A Wedding

Though not as fully realized a film as MASH or Nashville, this is still a great film worthy of study in film classes and deserving of a better reputation than it currently receives. Altman showcases a wedding between two different classes of American society from vows to alcohol sodden, pot hazed, emotional let down end. I think what bothers most people about this film is that it doesn't hone in on any particular story line or character. Curiously, many recent films, Love Actually and Magnolia, for example, also present many story lines, but in too much detail, attempting to force the audience to care about each and every disparate story line and in my opinion, fails miserably. Altman, instead, only presents snippets of conversations, glimpses into the characters assembled for the wedding. For some reason this movie reminds me very much of the famous painting by Velasquez, Las Meninas. Velasquez's painting shows a royal family, posed rather informally and in the background can be seen the painter himself, painting the picture that is in fact being viewed. Many clues are given by the painter about the people shown, but nothing is obvious. Things are not as they appear to be. And the painting can keep it's audience at a distance if the viewer is not informed or it can bring the viewer into it's closed circle, if the viewer has the intelligence to know where to look. So too, does Altman's A Wedding, keep it's viewers at a distance and yet at the same time, constantly provides portals into the world of its characters. I think Altman does an outstanding job of treating the viewer as if he were an invisible guest at the wedding. Though the bride's father is a successful business man, he's a self made man and not to the manor born and while he can afford to give his daughter an opulent wedding it does not alter the fact that the family his daughter is marrying into, comes from a different echelon of society. One that has lineage and history as well as financial success. It's hard to relate to the groom's family unless one has been exposed to or comes from that world. Altman accurately portrays the idosyncrasies and cultural idioms that make up the world of the cushioned and privileged. This is a great film that holds its own in film culture and in the pantheon of great films from Altman.

"A Wedding" falls under the category of films that have to be experienced more than once to be appreciated, or perhaps even enjoyed. I saw it in the theater when it came out; I was a kid and the movie was billed as a mainstream comedy but far from laughing at what I witnessed I was disturbed by it. Raised on Disney films and related pablum, nothing had prepared me for the black humor, cynicism and nihilism that makes up what is, in my opinion, Robert Altman's most enduring work. It certainly isn't a film I'd recommend to anyone looking for light romantic fare (try "Father Of The Bride" and please, do wake me when it's over). It gets better every time you see it, certainly. The problem might be, as I've heard from non-fans of the films of Ken Russell, for those who didn't enjoy a movie the first time why on earth would they revisit it? I didn't see "A Wedding" again until I was older but when I did the film was on TV and possibly censored (there's a lot PG-rated cursing and some non-sexual but surprisingly lengthy--and superfluous--nudity), making it less of a shock to my then-conservative system. But viewing the film again I began to make sense of what at first appears to be chaos, a film that shows a world stuffed with hateful, base people acting in the worst ways humans can, and presents it for laughs. The same thing would happen when I discovered the films of John Waters some time later. I think a film like "A Wedding" goes down easier at home than in a theater, even more so after repeated viewings, where you can study the movie the way it should be studied, as an "art" film and not a mindless Hollywood comedy.

"A Wedding" is, of course, a record, in real time, of a wedding event where the daughter in a nouveau riche family marries the son from a family with "old" money and just about everything goes awry. Along the way we are introduced to a never-ending cavalcade of family members. One might complain that it's good no guests showed up, it's hard enough to tell who everyone is even after a couple viewings, but I think that's the fun of repeat viewings--untying the tangled knots. I'm reminded of the film "1941" from a few years later; I didn't get that movie either until I realized the "plot" is basically one crash after the next. This is true of "A Wedding" as well; if you try to find a comfortable comedy plot line or look for single characters to follow you will be frustrated...you're much better off just relaxing and enjoying the big, rambunctious ride and allowing it to take you where it will go...you'll be dropped off safely when the ride is over, to be sure.

Roger Ebert, who gave the film a positive review, likened watching the movie to being an invisible guest at the ceremony and after seeing the movie dozens of times I can think of no better description. I also come up short while thinking of another movie that is similar in presentation. Certainly Altman did overlapping dialog before and after this film. I'm no great fan of his work but agree with many that when he hits the mark he hits it well...and when he phones it in it's a whole lotta no fun. Altman was fond of creating over-long movies where the plot revolved around groups of people intermingling with no apparent (at first) goal. Others, like P.T. Anderson, have picked up the mantle of this technique and run with it. But I'm hard-pressed to think of any movie that so effectively sticks you in the center of the "action" (such as it is; very little happens, it's like a filmed play), even when you dearly wish you could run away screaming.

But the real genius of the film to me is the line it walks between humor and horror. On the one hand you have Carol Burnett using her (brilliant) stock tools to illicit the familiar kinds of laughs you'd have found on her variety show at the time; on the other you have her in a truly uncomfortable situation followed by a moment of unflinching, devastating tragedy, where she plays it straight and hints at some of the serious acting work she'd perform in future roles. The cast of mostly-knowns (either then or now) is composed of dignified, familiar actors playing against type as a rogues' gallery of grand grotesques, but the more you examine these strange, mostly unpleasant people the more you (uncomfortably) begin to realize they're pretty much accurate portraits of the people you know (or are).

Finally, the mounting tension of wondering what on earth can possibly go wrong next (culminating in a convulsive fit and an act of infidelity) leaves you on the verge of going numb...but strangely satisfied. Just as in real life, there are no happy endings, there is seldom a satisfying resolution to the conflicts we experience and very little of what happens in the world makes sense. It all just sort of "is." But if you're lucky, you get a filmmaker like Robert Altman to point a camera at it all and help us to gain understanding of the world around us, or at least to laugh at the absurdity of it, even if we're crying at the same time.

"A Wedding" is far from perfect but is also a film I can't recommend enough, that is, at least, to serious lovers of cinema. I'm afraid it would be entirely lost on those expecting merely a "comedy," but there are plenty of those types of films out there--this one is for the rest of us.

Only two directors that I am aware of can orchestrate a large ensemble cast so efficiently in the movies : Robert Altman and Woody Allen (as if to strengthen the connection, "A Wedding" features Mia Farrow as part of the ensemble). This is one of Altman's most lightweight films: it's an impressive technical exercise (with an equally impressive cast - newcomer Pam Dawber stands out in a small role), but rather short on actual substance. There are plenty of colorful characters but lacking in emotional depth, there are lots of mildly amusing moments but they don't add up to much. Worth seeing, primarily for Altman fans. *** out of 4.

Robert Altman's "A Wedding" was shown recently on cable. Having seen it when it was first released, I was curious as to how it kept after all these years. Being an admirer of Mr. Altman's work, it was worth watching again, although the movie seems a bit too long on second viewing.

Mr. Altman brings two families into a formal wedding that are as dissimilar as oil and water. The groom's family is old money and the bride's is new money, perhaps, although the latter one seem to be out of place. The immediate reaction is: why are these two people marrying? Frankly, it makes no sense, at all.

We are treated to a wedding reception from hell! The wedding party as well as some of the few guests that attend the reception are an odd lot indeed. Logic would indicate that if a wedding is at the center of the story, the bride and the groom should be more prominently focused, but this being an Altman film, they are not as important as the people around them.

There is the old matriarch with no sense of time, at all! Then there is the old bishop that might be in the beginning states of dementia. The old family doctor who likes to touch all females' breasts. We have a wedding planner who has no sense of style. The mother of the bride is swept off her feet by the uncle of the groom in a hysterical sequence. The sister of the bride also had relations with the groom and his class at the military academy!

We get to spy on most conversations. Mr. Altman makes us silent witnesses to what is going on behind the scenes. This is his device for telling his story; he lets us hear snippets of conversation to get an idea of what is really going on.

"A Wedding" is a minor Altman. Somehow this story doesn't grab the viewer the same way as some of his best pictures, but it's a fun ride all the same. At the end we have learned the secrets of the two families and frankly, most of it was not that interesting. That is why, perhaps, this movie, although it tries, never found a wider audience when it came out in 1978.

This film is for Altman fans, mainly.

I found this to be an interesting and insightful portrayal of the different strata of American society, and how flexible and inflexible they can be when confronted with issues they MUST deal with. It's a wedding for Christ's sake! Can't miss that! I think it's beautiful that Altman, borrowing heavily from various forms of Commedia dell'Arte, tragic plays of Shakespeare, and other classic literary works, uses a wedding to create the tensions throughout the film. Remember, this is the bride and groom's special occasion, yet everyone else seems so put out and upset with having to deal with one another, as if they are the ones going through with the ceremony, that they will be the ones marrying each another. In today's world, this is an absurd notion, and Altman knows it. You get the feeling he really enjoys watching this all-american, suburban family cringe at the idea of being married to the mob, though all of them know this is probably the last time they all be together. He's always had such a cynical view of the nuclear family. This would really be one of Altman's best films if it wasn't for the silly pretentiousness of some of the roles, especially Mia Farrow's. I must admit that I love the ending, which most people I know hate.