I was highly excited for this, but ended up highly disappointed.
Let's begin with the good side: the premise is excellent. It's how to rewrite history falsely by showy art, through smashing the legend of Buffalo Bill the American heroic figure. Here, the movie enjoys showing him as alcoholic, womanizer, and racist big lie, who can't shoot a flying bird in a closed room. He's not a has-been, rather a never-been. However, his Wild West extravaganza says the opposite, and the poor viewers are conned by the fake image, as long as it's dazzling, accepting it as the correct history. It could be a clever metaphor for Hollywood, which - for example - used persistently to portray the red Indians as the evil guys, and the cowboys as the good guys, not vice versa.
Paul Newman's performance was amazing and amusing. He brilliantly understood his character, as a hollow symbol and walking joke. I believe he was the only factor around which expressed that premise accurately.
I loved how the movie's title, on the opening credits, was preceded by resonant attributes. It's how the movie mocks at the rhetorical excesses, false propaganda, or lying anyway.
Sorrowfully, so long for the good side, because nearly everything else was on the bad side!
There are few moments where the ironies are smart and funny. The best of them is when we discover that the American president needs someone to put the words on his mouth, as if he's another actor, another phony icon. But still, they are so few, which contradicts with the satirical nature of the subject, and its rich potentials.
The many many side characters are there for what exactly?! Every one of them is another walking joke, however unfunny. And being that crowd, which just babbles all the time, without any drama or comedy, made them a strong bore.
The direction of Robert Altman bugged me. While I love the moving camera, and the zoom-ins and zoom-outs, Altman overused them badly, till they served as another source of bore. Not only this, I thought he used them haphazardly, without a plan originally. He was moving the camera here, making zoom-in or zoom-out there, in totally random and meant-for-itself manner, which didn't express the drama visually, or - worse - drove you to blank passions sometimes!
Speaking about bugging direction, the climactic scene, where the lead character faces the ghost of Sitting Bull, was too theatrical to unbearable extent. There was little to nothing cinema there. And with very wide cadres, the image was at the top of its bore!
I couldn't comprehend some points. For one, the necessity of the Annie Oakley character (played by Geraldine Chaplin), and her husband. She's not that great as a performer, and not that bright too (obviously her coward husband is cheating on her, and she's the last to know). So was the meaning that she's another face for Buffalo Bill? As average at best performer, who's not that intelligent, however - unlike him - she has a conscience, which made her shy of her audience at some moment (when she couldn't aim right), and has a heart for someone (her husband). Hmmm.. Maybe.
For another, the character of Ned Buntline, played by Burt Lancaster. Who is that man in the first place?! In one moment, he's an impressed writer by the title character's myths. And in another, he's a professional liar who makes up those very myths. Why he's there since Buffalo Bill doesn't want him? And what can be the profit he gains by sitting in the bar, and telling glorious stories? He's part of the publicity machine, but works for what goal?! At any rate, he was vague character, if not unnecessary. And it gets shameful already when it's played by the honorable Lancaster!
Sometimes the movie as if roams unfocussed; like the operatic singing part in the party. Perhaps it was there to make some comparison between the red Indians humming, which is part of spiritual ritual, and those European immigrants' screams as just a tool to entertain. But it wasn't cleared up. And some other times, the movie is too goofy for its own good: Sitting Bull talks to the president without a translator knowing that nobody will understand anything, Sitting Bull is about to shoot the president and the latter loves it as a comical moment, the photographer takes the picture while most of the showmen aren't there, Buntline leaves the show so easily only because Buffalo Bill told him so, Sitting Bull dies suddenly off-screen, and - out of the story - Harvey Keitel scratches his nose violently, stealing the camera from Paul Newman, and Altman lets it there irresponsibly!
However, despite all of that, there was an element that killed the movie for me. It's Frank Kaquitts as Sitting Bull. OH MY GOD, he isn't dead on screen, he's death on screen! His forever one-note expression was agonizingly tedious, truly horrific, and led me to nausea. I don't know why to cast him, and without giving him any advice to act at all? Did Altman think that his expression would give us the sense of sadness, desperation and indifference?! Whatever, using him like that murdered the character, and destroyed the conflict. Just imagine, what if he was utilized, as silent as he is, with a variety of gazes, in which he looks proud, cynical or long-suffering. That would have made him human, interesting, and - yes - possible to watch. But sorry, no such luck. He was that stupid-looking repugnant corpse all along. And it takes a heavy amount of recklessness to commit a crime like that against your movie!
So, disappointment was what I got from watching Buffalo Bill and the Indians. Robert Altman turned that excellent premise into tiresome play, and unfunny caricature.
Let's begin with the good side: the premise is excellent. It's how to rewrite history falsely by showy art, through smashing the legend of Buffalo Bill the American heroic figure. Here, the movie enjoys showing him as alcoholic, womanizer, and racist big lie, who can't shoot a flying bird in a closed room. He's not a has-been, rather a never-been. However, his Wild West extravaganza says the opposite, and the poor viewers are conned by the fake image, as long as it's dazzling, accepting it as the correct history. It could be a clever metaphor for Hollywood, which - for example - used persistently to portray the red Indians as the evil guys, and the cowboys as the good guys, not vice versa.
Paul Newman's performance was amazing and amusing. He brilliantly understood his character, as a hollow symbol and walking joke. I believe he was the only factor around which expressed that premise accurately.
I loved how the movie's title, on the opening credits, was preceded by resonant attributes. It's how the movie mocks at the rhetorical excesses, false propaganda, or lying anyway.
Sorrowfully, so long for the good side, because nearly everything else was on the bad side!
There are few moments where the ironies are smart and funny. The best of them is when we discover that the American president needs someone to put the words on his mouth, as if he's another actor, another phony icon. But still, they are so few, which contradicts with the satirical nature of the subject, and its rich potentials.
The many many side characters are there for what exactly?! Every one of them is another walking joke, however unfunny. And being that crowd, which just babbles all the time, without any drama or comedy, made them a strong bore.
The direction of Robert Altman bugged me. While I love the moving camera, and the zoom-ins and zoom-outs, Altman overused them badly, till they served as another source of bore. Not only this, I thought he used them haphazardly, without a plan originally. He was moving the camera here, making zoom-in or zoom-out there, in totally random and meant-for-itself manner, which didn't express the drama visually, or - worse - drove you to blank passions sometimes!
Speaking about bugging direction, the climactic scene, where the lead character faces the ghost of Sitting Bull, was too theatrical to unbearable extent. There was little to nothing cinema there. And with very wide cadres, the image was at the top of its bore!
I couldn't comprehend some points. For one, the necessity of the Annie Oakley character (played by Geraldine Chaplin), and her husband. She's not that great as a performer, and not that bright too (obviously her coward husband is cheating on her, and she's the last to know). So was the meaning that she's another face for Buffalo Bill? As average at best performer, who's not that intelligent, however - unlike him - she has a conscience, which made her shy of her audience at some moment (when she couldn't aim right), and has a heart for someone (her husband). Hmmm.. Maybe.
For another, the character of Ned Buntline, played by Burt Lancaster. Who is that man in the first place?! In one moment, he's an impressed writer by the title character's myths. And in another, he's a professional liar who makes up those very myths. Why he's there since Buffalo Bill doesn't want him? And what can be the profit he gains by sitting in the bar, and telling glorious stories? He's part of the publicity machine, but works for what goal?! At any rate, he was vague character, if not unnecessary. And it gets shameful already when it's played by the honorable Lancaster!
Sometimes the movie as if roams unfocussed; like the operatic singing part in the party. Perhaps it was there to make some comparison between the red Indians humming, which is part of spiritual ritual, and those European immigrants' screams as just a tool to entertain. But it wasn't cleared up. And some other times, the movie is too goofy for its own good: Sitting Bull talks to the president without a translator knowing that nobody will understand anything, Sitting Bull is about to shoot the president and the latter loves it as a comical moment, the photographer takes the picture while most of the showmen aren't there, Buntline leaves the show so easily only because Buffalo Bill told him so, Sitting Bull dies suddenly off-screen, and - out of the story - Harvey Keitel scratches his nose violently, stealing the camera from Paul Newman, and Altman lets it there irresponsibly!
However, despite all of that, there was an element that killed the movie for me. It's Frank Kaquitts as Sitting Bull. OH MY GOD, he isn't dead on screen, he's death on screen! His forever one-note expression was agonizingly tedious, truly horrific, and led me to nausea. I don't know why to cast him, and without giving him any advice to act at all? Did Altman think that his expression would give us the sense of sadness, desperation and indifference?! Whatever, using him like that murdered the character, and destroyed the conflict. Just imagine, what if he was utilized, as silent as he is, with a variety of gazes, in which he looks proud, cynical or long-suffering. That would have made him human, interesting, and - yes - possible to watch. But sorry, no such luck. He was that stupid-looking repugnant corpse all along. And it takes a heavy amount of recklessness to commit a crime like that against your movie!
So, disappointment was what I got from watching Buffalo Bill and the Indians. Robert Altman turned that excellent premise into tiresome play, and unfunny caricature.