It's okay with me.


After seeing this movie for the first time a couple years ago, I can't help but be amazed by it. I remember reading Chandler's novel "The Long Goodybe," and I never actually thought it could be put to film. The story was so convoluted ... philosophical, even. Also I couldn't fathom gangly actor Elliott Gould playing Phillip Marlowe, a character whom I've always associated with the late-great Humphrey Bogart.

In my mind, "The Long Goodbye" is the best film adaptation of any Raymond Chandler novel. The essence of Marlowe's character has been preserved in Gould's performance. I read that Robert Altman's intention was that Marlowe had been comatose for many, many years. I think that shows very clearly in the movie. Marlowe sort of stumbles around, mumbling to himself all throughout. Beyond what I'm sure is the popular consensus, Gould's Marlowe isn't stupid, and the end very clearly illustrates this.

Sterling Hayden's performance as Roger Wade is possibly brilliant. I couldn't imagine anyone else in that role. It's obvious that much of this movie was improvised, and Hayden adds so much depth to his character through impromptu, incomprehensible speeches. When we see him marching into the ocean, there's an almost harrowing quality to it.

Last but certainly not least, Leigh Brackett's script was absolutely flawless. This lady has given us so much, and I'd hate to see her forgotten in the annals of filmmaking and crime/sci-fi fiction history. In my mind, her next best work was on the script from "Rio Bravo" ... another perfect work from a master storyteller. Lest we forget that she also wrote a draft of "The Big Sleep," the film that everyone remembers as one of Bogart's finest moments.

I loved the soundtrack, too. Pity it can't be found anywhere. Johnny Mercer's vocals to the theme song could never be replicated.

But I believe it's Elliott Gould that's the brightest star in this movie. He's everything that I used to believe Phillip Marlowe was not. But it works in a way that I really don't know how to explain. His recurring line "It's okay with me" typifies Marlowe's personality to the letter. Perhaps the reason this film never reached the critical and box-office acclaim that it deserved is because of ... well, people like me. Gould isn't Bogart, so why bother? And you know what? The entire movie is predicated on Gould being the anti-Bogart, if you will. If James Garner or Steve McQueen were cast, no one would remember this movie. I've found a respect for Gould that I never had before. After this, I wanted to see more of his earlier work. While everyone remembers "M*A*S*H," what about "Little Murders?" It comes on the Fox Movie Channel every once in a while, and it's certainly worthy of note.

I wasn't alive when "Long Goodbye" was made, and it makes me nostalgic for the better, more creative days of Hollywood. Few really memoriable movies are made today. Many of them are good, but ultimately forgettable. I wish I could have had that feeling of watching "The Long Goodbye" on the big screen. Doubtless I'd have been even more smitten than I am now.

I suggest that you watch this movie along side "Five Easy Pieces" with Jack Nicholson and Karen Black. "Five Easy Pieces" is another film that sort of lingers in the shadows. Not forgotten, but not really appreciated either.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Sterling Hayden gives a fantastic performance. I believe he called Marlowe (Gould) a "ding-a-ling" during their conversation near the beach. Elliot Gould was excellent as well. If people are thinking that he and Bogart's Philip Marlowe are the same they may not like the film. It works with his mumbling, wisecracks, and incredible smoking habit (does he light up a cigarette in every scene?) but of course he gets the job done in the end.

I haven't seen Five Easy Pieces in a long time, but I didn't like it the first time. I'll watch it again and maybe my opinion will change.

"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today."

reply

Many viewers are quite surprised by how good Elliot Gould is in The Long Goodbye.

But in his day, given the right vehicle, he could be outstanding. In particular, check out his performance in the small, deviously twisted, 1978 Canadian film –

SILENT PARTNER.

This is the perfect bookend for The Long Goodbye. Though not yet on DVD, it is available on VHS. Very highly recommended.

reply

The Silent Partner is the perfect Christmas Movie!!!

reply

LOVE 'The Silent Partner'. Plummer was exquisitely evil, and Celine Lomez was wayyy sexy. She was actually almost cast on 'Charlie's Angels', but lost out to Tanya Roberts, because Lomez was deemed 'too sexy for prime-time'.

Carpe Noctem!

reply

Did you know Dan Blocker was originally up for the role of Roger Wade, but he passwed away before the movie was filmed? Altman dedicated the movie to him.

reply

The Long Goodbye is an incredible film, quite possibly on of the best I've ever seen. It takes a couple of viewing to REALY understand the full scope of the film. Does anybody else think that this film is underated? Because I do, I may be a bit biased, but I think it belongs in the top 50 someplace...

Nina Van Pallandt performance is incredible the whole movie just shines with incredible performances

But more importnalty Mrs. Wade tricks him the entire time, in fact, she tricks us as well, The ending, very interesting, He kills his friend, over a lie....

reply

I'm with all of you on this one. It's a superb film, which seems to be slightly subbed when people look over the 70's era. I think it more than stands up to stuff like Five Easy Pieces, The Conversation and Being There. I love altman as he seems to be a guy who would rather die than comprimise, rather than waste space on this message board look at my 'comment' on the film if you wish to see what i really think of it.

reply

Altman directed some of the best Bonanza episodes.

reply

I've always admired this film for upending the morals of the book and somehow getting closer to the point that Chandler was making by doing so. The most striking decision was at the end - Marlowe kills Terry whereas in the book he shrugs and just tells him to leave. That would be too subtle and mellow, whereas there's a shocking quality to Marlowe's righteous anger in the film, after all the *beep* he takes for this character, he laughs at him for being a schmuck! It's a brilliant and unexpected moment that makes perfect sense.

There's one other point that has always struck me, and that is the similarity to another classic noir film, the Third Man. There are a number of discreet references to this film in Long Goodbye, not least the final shot, which replaces the emptiness felt by Harry Lime's friend after his death, with a sort of joyful relief felt by Marlowe, who starts to dance up the street while playing a mouth organ. It is ultimately a film about friendship, and how Marlowe is loyal to an ideal of friendship even after his friend has proved unworthy of his loyalty. Exactly the same message as The Third Man, where Holly Martens learns that his friend was an evil character, and has to choose between betraying him or walking away.

What I think makes this film so memorable and worth re-watching is that it is made with such an airy floating almost jokey style, and yet is about very dark and disturbing ideas. The best illustration of that is the opening scene where Marlowe's cat deserts him because he tried to fool him over the brand of cat food. The cat is the only character in the film with higher standards of behavious than Marlowe.

reply

SPOILER

I disagree with those who maintain that the ending in the movie is better than that in the book. Although I don't morally object to Marlowe killing his old buddy, I think it's waaay out of character for him to do so. After reading all the Marlowe material in print over the last year I think that I have a feel for what his character would do, and murdering someone definitely isn't up his alley. Part of the appeal of Marlowe is that he is rough and tough, but still human and a somewhat sentimental guy. In many of Chandler's stories Marlowe has plenty of opportunities to cheat, steal and do all sorts of unethical and illegal things but he refuses to do so. He apparently has some sort of moral code that elevates him above the scum he is surrounded by. The last thing I want to do is paint a picture that Marlowe is some sort of angel, but in the stories I've read he does display behavior that could lead you to believe that he wouldn't do something like shoot someone in cold blood.

That being said, I don't object to a director like Altman taking something as his own and running with it, but due to my history with Chandler I think that the ending of this film was incongruous with what I expect out of Marlowe. He and Gould did a great job of updating the character in many of the other scenes though. This movie is a lot of fun to watch.

reply

I agree ... In the context of Chandler's Marlowe, he probably would not have shot him. But remember ... in the book, they walked away in the end. It felt unresolved ... quite honestly, it was a terrible ending. Really, a complete let down. The Long Goodbye is a long book ... probably one of Chandler's longest. And to read page after page, and to be given a conclusion as palid as what Chandler wrote ... well ... I doubt Altman would have directed the film on that basis. Leigh Brackett was a respected writer, and she knew that in order to sell the script, something different ... and might I say ... uncharacteristic, would have to be written.

Also ... throughout the majority of the film, Marlowe is under the assumption that Terry Lennox wasn't guilty of anything. He dearly loved the man. Remember when Mrs. Wade questions Marlowe after he located Roger Wade? She asks him about Terry. Marlowe seems, if only for a fraction of a moment, happy and perhaps even a little proud to hear Terry's name mentioned. And to find out that his "friend" set him up from the get-go ... I do believe that Gould's Marlowe was justified. Now the question should be asked ... did Marlowe plan on shooting Terry? I honestly don't believe so. I think the "natural born loser" line is what through him over the edge.

And, yes ... he DID lose his cat. Poor Marlowe.

(Hope these spoilers aren't going to ruin someone's enjoyment of the film ... the people who haven't seen it, anyway.)

I respect your opinion, though. But to completely honest, after watching The Long Goodbye, I'm having a more and more difficult time with reading Chandler's body of fiction. I have no idea why. He's one of my favorites.

reply

I agree with you that the movie ending doesn't fit with the Marlowe of the book series, but then the movie really has to be treated as a stand-alone from the novel.

I don't think the book's ending was that bad, in its own context. Unlike the movie, Marlowe didn't really have a personal stake in Lennox; he was just a guy who stumbled into his life, departed, which then gave Marlowe a bunch of grief in the meantime, and reappeared after everything blew over. Marlowe spends the entire book contemplating what kind of man Terry Lennox was and why he can't seem to say "goodbye" to him in his mind. When Lennox comes back from Otocatlan and reveals that he really doesn't have any moral center or feelings, that's enough to satisfy Marlowe. Marlowe doesn't care one way or another, he just wants to know where he stands with the man. Lennox in the novel doesn't insult Marlowe the way he does in the movie. It's almost like a polite game of golf with the two characters. You play a round, say "Well met, good fellow", shake hands, and leave. Marlowe is finally satisfied with Lennox being out of his life once and for all.

In the movie, though, the setup is completely different; the two are close to lifelong friends and Marlowe eagerly defends him. All the events of the movie are much more closely felt by Marlowe. Then at the end, Marlowe finds out Lennox killed Sylvia after all, for a dame who also used him to murder her own husband, and after all that, insults him, well, I'd be pretty mad too.

reply

I'm a huge fan of Chandler and Marlowe but I think the film has to stand alone, it's not Chandler's Marlowe here, it's Altman and Gould's. For me that's ok too, I liked the film a lot.

The shooting at the ending was actually pretty satisfying for me, I felt like Gould's Marlowe had been a wise ass the entire film, which was in character, but there are other facets of Marlowe that made him such a great character in the books, including his capacity for violence, albeit in the right situation. When Marlowe shot Lennox at the end I felt that we were shown a side of him that was missing during the film, one that made him a more complete character.

reply

I think that the end is what makes Marlowe an actual protagonist. Throughout the movie he did not change. He was the same man from the beginning and until he shoots. A sort of naive, 1953 man, who didnt really understood what was going on. The only thing that he was sure of was that Lennox was his good friend, and even there he turned out to be wrong. The end is the only bit of character development during the movie. That is Marlow being pushed over the edge. If he had just walked away, I dont know what that would have made Marlowe.


At the top of the mountain, we are all Snow Leopards. -Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Okay, that's funny.

reply