Robert Altman's Gosford Park

I finally sat down yesterday to watch Gosford Park on DVD, and the bonus features include this fascinating little statement from Altman where he basically says—if you look at any of my movies, you can pick out five or six standout scenes, and none of them actually came from the script or were even the result of his directing; instead, those moments just happened because of some happy accident or a stroke of luck. That’s classic Altman for you, where his whole style boils down to creating this massive, chaotic energy on set and then just capturing the best bits that happen to fly his way. It’s a high-stakes gamble that can either land you something brilliant or a total disaster. Even Žika Pavlović used to say that coincidence is often the most powerful force on a film set.

It immediately makes me think of poor Kubrick, whose films leave absolutely zero room for errors or improvisation. That guy would spend entire days obsessing over a single frame or one tiny, microscopic detail. But honestly, perfectionists tend to burn out early and leave behind far fewer movies.

With Altman, he’d let a butler spit in a fork, and if the character wipes it off with a rag, he won't care even if an authenticity consultant tells him it's historically impossible. He doesn't give a damn about that stuff; in fact, he wants that exact kind of raw reality.

I was actually caught off guard by how the movie opens with rain falling from a perfectly clear sky. Those kinds of minor details don't seem to bother him one bit. It’s almost like he’s showing off, saying, "Look how relaxed I am about this stuff," while knowing that with a little bit of luck, this loose approach allows him to capture magic that nobody else ever could.

What really stuck with me about Gosford Park was exactly that directorial vibe—that sense of ease, playfulness, and effortless flow. And yet, he still manages to guide a super precise "who-done-it" mystery through all that spontaneity.

He finally snagged an Oscar for directing for that one, didn't he?

Michelle Howard2 said:He finally picked up an Oscar for directing for that one, right?

Actually, he won the Golden Globe for directing... Ron Howard (completely undeservedly) took home the Oscar for A Beautiful Mind...

I agree with everything you said, except for that "bolt from the blue" comment... I didn't really notice any clear skies in the movie...

In any case, Gosford Park is definitely one of the top five films of the year, and both Helen Mirren and especially Robert Altman were totally robbed of an Oscar... But we've pretty much covered the Oscars already, so let's move on...

For me personally, the pheasant hunt is one of the most impactful parts of the film. It’s beautifully shot, and even though it's brief, it sticks with you long after the credits roll... it feels special...

Oh, and the character work is just perfected here—every single person has their own backstory, their own history, their own distinct personality... It wouldn't be nearly as impressive if there weren't at least 20 equally important characters... Truly great stuff!

Gosford Park actually inspired me to check out some of Altman's 90s films that aren't quite as critically acclaimed (and that I haven't seen yet)... I'm looking at: ready-to-wear, Dr. T and the Women, and Kansas City... Is there anything worth watching there, or would it just be a waste of time?

redowl90 said:We’re talking about movies here: Ready-to-Wear, Dr. T and the Women, Kansas City... Is there actually anything worth watching on that list, or am I just throwing my time down the drain?

Total waste of time. If you want something actually good, go find M. A. S. H., Nashville, or Short Cuts.

driftingowl27 said:It’s a total waste of time. You're better off hunting down M. A. S. H., Nashville, or Short Cuts.

Miki: You won't believe this, but I actually rewatched M. A. S. H. the other night.
This keeps happening—it's the third or fourth time in the last twenty days on this forum where someone brings up an old classic just a day after I've watched it.

I might be the only person here who hasn't seen Gosford Park yet.

redowl90: I heard the reviews for Dr. T and his crew were pretty miserable...

Oh yeah, since you brought up the 90s, you absolutely have to check out The Player

I caught a movie the other day, and I have to be blunt: it was a complete letdown.

I went in with certain expectations, but this film failed to deliver on every single one of them.

Honestly, I’m starting to think the only film actually deserving of an Oscar this year is that short animated film, "birds".

driftingowl27 said:Try tracking down M. A. S. H., Nashville, or Short Cuts.

Out of everything you mentioned (including The Player), I haven't seen anything except Nashville, which I've been trying to find for ages, but no luck so far...

For what it's worth, Short Cuts and M. A. S. H. are absolute masterpieces, while The Player feels more like a step below them...

One thing I am curious about, though: did this guy have a specific film from the 80s that really made waves? Since M. A. S. H. and Nashville are 70s films, and most of the stuff people talk about him for seems to be from the 90s, I'm wondering what kind of movies he was making between 1980 and 1991.

lonescout2 said:I have to admit, I found the movie to be a total disappointment.

I had high hopes for this one, but it just didn't deliver on any of them.

Fair enough, I respect your take... Any chance you could expand on why it missed the mark for you?

People have spent an eternity hyping this movie up as if it were some masterful adaptation of an Agatha Christie novel, claiming the plot is airtight and everything else under the sun.

The reality? There is no actual plot here. What you get instead is characterization—which, I will concede, is handled exceptionally well—but there are far too many characters to manage. Beyond that deep dive into personality, there isn't much else going on, aside from perhaps a cynical jab at the American upper class during its period of decline over sixty years ago. As for the detective "mystery," it only feels complex because the cast is bloated. If there were fewer players on the board, the culprit and their motive would be obvious instantly. Instead, the mystery remains murky even at the credits, not because the writing is intricate, but simply because it’s impossible to keep track of everyone.

I did find one clever touch, though: the way the American producer, who is only there to scout material for his next project, plays the role of a film producer. It’s a smart bit of meta-commentary.

On a scale of 1 to 5, I wouldn't give it a one, but I certainly wouldn't go higher than a three.

lonescout2 said:The movie doesn't really have a plot; it has characterization (which is handled well, credit where it's due), but there are just too many characters. Aside from that depth, there isn't much else going on, besides maybe some jabs at the American upper class during its era of decline over sixty years ago. As for the detective "mystery," it only feels complicated because the cast is so bloated. If there were fewer people, the culprit and their motive would be obvious immediately. Instead, you're left scratching your head even at the end—not because the mystery is intricate, but simply because it's impossible to keep track of everyone.

True, but the core of the story isn't actually the murder or the investigation. It's exactly what you pointed out: the portrayal of the American elite right before their decline, looking at the world of the wealthy versus their staff and how those two seemingly different worlds collide. The murder is almost incidental. In fact, the director treats it as if it's totally irrelevant, since everyone acts almost exactly the same after the crime as they did before (with the exception of Lady Stockbridge, who was the only one to show any emotion toward the victim and completely loses it in her room afterward...).

What you need (and what about 90% of viewers need) is to watch the film a SECOND TIME. That's the only way you'll catch everything you missed during the first viewing. I'll admit it myself—by the end of my first watch, all I really knew was who the killer was and why, along with maybe three or four other names...

I had higher expectations too. Honestly, the ending just felt flat and unfinished. Everything was flowing so well—the way they captured that high-society American aristocracy with all its pretension, and the brilliant contrast between the help and the "masters." But something just wasn't clicking. Maybe I need to watch it again, though I'm not exactly itching to do so.

redowl90 said:True, but the murder itself isn't the backbone of the plot; the detective work isn't even the point. It’s exactly what you pointed out: the portrayal of the American upper class just before its decline, examining the world of the wealthy versus their staff and comparing those two seemingly distinct spheres. The murder is merely a catalyst. In fact, the direction makes it feel almost irrelevant because the characters behave nearly identically after the crime as they did before it—with the sole exception of Lady Stockbridge, who is the only one with any actual feeling for the victim and completely loses her composure in her room following the event.

I'll concede that it offers a solid depiction of the American aristocracy.
That much is undeniable.

For a superior look at that era's American high society, look toward *Downton Abbey*—regardless of whether you consider it a comedy or a drama.

For an even better study of that social strata, turn to an Agatha Christie novel, which is widely cited as the inspiration for the film, even if the mystery remains secondary to the social commentary in her books.

So, I maintain my stance: there is nothing particularly groundbreaking here.

redowl90 said:But here’s what’s actually tripping me up: did this guy have any specific FILM from the 80s that people were actually buzzing about after he released it?

Look, he definitely put out a lot of work during the 80s—just like he did back in the 50s and 60s—but most of it was just TV stuff. So, if you're talking about major Hollywood impact? He was pretty much a ghost.

It's a total waste of time. You'd be much better off hunting down M. A. S. H., Nashville, or Short Cuts.

driftingowl27, you totally forgot... Thieves Like Us 🙂)))

I caught a movie last night and felt compelled to share some thoughts here, especially since I recall how much praise this particular film received from everyone in this group.
However, having revisited the discussion, I find myself in complete and total agreement with Google’s take on it. 🙂