McCabe & Mrs. Miller

"Finally, the difference between a criminal thug and a hard-nosed business man is one has the law, the courts and the politicians in his pocket."

I saw nothing to support this conclusion at all. The company didn't use the law, the courts, or the politicians. They not only offered McCabe a fairly significant amount of money, they then upped it a bit. And one of the two company reps was softhearted enough to suggest that they actually stay overnight and wait. At that point, they did not turn it over to the law, the courts, or the politicians--they turned it over to a thug.

This does not suggest a complete disregard for fairness, nor does it suggest that the way they achieved their means was through misuse of the law. No, they ignored the law because the law had no power over *anyone*--not just them.

24388. benear - June 8, 1999 - 7:02 AM PT

LOL, Officer. I think Altman is one of the most politically minded directors ever. He difinitely has an agenda. If you are saying the central theme was the love story between Christie and Beatty, you are wrong. Their relationship was far more complicated. (I thought the fact she made him fork over $5 before a roll in the hay was an excellent touch).

Nope. I baldly assert the central theme was the evil big bad robber baron against the little guy. Altman has extreme sympathy, nay empathy for the little guy. I think I previously pointed this out in our discussion of Nashville. I also think he is very sympathetic toward women. Showing the reality of their lot in life is political, feminist and sympathetic.

24390. CalGal - June 8, 1999 - 7:24 AM PT

Benear,

Never once have I mentioned the relationship of Miller and McCabe.

"I baldly assert the central theme was the evil big bad robber baron against the little guy. "

In that case, they could have just hired the hunter to kill him without offering McCabe any money at all. Many Westerns have used that type of murder--either by a company or a powerful land baron--to demonstrate the lawlessness and the unfairness that could occur.

But again, you are proving my point. If it is the big bad robber baron against the little guy, then the central theme is not a Western.

While there is sympathy for McCabe, it is the detached kind--utterly without empathy. I think McCabe's very bad choice and the consequences of it are viewed with sympathy--hey, guy, you fucked up and there is *no way* out of this. Ain't life a bitch?--but he himself is presented as a loser, a braggart, and an idiot who figured things out just a day too late.

(Altman treats women like shit in the movies I've seen, including this one.)

A reasonable interpretation of McCabe--that I disagree with, but is at least clearly discernible from the movie--is that McCabe reflects the death of the old West and a land in transition. My theory is that this is something he shows in passing, because he is an excellent storyteller. But were you to see that this is either the central or subordinate theme in the movie, Carradine's death would become much more clear, so you might wish to dwell on it for a bit.

24393. MsIvoryTower - June 8, 1999 - 7:39 AM PT

"(Altman treats women like shit in the movies I've seen, including this one.)"

I'll second that.

And Benear, Altman *may* be trying to convey political messages in his movies, but, frankly, they are deeply flawed messages if so. Tell me, just why the hell I should even care that McCabe was swept aside by the larger corporate guy in the end? Was McCabe competent? Doing the thing better? Contributing to a more productive society?

I think not. He was a small-time loser with a small mind.

So, I don't give a rats ass what becomes of him, primarily because of his personal character.

24396. benear - June 8, 1999 - 7:57 AM PT

Cal: I did not say you said that was the central theme. There has been much discussion about their relationship by I believe [Tabou] and Niner.

MsIT: are you saying the corporation is justified in giving the untimatum: sell to us or die, just because they are more efficient in their use of capital?

Cal: the fact the corporation upped the price once, and one of the guys wanted to be more lenient does not change the fact that that was the real choice. Sell or die

In that, I don't think you and I disagree much about the central theme.

24400. CalGal - June 8, 1999 - 8:06 AM PT

Benear,

"Cal: the fact the corporation upped the price once, and one of the guys wanted to be more lenient does not change the fact that that was the real choice. "

No argument. But the fact is that the company could merely have had him killed without giving him the choice. That would not have been an extraordinary event.

Therefore, the dominant aspect of the situation is *not* the death. Or the selling. It is the choice. The fact that he had a choice is highlighted, and then it is made brutally clear to him that the time for the choice was over.

The fact that the people who were offering him the choice were ruthless is merely a means of moving the story forward in a particular way. The choice, to me, is the issue. He had a choice, he made it. He didn't even realize that he'd made it right away, because he thought he was just in the opening stages of negotiation. He ignored all the signals telling him otherwise. He was stupid, but in a way that we could *all* be stupid.

And then he gets a lesson in the irrevocability of choice.

24402. MsIvoryTower - June 8, 1999 - 8:08 AM PT

Sell or die.

Well, if one wants to be *interpretive*, given that this is not a modern operational option for capitalists, Altman may have been using the western setting to convey the sell or die choice metaphorically. That is sell or be driven out.

Well, that's what being in a competitive market can do. Why the hell should we try to protect stupid producers? Just because they're little guys? Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Is he telling us the cards are stacked against the small guy when up against the big guy? Well, duh. One only needs to pick up a standard history book, of any country, at any point in time to figure that one out.

I am not impressed.

Altman's message *is*, however, standard stuff given the *discovery* that life isn't fair by the baby boomer generation. Such sophistry permeated the political, social and cultural environment of the 70's.

As I said before, lots of navel gazing going on. Lots of people getting orgasms at the thought of how profound they were.

24404. benear - June 8, 1999 - 8:15 AM PT

And with that we are in total agreement on everything except your definition of a Western, which I consider to be a little too narrow.

So Altman is an existentialist? I don't think he was making a philosophical point as much as a political one. The scene in the lawyer's office (great cameo by William Devane originally from Albany, NY) does provide the political exposition. Devane's monologue is the message that the mining company has the laws and the politicians on its side. Devane makes it clear he intends to use McCabe's pending martyrdom for political purposes (Altman is just as cynical here as he was in Nashville, if not more so.)

24405. benear - June 8, 1999 - 8:20 AM PT

MsIT, you are nailing Altman's message. You may be right about the navel gazing, but hey, we are a demographic reality. We are entitled. Get over it! (g)

24407. CalGal - June 8, 1999 - 8:29 AM PT

Ms,

Although I agree with you about 70s movies, I do think that Altman was specifically *not* showing that the cards were stacked against the little guy. In fact, you could argue he was saying, "Look. Here this drunken idiot built a nice little business and could have sold it off for a hefty profit--but no. He was too much of an idiot and ignored all the signals showing him that this was his only opportunity. His bad."

The environment that was built up to demonstrate *why* this was his only opportunity--that in this case, the company would have no patience and would off him--is his means of showing the bad things that can happen to someone who ignores opportunities.

So while Benear's interpretation is certainly due your response--I agree with it, in fact--I think McCabe's meaning is much different. Although in any event it is an unpleasant story.

Benear,

I think the lawyer scene was just one in a series of episodes put in place to show McCabe how badly he'd fucked up. At the same time, it tweaked lawsuits, lawyers, and in many ways was more a riff on current day views of lawyers than it was intended to show that the law was helpless. By this time, McCabe had met the bear hunter. Of *course* the law was helpless against that guy--in fact, the company was probably helpless against him as well.