Film Review: Streamers - 40th Anniversary

 "Streamers"

*** (out of ****)

Robert Altman's "Streamers" (1983) is a movie about dead people. Mind you the characters in "Streamers" are physically alive, walking and talking, but they are dead inside. "Streamers" is, at times, an emotionally painful movie that stirs you about war, PTSD, self-identity, masculinity, homosexuality, alienation, trauma, guilt, and racial tensions in 1960s America at the beginning of the Vietnam War.

As we are more than half-way through the "year of me", a year long tribute to my favorite artists and filmmakers - as I celebrate my own 40th anniversary of being alive, I wanted to make sure to discuss the work of filmmaker Robert Altman.

Altman was one of the great filmmakers working in American cinema in the 1970s, which may have been the peak of the American independent film movement brought on by a wave of young filmmakers representing "New Hollywood" - Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Woody Allen, and Peter Bogdanovich among them. Altman actually proceeds their filmmaking careers by a decade, working in television in the 1950s and directing his first feature length film, "The Delinquents" in 1957. It wasn't until "M*A*S*H" (1970) however - his fourth feature film - that his career began to take off. For many movie lovers the 1970s may have been Altman's creative and artistic peak. In addition to "M*A*S*H"  the decade saw the release of "McCabe & Mrs. Miller" (1971), "Nashville" (1975), and "3 Women" (1977). Others admire works such as "Brewster McCloud" (1970), "Images" (1972), "The Long Goodbye" (1973) and "California Split" (1974). Unfortunately, by the 1980s the corporate and commercialization takeover of Hollywood killed the independent spirit of "New Hollywood". Altman, like Scorsese, Coppola, and Bogdanovich, fell into career slumps. The studios, the public and the critics largely turned their backs on Altman. Few movies, in my opinion, should be considered career highlights during the 1980s. Fortunately, Altman's career made a significant rebound in the 1990s after the release of  "The Player" (1992). If you consider the 1970s Altman's best creative period, the 1990s is a close second. Practically everything Altman made from "The Player" until his final film, "A Prairie Home Companion" (2006), is exceptional.

This led to the dilemma of which Altman movie should I review? I had a lot of good options. I rewatched "Nashville" and "Short Cuts" (1993) as possibilities but for one reason or another I didn't feel compelled to write about them. For the last 15 years on this blog I have mostly reviewed the oddities in Altman's career. It wasn't something I set out to do it just happened naturally. I've written about "Health" (1980), "Images", and "Quintet" (1979). In a certain way it is fitting that I have chosen the off-beat path for a filmmaker that spent his career working outside the Hollywood system. Bringing us to my decision to discuss "Streamers" which also allowed me the opportunity to recognize it for its 40th anniversary.

"Streamers" fits nicely in the Altman cannon of films. It is a look back at a significant moment in American history, which was an important element in Altman's films. Films such as "M*A*S*H", "Buffalo Bill and the Indians" (1976), and "Secret Honor" (1984) are examples of films that were critiques of America. In "Streamers" Altman would take society and put it under the microscope to examine war and American viewpoints on race and sexuality.

The film, written by David Rabe, was a screen adaptation of his Tony nominated stage play. The play was directed by Mike Nichols and the conclusion of Rabe's Vietnam Trilogy. Altman's film adaptation feels very much like a stage play centering practically all of the action not only in a single room but in the corner of that room. It was a deliberate choice by Altman and cinematographer Pierre Mignot to establish a feeling of claustrophobia. Tensions fly high as our four main characters are isolated in this small space forced to confront each other.

The lead characters are Billy (Matthew Modine), Roger (David Alan Grier), Richie (Mitchell Lichtenstein) and Carlyle (Michael Wright). They are four young soldiers who may be deployed to Vietnam any day. Three of the young men - Billy, Roger, and Richie - have a camaraderie between them. Billy - white - and Roger - black - appear to have a genuine friendship and similar expectations about what the army is going to provide them. Richie is a bit of an outsider within the group. This is mostly because he keeps making "jokes" and comments about being homosexual. Billy - usually the butt of the "jokes" - is greatly disturbed by this. He repeatedly asks Richie directly if he really is gay. Richie always finds a way to dance around the question. The viewer however has no doubt that Richie is gay and means the "jokes" he tells. However Richie isn't sure the army, society or Billy and Roger will be able to handle the truth.

 A  storm begins to brew with the appearance of Carlyle - a newly enlisted recruit that finds comfort in the company of Roger since they are both black. For both Roger and Carlyle the appearance of the other recalls home. But there is no personal bonding between the men beyond their skin color. This is illustrated by Carlyle never learning Roger's name but only referring to him as the "black one" whenever inquiring about him. On a social / political spectrum moreover each represents something different. Carlyle is a radical. Racial change can't happen fast enough. He is the stereotypical "angry black man". Roger is more accepting of "incremental change". As he tells Carlyle there is even a high ranking black officer. Progress is slowly being made. 

And Carlyle is the catalyst that moves the plot forward and raises the stakes between the other three soldiers. Billy doesn't like Carlyle and Carlyle constantly baits Richie about his sexuality. This leaves Roger to act as a mediator between Carlyle and the others. The four of them however are at odds with officers Cokes (George Dzundza) and Rooney (Guy Boyd). Both are alcoholics and clearly suffering from PTSD. They saw combat in Korea and claim they can't wait to go to Vietnam and be there in the jungle. It will make them feel "alive" and like men. But Cokes also suffers from guilt over a man he killed during that last war. As Cokes faces his own mortality the trauma from this event explains his drinking. It is a sad reminder of the mental health issues these men had to endure when they returned home. The four young soldiers must wonder, is this the fate that awaits them if they are called to go to Vietnam? None of them seem particularly eager to go. One of the soldiers even makes a disparaging remark about President Lyndon Johnson.

For most of "Streamers" I was willing to go along with the movie and kept waiting for the ticking time bomb to explode. It has moments when it bursts but I never found myself captivated by anything I saw on-screen. A final declaration from one of the characters at the end of the movie didn't feel emotionally satisfying to me. It wasn't the pay-off  I was looking for. In a very critical review of the film, critic Dave Kehr stated in his Chicago Reader review "You leave the theater feeling shaken, upset, and without the slightest idea of what all the screaming was about."

That leads me to my other issue with the movie, the dialogue. It is far too subtle. The characters do a lot of talking but they don't say much. They dance around everything. None of the four lead characters has the courage to say what they mean and mean what they say. Perhaps that is a commentary in its own right. Our inability to express ourselves. To watch "Streamers" however you as the viewer must be an activate participant and interpret what these characters are saying. I may have been up for the challenge if I cared a bit more about the characters. Even though the script was adapted by Rabe maybe something was lost in the transition from stage to film. In his NY Times review of the film, critic Vincent Canby wrote, "much of Mr. Rabe's quite stunning dialogue, so startling on the stage, comes out sounding like much too much typewriting. Even though the film, which follows the stage script closely, has been cut, it seems three hours longer to watch."

What I like best about "Streamers" are the actors and Altman's directing. Though criticized by some (Canby for instance) I found Altman's visuals choices to effectively heighten the drama of several scenes. The camera does at times stay back, allowing the viewer to soak in the barracks but at other times zooms in to create the sense of claustrophobia and fear. Fear was one of the elements Altman himself thought the film was about.

Michael Wright brings a lot of intensity to the role of Carlyle and his performance creates the largest contrast from the others. He has a few powerful scenes. One involves a confrontation with Richie, insinuating he is sleeping with everyone in the barracks and another moment where he is drunk and falls asleep on the floor. Mitchell Lichtenstein's Richie is the other key character because of what he represents and brings out in the other characters. Where Wright is loud, Lichtenstein is quiet. He can blend into the background and at times, with the smallest of gestures, take command of the room.

Looking back on "Streamers" 40 years later a lot of the themes it brings up are still relevant. Self-identity is a big issue in the political sphere and some claim gay rights are under attack thanks to recent Supreme Court rulings. War is always a topically subject because we are constantly engaged in it, one way or another. But I have come across some comments indicating "Streamers" is dated particularly in its depiction of homosexuality. One commenter called out Lichtenstein's performance and labeled it "retro". I found this confusing. Was it "retro" in 1983 or by 2023 standards? Unlike other Altman movies though "Streamers" has never been rediscovered by the general public. If it is possible, somehow I feel it has fallen further into obscurity. I'm sure many people will wonder why I have chosen to spotlight this film for its 40th anniversary. 

"Streamers" does have strong and compelling moments that hit on many themes though I don't believe it often makes the most forceful commentary on those themes. The performances are good but the dialogue is too subtle. It feels "stagey" at times but Altman visually captures the characters emotional turmoil effectively. This is not one of Altman's great films but considering his output during the 1980s this is one of the highlights, along with "Secret Honor". If given the choice between "Streamers" and "Popeye" (1980), I'll take "Streamers" every time.