MovieChat Forums > Short Cuts (1993) Discussion > What's with the nudity in this one? Arti...

What's with the nudity in this one? Artistic or horny director?

posted 16 years ago by yaniv_ilanotv2
55 replies | jump to latest

Now, I know what some of you might say. I know SC is an "art" movie, and so it can contain nudity, and I have nothing wrong with that in general when it contributes to the film. For example, A Clockwork Orange wouldn't be that powerful without the nudity and rape scenes, allowing us to get into Alex's head. And theres a lot of other examples where nudity improves the film, makes it more powerful, more shocking, etc. But I just can't see that in SC.

I mean, most of the nudity in it is so casual, usually goes unnoticed, and it doesn't change the film at all (maybe other then the cello player suicide, where nudity was needed). I mean, would it be a lesser film if Jullian Moore would have done her cheating speech with panties? It actually took away from the scene, distracting the audience, and it didn't contribute at all. Same goes for Chris Penn's wife and Frances Mcdormand - I mean, would it make the film less good if Frances would have walked around with a towel on?

My point is, I just don't see why the film has so much nudity. Why did Altman had to ask nearly all the female actress to get naked for the part. That's embaressing for an actress, and it doesn't serve the film. Really the only logical explanation is that Altman wanted to see them all naked...

Maybe someone here could explain it to me.

[–] conductor71-2 16 years ago

> I mean, most of the nudity in it is so casual, usually goes unnoticed, and it doesn't change the film at all (maybe other then the cello player suicide, where nudity was needed).

It certainly would. The proof--you are so disturbed by something that is indeed nothing to be horrified about; the human body, perhaps the most beautiful thing in the world for us humans.

> I mean, would it be a lesser film if Jullian Moore would have done her cheating speech with panties?

It certainly would, what that scene reveals about her relation with her husband would be entirely different, far shallow than the way the film exposes. I mean, a wife shows her private part to her husband without any sexual desire nor provocation whatsoever. That's shocking for the husband, certainly, but that is what he became for her.

> I mean, would it make the film less good if Frances would have walked around with a towel on?

It does. She's a woman comfortable and without anything to "hide" her because she's at home. It shows very clearly what kind of woman she is.

> Why did Altman had to ask nearly all the female actress to get naked for the part.

Because in real life, people get nude. To the contrary I don't see the reason why you have to be so shocked to see a woman comfortable in her home thinking she's alone. And a painter loves to paint nudes for a very good artistic reason. One of the character is an artist, so she's painting a nude. What's so strange about that?

> That's embaressing for an actress,

Form what we can CLEARLY see in the film, they are not. To the contrary they enjoy it, that they can be so natural disregarding hysterical people who cannot take the human body as something so naturally part of our life.

[–] yaniv_ilanotv2 16 years ago

First of all, I wasn't "disturbed", "horrified" or "shocked" by the nudity in the movie - trust me, I've seen much worse and more explicit films. The reason I asked is, I wondered why the nudity is there when it doesn't contribute to the movie in any way I could see.

The realism of France's scene makes sense, but it doesn't really tell us a lot about her - I mean, she was alone, why wouldn't she walk naked? It's not walking down the street naked (which clearly tells us a bit about the person), it's her own house and she thought she was alone, and I find it hard to believe that she feels uncomfortable being nude alone.

It is also true that Moore's nudity tells us something about their relationship, but it is nothing we could'nt have guessed on our own - after all, they were married for years, it seems logical for them to feel comfortable nude around each other.

And even if we get around that, I don't think neither of the scenes greatly improve the movie. The nudity could have been left out and the movie would still be the same.

And as for the actresses not being embaressed by the nudity, or even enjoying it - that's BS. The fact that they don't look uncomfortable doesn't mean that they are comfortable, just means that they are professionals who can hide their emotions (like any good actor).

I mean, just try to imagine for a minute that you are showing your most private parts to anyone who wants to see them. Try to imagine that millions of people around the world (including probably most of your acquaintances) would get to see your genitals on the big screen. That's, at the very least, embaressing for 95% percent of the people in the world. I hardly think that the actresses are enjoying it.

[–] yaniv_ilanotv2 16 years ago

"The main idea behind showing nudity is that the minute I show you nudity, I can show you whatever I choose to show you. There is no censorship, nothing preventing me from doing this. Which means I can go further than I have gone, and if I don't it's my choice. Does that make sense to you?"

No, not really, I say. He purrs with impatience. " We-e-ll, I want you to know that I show whatever I choose. It's my choice, and not made by a censor."

source: http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,,412927,00.html

Well, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me either... and it certinaly isn't character reasons.

[–] conductor71-2 16 years ago

Pfff... you are taking seriously an answer he made just to make fun of an annoying member of a hypocritically idiotic press? Silly.

Bob was just teasing an obviously stupid obnoxious guy. When you asked about the same scenes in a way that he recognize your intelligence, he would have more profoundly--the proof; I don't pretend to be intelligent but he discussed with me the film including these nudity at length.

[–] yaniv_ilanotv2 16 years ago

I don't know whether he was laughing or not (I don't see any homour in his answer) and I don't know what he might have said to you about these scenes. I appreciate your answers and they did helped me. But I still find the nudity in this one sort of unnecessary.

Although I'm not really complaining... Moore's nude scene was astonishing.

[–] conductor71-2 16 years ago

> But I still find the nudity in this one sort of unnecessary.

Because you are a very conventionally conservative bigot who is shocked by nudity.

[–] Leonard-20 16 years ago

It's always easier to debate once the name-calling comes out :P.

[–] ChoirMem_15 11 years ago

Right...except it doesn't look like Conductor was calling anyone names.

Telling someone that he or she is being a bigot is a rightful just way of informing the "opponent" that he or she is doing something wrong.

[–] conductor71-2 16 years ago

> First of all, I wasn't "disturbed", "horrified" or "shocked" by the nudity in the movie - trust me, I've seen much worse and more explicit films.

nevertheless you were so overwhelmed by the nudity you didn't get that they indeed contribute to show who they are.

Like a woman, thinking that she's alone in her hose doesn't cover herself after taking a shower. Then she hears a noise and she very hastily covers herself. That scene is not even about "nudity," but nevertheless you get obsessed with that. It's quite silly, indeed.

> And even if we get around that, I don't think neither of the scenes greatly improve the movie.

It does a great deal. You were too blind to notice that. If you see a woman hysterically confessing to her husband about her past affair without panties on, she doesn't even care that she's half naked, and you don't feel something, then you must be very blind indeed--and you obviously were, that is why quite justifiably guessed you were "disturbed", "horrified" or "shocked."

> And as for the actresses not being embaressed by the nudity, or even enjoying it - that's BS.

Look at the movie--they are tremendously enjoying doing their job for Altman. Indeed, Julianne Moore said she took the role especially for that scene, that it was so truthful.

> I mean, just try to imagine for a minute that you are showing your most private parts to anyone who wants to see them.

That is what actors always do--they express things from the most private intimate thing within themselves.

> That's, at the very least, embaressing for 95% percent of the people in the world.

Well, actors belong to the other 5%. Otherwise how they can do what they do? To be among that 5% is the minimum requirement to become an actor. These actresses certainly don't want their nudity exploited for mere sexual attractions to the audience, but for Altman they do, because these scenes are there for very good reasons. Frances McDormand also said she adored that scene, because it's so truthful to the character.

[–] yaniv_ilanotv2 16 years ago

Like I said and you ignored, neither of the scenes actually show something we couldn't have guessed (like the Fran scene - basiclly the point is that she's comfortable nude when she's alone? who's not comfortable being nude on his own?).

As for the percent's thing, showing private character emotions is one thing, and showing physical nudity is another. I don't think actresses have to appear nude as a "minimum requirement". There are plenty of good actresses who never or nearly never done nudity (Meryl Streep, for exapmle) - it doesn't mean that she isn't a great actress. And also, I recall reading interviews with Naomi Watts and Kate Winselt, and both said they hate doing nude scenes and feel embaressed about that, but this is necessary for a lot of good roles...

[–] conductor71-2 16 years ago

> Like I said and you ignored, neither of the scenes actually show something we couldn't have guessed

Pfff... How could you have guessed about each of the characters when you actually don't see them?

> As for the percent's thing, showing private character emotions is one thing, and showing physical nudity is another.

And the former is far more difficult than the later.

> I don't think actresses have to appear nude as a "minimum requirement".

Who said that? You cannot even read?

> And also, I recall reading interviews with Naomi Watts and Kate Winselt, and both said they hate doing nude scenes and feel embaressed about that, but this is necessary for a lot of good roles...

Nevertheless, Winslet did that quite occasionally, and with tyranical directors who exploit, put obsessive connotations to them, which are embarrassing for sure. That doesn't happen with Altman, and especially not in this film.

The question is; why you get so obsessively turned on by just some nudity? That's a good reason why actresses don't want to do that. The nudity by itself never harms the career of an actress, but the horny silly obsessive reaction from some dumber hypocritical horny portion of the public do.

[–] antifilm-1 13 years ago

… guess your point somehow was - why not show male nudity at the same rate?
(if so, point taken.)

… if i remember right, Meryl Streep was naked while being shrubbed with brooms in PLUTONIUM after getting contaminated? (so long ago i saw it :s )

… also, i can't find it prude to ask WHY … it also can show intelligence: someone is actaully asking about the reasons, beyond the obvious beauty.

… i suggest that you ALL watch some of PETER GREENAWAYs pictures, and then come back discussing ;) Because i believe in discussion. Because it's the foundation of "democracy" to deeply THINK about things.

Laugh&Peas

[–] fentress 15 years ago

"I mean, just try to imagine for a minute that you are showing your most private parts to anyone who wants to see them. Try to imagine that millions of people around the world (including probably most of your acquaintances) would get to see your genitals on the big screen. That's, at the very least, embaressing for 95% percent of the people in the world. I hardly think that the actresses are enjoying it."

Good point; I agree. I think a lot of people who defend the use of nudity in film forget the simple fact that a person's genitals (and hind ends, and breasts for women) are one of the most intimate private things about a person. To me, it seems very wrong that an actress (or a male actor) should be expected to expose themselves for their profession. Now if someone chooses to be a stripper or a porn actor, that's different. The nudity is integral to that choice of vocation, and one would go into that vocation knowing that. But for someone to have to expose themselves because they want to be a general actor, that seems wrong to me.

I think there even more actresses don't want to do nudity but are shy to admit it. I think there would be a lot of peer pressure in Hollywood to go along with the "progressive" mind set. They wouldn't want to be labeled as prudes, or as being difficult to work with.

Some people may not mind exposing themselves for whatever purpose, and that's fine for them. But some people like that (not all) fail to respect that not everyone is that way. In fact, most people aren't.

***** SPOILER AHEAD ***********

BTW, I'm actually a big fan of Short Cuts. It's one of my favorite movies of all time. The gratuitous nudity is simply a flaw I'll tolerate. I think it's interesting that Altman showed us a lot of nudity in this movie, yet the violence was done with restraint. It was no more graphic than was dramatically necessary. For example, there was the scene when the kid got hit by the car, or when Chris Penn hit the girl at the end during the earthquake. And thankfully, there was no flashback (nor even a verbal description) of whatever violent act led to the death of the girl in the water. Good choices on Altman's part.

[–] oddsocks1989 14 years ago

"Good point; I agree. I think a lot of people who defend the use of nudity in film forget the simple fact that a person's genitals (and hind ends, and breasts for women) are one of the most intimate private things about a person. To me, it seems very wrong that an actress (or a male actor) should be expected to expose themselves for their profession. Now if someone chooses to be a stripper or a porn actor, that's different. The nudity is integral to that choice of vocation, and one would go into that vocation knowing that. But for someone to have to expose themselves because they want to be a general actor, that seems wrong to me.

I think there even more actresses don't want to do nudity but are shy to admit it. I think there would be a lot of peer pressure in Hollywood to go along with the "progressive" mind set. They wouldn't want to be labeled as prudes, or as being difficult to work with."

Also: you'll notice that in the majority of movies with nudity it's female nudity we see, very rarely do you see a dick on screen. I wonder if this has more to do with the fact that most Hollywood directors are straight men or more to do with the censors' discomfort with penises. Either way, it makes Hollywood look bad, I think.

[–] fentress 14 years ago

Also: you'll notice that in the majority of movies with nudity it's female nudity we see, ... I wonder if this has more to do with the fact that most Hollywood directors are straight men or more to do with the censors' discomfort with penises.

I wonder about that too. The second reason you mentioned (censors' discomfort with penises) is the one I hear cited more often. It does stand to reason somewhat, because I think more often women might be offended or put off by the sight of frontal male nudity, whereas (obviously) men are often quite pleased at female nudity.

I just can't help but think though that the other reason (that most directors are straight men and they like female nudity themselves) has more to do with it than entertainment industry people want to admit. I've read and heard a lot of comments about some female nude scenes in movies being "artistically necessary", or how the director deserved credit for keeping it to a "minimum" out of respect for women (when they did show some). I don't buy any of it!

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] obscene 16 years ago

Well, there's now too many replies for me to read them all, but I do have something to add to the ones I did read.

On the Criterion DVD, there's a small interview conducted by Tim Robbins where, among other stuff, Altman addresses this issue (not that I think it was really needed, as most answers were obvious without the need for overthinking it, but what the hell...)

The scene where Marian finally comes clean to her husband about the night with the guy is when she's at her most vulnerable, fragile, and at the same time, candid and earnest. That is not only "shown" to us with words, it is actually there for everyone to see. She's opening herself up, she's coming clean, and, despite what she did, she probably feels somehow lighter for finally saying it, and, in my humble opinion, it comes across in such a nice and natural way that the scene wouldn't just be as rich if she had her fur coat and winter boots on. This is also, and maybe first of all, a visual medium, and Altman is obviously able to use that to the fullest. So, yes, it does serve a purpose, be it "artistic" or what have you. It also, as has been said, tells us something about the nature of her relationship to her husband at that specific moment and, what I think is just as important, his feelings towards her; he is there as a completely non-sexual entity as far as she is concerned, learning the details of an adultery he already kind of knew had happened. This added yet another layer to what's going on, but I'm not going into that.

On that same interview, Altman says Madeleine Stowe rejected that part (which eventually ended up being played by Julianne Moore), not because of the nudity per se, but because it was so intense. Altman told her it was OK and understandable, but she wanted to prove to him (and most likely, herself) that she'd have no problem with nudity so she asked him to give her some nude scenes, and thus the nude painting scene came to be. Also, when Moore got the part, guess what she told Altman? "Oh, and by the way, I have a bonus for you: I really am a redhead." Now, does that sound like someone who's uncomfortable to you?

On the subject of Frances McDormand's naked scene when she's walking out of the shower, I'll just quote Altman: "It is real." And it is! She's just walking out of the bath, thinking she is alone, so she goes to get a towel while naked. It is, in fact, so real that I didn't even give that scene a second thought. It happened there as it happens in real life and that idea was obviously what Altman was going for here (and probably throughout his career, but I've only just seen three of his movies so I can't be sure.) So, there, hope that was helpful.

Now, that being said, why would you even ask something like this? Honestly, either it makes sense to you and speaks to you on some inner level or it doesn't. If it doesn't, you can either disregard the scene or even the entire movie, or you can try and make sense of it. How can posting on an internet forum somehow help you emotionally connect with the idea that permeates and is the driving force, if not the central theme, in a movie? I am really sorry but I just don't understand. I have to admit that I was kind of confused about the last scene Chris Penn was on, but it never crossed my mind to come here and ask "Do you think it was there for its shock value or whatever, or was it actually the logical conclusion to the kind of character development he was getting up to that point? How should I feel?" Sorry if that was harsh, but these forums have made me jaded.

(Oh, and by the way, my first thoughts when I saw Moore take her skirt off were actually "she really is a redhead.")

[–] TopFrog 16 years ago

would it be a lesser film if Jullian Moore would have done her cheating speech with panties? It actually took away from the scene, distracting the audience, and it didn't contribute at all.

In a recent interview (www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91348749) Julianne Moore spends about 3 minutes discussing her nude scene from Short Cuts, and why she thought the nudity was important to the scene. (This is about 14 1/2 minutes into the interview.)

-- TopFrog

[–] depabillaba 16 years ago

But when Stuart's friend showed his penis while peeing in the water, didn't that distract you? I think it's interesting that you only mention the female nudity, like they have to be some pure, alien virgin queens without personality.

Welcome to Costco, I love you.

[–] fentress 15 years ago

"But when Stuart's friend showed his penis while peeing in the water, didn't that distract you? I think it's interesting that you only mention the female nudity, like they have to be some pure, alien virgin queens without personality."

I'm not the OP author, but I am of a similar viewpoint, so I'll answer this for myself. I did find the urination scene a bit distracting too, though not as much as the women's nude scenes. As a heterosexual man, I'd say it's pretty logical that I might not think much of seeing another another guy take a whizz in a remote nature setting. Some of the most conservative gentlemanly guys I've known still do that. But if out of the blue I see an attractive woman nude, that obviously will command my attention in a much more pronounced fashion! Some might say that's sexist or chauvinist, but it seems obviously natural to me.

I like the Idiocracy quote!

[–] RaineRP 16 years ago

It was Huey Lewis, who showed his penis in the film. He did urinated in the film.

[–] patchofblue65 16 years ago

At least we know now after seeing this film that the carpets match the drapes!
LOL!

[–] Krustallos 16 years ago

First of all, I find this discussion quite weird. People are nude in the film in situations where they would be nude in real life. I think a better question would be why are people covered up in a fake way in most films.

Secondly, regarding the Julianne Moore scene in particular, it's quite important that her husband realises when she takes her skirt off that she has no underwear on - this shocks him because it implies a certain level of sexual availability, or at least uninhibitedness, which he doesn't expect to see in his wife. It tells us something about both characters, as well as acting as a metaphor for her decision to be open about what happened previously.

I don't think we should entirely dismiss Altman's comment to the Guardian guy as a joke. He's saying that the nudity erases some sort of boundary, it acts as a sign that we're watching something realistic, not some sort of neutered, Disneyfied version of the world as per a lot of Hollywood product.

Incidentally, the OP's choice of words is interesting. He's seen "much worse" in other films? The implication being that nudity is "bad"....

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

[–] richard-III 15 years ago

"People are nude in the film in situations where they would be nude in real life. I think a better question would be why are people covered up in a fake way in most films."

Good question!

I'm a stage actor who doesn't like to do nude, but in some plays it is asked for. I think it has to do with being uncomfortable and physically self-conscious, as most people are, actors and actresses included. But I think Julianne Moore did a brave job not giving in to that kind of selfconsciousness.

"When there is no more room in the Oven,
the Bread will walk the Earth."

[–] m-mcashan 16 years ago

I thought the casual nudity was intended to realistically depict the comfort and intimacy between couples. Think about it: we often walk around the house with our significant others while we (or they) are partially clothed. I love the scene with Julianne Moore because I thought it was totally believable. People do that kind of thing in real life. It was not exploitative nudity, meant to objectify the players--it was honest nudity, the kind you see in real relationships.

"I never drink...wine."

[–] unclepooch 15 years ago

both. so what. you don't like naked women? that's terrible.

[–] zxcvbnm987654321 15 years ago

The guy is just a prude who is shocked and afraid of nudity. His arguments are senseless and there is no point in arguing it. The director thought they added something to the movie and put them in. If you disagree maybe your opinions differ from the directors, and apparently everybody elses. Its just you

[–] Ragsdolly 15 years ago

The nudity...the whole stinking film...it's all about Los Angeles. If you've spent time there, you know immediately what I mean (if you're aware and honest).