Hal Ashby is a GOOD Thing
Ruth Gordon and Bud Cort in Hal Ashby’s Harold and Maude
Fact #1: Hal Ashby rules.
Fact #2: People don’t talk enough about Hal Ashby’s remarkable and unbroken run of movies during the golden age of 1970s American Cinema. Seriously. Come on. The Landlord (1970). Harold and Maude (1971). The Last Detail (1973). Shampoo (1975). Bound for Glory (1976). Coming Home (1978). Being There (1979). Seven movies in a row spanning an entire decade; each one different from the others, each one a classic, and each one deeply rooted in the time it was made. Any one of these films would provide the foundation for a brilliant career all by itself.
Fact #3: Joel called this article on Hal Ashby in GOOD Magazine to my attention last week. I meant to bring it up, but obviously I didn’t otherwise I wouldn’t be bringing it up right now. Basically they’ve asked Wes Anderson, Judd Apatow, Alexander Payne, David O. Russell and Jason Schwartzman to talk about their favorite Ashby films with an introduction by Jennifer Watchtell. It’s good stuff, and hopefully it will inspire you to watch a couple of Ashby’s movies. Invite your friends. These are the kinds of movies that even non-movie snobs can get into. Hell, these are the kinds of movies that make movie snobs.
I think the first Hal Ashby movie I saw was The Last Detail with Jack Nicholson and Otis Young as two sailors assigned to escort Randy Quaid to military prison. At the time, it was a Jack Nicholson movie. I don’t think I even knew who Hal Ashby was, let alone screenwriter Robert Towne. Nevertheless, it’s a rowdy, foul-mouth classic.
My favorite Ashby film remains Harold and Maude. It’s a wee bit heavy handed today, but it was very powerful stuff when I was in high school and I still love it. Typical for Ashby, it’s a perfect blending of film and music and it made me a fan of Cat Stevens for life, though my preferred way of hearing him is through this movie.
You can pretty much divide people up by how they respond to a young Bud Cort falling in love with and making love to a 75-year-old Ruth Gordon. I want to hang out with the people who find it beautiful and moving. That, my friends, is a fact.
Filed under: Miscellaneous
Related Posts: - Don’t Blame it on the Boll
- MZS on PTA
- AFI 100 - The Ballots Compared
- Bob Marley: Not a Martin Scorsese Picture
- Review: Lars and the Real Girl (2007) **** 1/2
He’s awesome. His resume from the 70’s is fantastic.
And I love Harold and Maude. One of my favorites of all time.
Wonderful feature here on Mr. Ashby, and kudos to both Craig and Joel for the finished product, going back to the original piece.
I admit I am not a big fan of BOUND FOR GLORY, which I find stilted and intermittantly tedious, and of SHAMPOO, which always for me was emblematic of commercial fare, but those other four………..well……….what can I say?
BEING THERE may be the greatest American comedy of the past 30 years, in fact I say it IS. Members of my family still to this day use dialogue from that film in everyday conversation and it is still hysterical. One of the greatest of deadpan screenplays, and extraordinary turns from Sellers and Douglas.
Similarly, THE LAST DETAIL and COMING HOME are solid works both for their screenplays and performances, while HAROLD AND MAUDE remains today as one of the more quintessential cult gems.
Ashby deserves to be remembered–a perfect case of a director falling by the wayside, unfairly. This piece alone is a kind of renaissance!
We agree Alison.
Sam, I can’t argue with you about BfG as I haven’t seen it recently enough to mount a proper defense. Shampoo however I’m a little surprised by your estimation.
Commercial perhaps, but only because it was so successful. To me, it’s a strange reworking of Renoir’s Rules of the Game filtered through 1970s Los Angeles and a pretty brilliant evocation of that time and place.
We’ve had this discussion before, Craig, and again I’m left more or less repeating you: Coppola may have hit four 500-foot grand slams in a row, but Ashby’s prolific turns at bat throughout the ’70s, resulting in those seven classics, I think makes him arguably the best American filmmaker of that decade (I think it’s impossible to simply hand one guy the crown, but Ashby’s definitely in the mix).
I need to do an Ashby retrospective. I’ve only seen a couple of his movies and I keep meaning to get to the others. Ironic, because I was on a massive 70’s movie kick there for a while and fell out of it right around the time I was getting to Ashby. As Alexander states, one could make the argument that his films may be the best series of that time period, which is truly saying something. Regardless, his body of work is possibly more relevant and influential to today’s American cinema than any of his contemporaries (although I think an equally valid argument could be made for Robert Altman’s films of the 70’s too).
Craig: I don’t dispute all the excellent points you make, and I do acknowledge I was always in the minority with SHAMPOO. But for me it just does not age well, it is stilted, slow and unengaging, and it’s upfront liberal attack (and I am a big liberal myself) is confined to the Watergate era–the film is terribly dated in that sense—having said that, in addition to your astute points I would add that the performances are excellent. I have tried watching this again a few times in recent years, and I wasn’t enthralled with it. But I do LOVE four of the six, and that’s a high percentage.
Interesting Sam. I think partly I like Shampoo BECAUSE it’s dated. It’s almost a document of a certain time and place I’ve mostly only read about having been too young to really remember it.
In that sense, we agree and disagree at the same time which is more than OK with me. We can at least happily agree on the other 4.
Absolutely, Craig!
Count me as a member of the Ashby appreciation club.
“I think partly I like Shampoo BECAUSE it’s dated. It’s almost a document of a certain time and place”.
That’s exactly how I experience it too, Craig. Same with Easy Rider as a document of the ’60s.
That’s funny Sartre because I respond to Easy Rider much like Sam responded to Shampoo. It feels dated and overrated to me.
I’ve been rethinking my position though ever since reading Alexander’s excellent review. I simply haven’t had time to revisit the movie.
“BEING THERE may be the greatest American comedy of the past 30 years, in fact I say it IS.”
The world could have done without Bush’s reprisal of the role in his capacity as president.
Ha! That’s funny Craig. Now you know the most helpful mindset to bring to the film. I must read Alexander’s review.
“The world could have done without Bush’s reprisal of the role in his capacity as president.”
Now that’s class sartre!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!
How can I get hold of Alexander’s review?
As far as EASY RIDER, I do have some friends that consider it an American classic, but I have the same issues with it that I have with SHAMPOO, the ones just stated by Craig. I did like it the first time I saw it way back as a teenager in 1969, but since then subsequent viewings seemed stale.
Since you asked, Sam (and Sartre sounds enthused about it as well):
http://www.colemancornerincinema.blogspot.com/2008/05/easy-rider-1969.html
Regarding Shampoo, to me, as a document of the ’70s, it truly excels. Feeling “dated” if it’s a positive dating (in terms of what the film evokes, and in the case of Shampoo it evokes a good deal), is not a bad thing in my opinon.
The fact that Robert Towne had to go through so much to see his screenplay for Shampoo made into a film turned out to be a blessing in disguise. Shampoo in the mid- or late-’60s would not have had nearly as much resonance at that time as it did with the omnipresent post-Watergate malaise of the mid-’70s that makes Shampoo an historical document of sorts (of the 1968 election).
Craig: I just read the June 20, 2008 piece by Adam Ross on DVD Panache, which is a most wonderful assessment of Living in Cinema, and even the decision to use the frame from DR. STRANGELOVE as a thematic tie-in to the lively discourse on your site.
Class!
Just read and greatly enjoyed your Easy Rider review Alexander. You make a strong case for its craft and significance.
I just read your piece as well Alexander, and while I still have some issues with both EASY RIDER and SHAMPOO, I must commend you for this extraordinary review. I attempt to post my comment, but I am doing something wrong. I am terrible with computer skills. I tried to enter this:
“This is a magisterial examination of America is a turbulent era. The fact that its aesthetics, mired in a specific, uncompromised time frame have divided critics, in no way dims the provocative points Mr. Coleman makes in this superbly-written essay. Particularly informed is his portrait of Terry Southern, the erstwhile renegade who as Mr. Coleman states, had a marked interest in philosophical matters. I personally thought the ending of this film was too pat and predictable, even if Mr. Coleman rightly feels that the two protagonists were mostly “resigned to their fate. Coleman points to Jack Nicholson’s performance as a crucial component and I wholeheartedly agree.”
In any case, Alexander, this is really really great stuff. Thanks for sending me that link.
and Alexander, I was going to take a pass on MONGOL until I just saw that review. I remain skeptical, but you raised a many fascinating concerns.
Craig, I think we had a short discussion over on Anti-D about Being There, which i saw for the first time recently.
There’s a moment in it when an aide comes to inform the dying senator (Melvyn Douglas) that his new friend Chauncey Gardiner isn’t a genius businessman, but rather the village idiot. And Douglas says something simple. He has to seem like he’s a foolish dupe for failing to notice that his new frield is a dimwit. But he also has to seem like the kindness and cheeriness he sees in Chanucey makes him the possessor of some simple yet eternal wisdom that ’s lost on those around him with more worldly concerns, as if the specter of death has clarified for him the truly important traits found in humanity. It’s a beautiful, sophisticated moment, and Douglas nails it.
Tremendous film, unlike anything made today.
I’m ashamed to say the only film of Ashby’s I’ve seen is Bound for Glory (courtesy TCM). It was the first (and only, I think) film I’ve seen where David Carradine plays it straight and I thought he did a fantastic job. It also has Melinda Dillon, who I think is grossly underrated. Her role is fairly rote here, but she secured a place in my heart because of A Christmas Story. I’m enamored with the warm cinematography of these types of films (Leadbelly, Paper Moon, Bonnie & Clyde, etc.). Whenever I imagine that era in American history, my thoughts arrive in a gold patina thanks to d.p.’s like Haskell Wexler. If memory serves right, the plot to BfG was slow and meandering like the man himself underscored by some great music.
I think a mini-marathon of Hal Ashby flicks is in order for me.
K. Bowen:
I must agree with you on your eloquent relating of that most poignant moment in BEING THERE. One of many, but an unforgettable one for sure.
HAL ASHBY was seriously awesome.
He had quite the grand stretch in the 70s. I’m happy to admit that when I first became interested in film as an art (as opposed to being just a passive moviegoer) that his name was something that I was deeply familiar with and I always adored the pictures that he made.
Mr. Ashby was rather Altmanesque in terms of his tone. (Rather like ALAN RUDOLPH.) But I always enjoyed and related to their films much more than Mr. Altman’s.
(I have a deep reverence and respect for Bob Altman in terms of his influence in the industry and what he accomplished. But I’ve never been a fan. Not by a long shot.)
Harold & Maude is a little odd and offbeat for my taste. I only find it sporadically amusing. But I do admire anyone for putting together such an unusual romantic tale. Particularly in that era.
But SHAMPOO, COMING HOME and BEING THERE are all fantastic.
As far as SHAMPOO being dated…
The story takes place in 68 on the eve of Nixon’s election. But the film itself was made in 1975. Only seven years’ difference technically. But from what I’ve read 68 was about as different from 75 as 1812 and the year 1900 were. There were unbelievable, striking changes in terms of morality, dress, attitudes etc. in those short years.
Wouldn’t SHAMPOO effectively be dated the moment it was released? I thought that was actually the point. But maybe it’s just me.
I always loved PETER SELLERS passionately. Certainly Chance the gardener was the absolute cherry on top of a grand illustrious career. He had a heart condition for a very long time. I imagine it was degenerative.
I dug up some old interviews with him because I was interested in how he perceived this character and what process he used to portray him. It was really interesting.
He said that playing Chance was a grand ambition of his. Something that he had long wanted to do. He didn’t care about any recognition that he could receive for the performance. It was something deeply personal that meant a great deal to him. I got the distinct impression that other peoples’ opinions on the matter (to any degree) wouldn’t have fazed him a bit.
In fact, he didn’t go to the Academy Awards that year. Even though he was nominated. (As well he should’ve been. He was brilliant.)
Peter stated firmly that now that he had completed BEING THERE that he had climbed his last mountain and realized his last ambition. There would be no more…
Within a year, he was gone.
Some how that’s always stuck with me. I have no idea why. I admired this man a great deal and he was gone before I was born. But I found it interesting (and VERY sad) that he said he’d successfully done everything he intended to do and then his life was over.
But HAL ASHBY went far too soon as well.
Thank God they left rich legacies for all of us…
Ashby is an American master. HAROLD AND MAUDE is one of my favorite films ever. As is BEING THERE. Ashby had an innate gentleness in tone and theme that I adore and consider part of the 70’s film tapestry. SHAMPOO is only dated inasmuch as it’s a prism of that period, showing how the so-called liberals did let Nixon slip in. I love the scene with Jack Warden confronting Beatty at the end. Even though Warden is a bastard, he understands Beatty and lets him be.
Thanks for the compliment, Sam.
I should say, though, that the last time I tried to watch any of Harold and Maude, I couldn’t do it. But maybe I should try to revisit.
Christian’s got it. Hal Ashby is an American master, as consistent as anyone in the 1970s (I think Alexander said something like this too). Ashby movies are one thing above all else-HUMAN. And for that I can forgive alot, though Ashby does little in these classics that should require forgiveness.
The use of Cat Stevens’ “Trouble” in HAROLD AND MAUDE is one of my favorite uses of music in a movie. THE LANDLORD is what THE GRADUATE thinks it is. BEING THERE. THE LAST DETAIL. etc. etc. Thanks for fighting the Ashby fight Craig.
“The fact that Robert Towne had to go through so much to see his screenplay for Shampoo made into a film turned out to be a blessing in disguise. Shampoo in the mid- or late-’60s would not have had nearly as much resonance at that time as it did with the omnipresent post-Watergate malaise of the mid-’70s that makes Shampoo an historical document of sorts (of the 1968 election).”
Astute sir.
See, this is why blogging rules. I got home from the festival last night to see this outpouring of enthusiasm for Mr. Ashby and his films and it just made me feel good.
KB, I recall that item and it was an excellent point about one of the key moments in the film.
Miranda, that’s an awesome story about Sellers. I don’t think I’d ever heard it before. Puts the movie in a whole new light.
Christian, thanks for bringing up Ashby’s gentleness. From his overall sensibility to the way he could let a song caress the images he put on screen without dialogue. Gentle. Greatness.
WJ. I’m almost jealous of all the Ashby discoveries you have yet to make.
Chuck, I’ve been thinking about Ashby a lot lately, at least since you reviewed The Landlord and maybe from before. He’s in the air lately.
Have I ever told you the story about discovering Harold’s actual hearse in my Long Beach neighborhood years ago? No? Maybe I’ll post it onmyblog. Amazing.
I also lived right on Ashby Avenue in Berkeley, down the road from where they filmed the scene with Harold giving her the ring.
For H&M purists, check out the trailer and you can see a few clips CUT from the film, including their kissing, which Paramount hated.
And Cameron Crowe put the soundtrack together! Finally!
including their kissing, which Paramount hated
Ahaha, I bet they did.
Christian, the soundtrack is only on vinyl, is that right or did I misread somewhere?
Yes, only on vinyl. Limited edition. I’m sure the CD will follow.
Serves me right for ditching my turntable in the late 80s
You can listen to mine. A beautiful Pioneer I bought in Austin.
Indeed, Craig. Harold and Maud was one of the films that made a movie snob–or at least lover–out of me, and Being There cemented it. Beautiful stuff.