Un mariage

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.

I like people who approach art in new and unconventional ways. 'A Wedding' is one of the best Altman films for me, because it goes the furthest towards abandoning a unified structure and rational storyline, and presents a loose ensemble of stories and moments.

A review of the time said it well for me. The film has any number of stories, but few are presented completely. For some, you only see the beginning. In others, it is only the middle, or the end. The camera is voyeuristic, often seeming to stumble on fragments of things, looking through plants, people partly out of shot.

For me, first seeing the film at the age of 22, I found it quietly hilarious from almost the very first shot. In that early shot, two boys are unrolling a red carpet. Because it has been sitting unused for so long, the roll has gone flat, and this makes the boy's arm wobble as the carpet unrolls. I laughed out loud. That is an introduction to the understated humour and fine comic irony of the film. I think this is why the film is under-appreciated in America. Americans seem to like to attach a flag to their humour: "Don't be offended. This is intended as a joke." Whereas 'A Wedding' seems to have more in common with the comedic tradition of Tati. I still think 'A Wedding' is one of the funniest films I have ever seen.

For me, this film was years before its time. It reminds me of modern bands such as TV on the Radio or, especially, Animal Collective. There seem to be a lot of loose ends, unconnected bits, things that shouldn't really go together, stuff happening in layers that go in different directions. Yet somehow it all works. It hangs together, although perhaps the only unities are those of time and place. And when you actually try to reproduce the effect (perform the works) you very soon find out that the seeming artlessness conceals a level of skills and professionalism that is actually of the highest standard - something that has strongly impacted on my own approach to art.

William Goldman said in 'Adventures in the Screen Trade' that directors are basically very good storytellers. But here we don't have one story at all, we have a slice through 20th century society. A picture that is a picture, not a picture that tells a story. This film reminds me of a statement by Vonnegut, that he thought perhaps The Novel had corrupted the public mind, because in a novel, there are important and major and unimportant and peripheral characters. In this film everyone is of equal importance. For me one of the failures of this film is Carol Burnett. That's not because she is not an excellent actress, or very funny. But she stands out, and while just about everybody else is playing slightly tongue-in-cheek but straight, she plays this as overt comedy.

I don't know if I agree with those commentators who say this is a blistering satire. I don't believe it is, any more than Boccaccio or Chaucer are blistering satires. It is much more like 'Peasant Wedding' by Bruegel, full of picaresque characters, a canvas of muddled humanity trying to fill their days. It is gentle, and if it turns darker as it continues, there is a great deal of darkness in Chaucer and Boccaccio too. Indeed I wouldn't be surprised to find that Altman had been deliberately trying to create something similar to 'Peasant Wedding' in a modern art form. The absurdist influence is also strong. This is a European film, not an American film.

So I consider 'A Wedding' to be a finer movie than 'Nashville', and in fact one of the great movies of the 20th c. It is more understated, less obvious, without clear stories or points to make. In that is its greatness. It is genuinely subversive. It is a movie that uses a quite different structure and method than almost any other movie you have ever seen. It is a movie that lets its characters all talk for themselves. I think 'A Wedding' is a landmark movie, a reference point that should be part of the training of every filmmaker. I don't think Altman ever bettered it. This, with his own company, was his chance to do what he really wanted to do. It is one of the three or four films that has had the strongest impact on my own life and art. After half a century of filmgoing, I still clearly recall image after image. 'A Wedding' still sticks out in my head as one of the high points of all that time.

This is a fascinating comedy from Robert Altman's peak period

before his 80's downslide. A Wedding is sadly underappreciated,

and really deserves to be rediscovered, especially after the recent

success of Gosford Park which is an obvious companion piece to

this film. Both films deal with class and gender distinctions and

feature an eccentric group of party-goers who can't seem to leave

the soiree and are trapped in a mansion (obviously inspired by

Buenel's Exterminating Angel). A Wedding is filled with great

performances especially Carol Burnett, who is the heart of the film;

Geraldine Chaplin; Desi Arnaz Jr.; and Mia Farrow. Highly

recommended.

It seems, I am one of the few commenters who think this movie very funny. Maybe it is, because I am not American. In my opinion A wedding is a great spoof of American culture. It is not a prerogative of the English to keep up appearances. Maybe it is just my weird sense of humour. There are few things as funny as people trying the best they can to run everything smoothly and perfectly, just because decencey commands it, and failing. Altman mercilessly shows the inevitable result: hypocrisy. This is what happens, when people deny human shortcomings. That's why I think A wedding is not typical a 70's movie, but has enduring qualities. Compared to Gosford Park it is easy to follow all the subplots. I like A wedding even better than Mash.

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.