NEW YORK nailed exactly what was wrong with that bloated monstrosity better than any other review I saw last year. What makes Hoberman especially gifted is the depth of his film knowledge--he seems to have seen everything, even the most obscure foreign films, and is able to bring his erudition to bear on new works with great precision. I have been enjoying Hoberman for over 20 years now.

Lightwizard, surely you don't think James Ivory is a major or distinguished director? Place him next to the really big talents of our day like Altman, Coppola, Polanski, Spielberg, Scorsese, etc. and he shrinks to insignificance. Speaking of Scorsese when he invaded Merchant/Ivory territory with THE AGE OF INNOCENCE he revealed how pallid their treatment of that sort of material usually is. I didn't love the film, but it was surely better than what they turn out.

Hazlitt, let me trot out my favorite distinction...critics versus reviewers. A critic writes for someone who's seen the film, a reviewer for someone who hasn't. By this standard there are very few critics left. Lightwizard admires the gang at Sight and Sound--on the rare occasions when I see the mag, they seem like intelligent critics (not reviewers) to me. My favorite Hoberman, for reasons of space and deadlines, is no more than a reviewer, albeit a brilliant one. Pauline Kael managed to serve both functions--which is why she is infinitely rereadable. But in general, most Americans writers on film are reviewers, basically at the service of consumers (they often award stars to indicate a rating, just like the Mobil Guide) and not meant to be reread later on.