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.

[–] zazzy-zulu 15 years ago

I actually thought that Julianne Moore's pantsless speech was a really nice moment. It felt to me that the idea was she was revealing herself, turning herself into one of the vulnerable subjects of her paintings. Then after she finally confesses, she puts her skirt back on, closing herself off once again.

[–] trapezoid 14 years ago

Not that there's anything wrong with any of the specific usages of nudity in this film, which is well done, but there was certainly a skewed ratio of female-to-male nudity. We saw Huey Lewis's dong (from afar) and part of Fred Ward's butt. There were at least four naked ladies, on the other hand. There definitely weren't twice as many women as there were men in the movie, overall.

Why no Tom Waits scrotum, Altman? Why is Tim Robbins' cop-pants-bulge only spoken of and never shown?

In Hollywood, actresses are simply more likely to be required to do nude roles. Most films are written and filmed by men. The implications are not hard to figure out.

Altman, great director or not, lived in this culture. And while I'd never call him exploitative or sexist, he was just as likely to be subconsciously swayed by societal prejudices as any other filmmaker. Even the wispy, barely-sexual Wes Anderson only ever shows nude women, if anything.

Cheesecake helps a movie get made. Altman, at least, kept it artistically justifiable in Short Cuts.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sim7396 14 years ago

I mean, most of the nudity in it is so casual, usually goes unnoticed

I don't know about you gals, but for us men, having Julianne bottomless on the big screen could hardly go unnoticed!

[–] preppy-3 14 years ago

I agree--the nudity in this film is necessary. The scene with Moore worked so well BECAUSE she had no pants on (also she agreed to do it--she wasn't forced). But I do question why Altman has so much female nudity in virtually every film he does. "MASH" and "Nashville" had scenes of female nudity that were just embarrassing and not at all funny or erotic. The closest he's come to male nudity is showing what Huey Lewis had to offer in this film--and that was from a distance. Someone told me he holds up a mirror to society in his films and that's why he has so much female nudity. But he just seems to throw it into other films of his for no rhyme or reason. I'm not shocked by it at all but it happens in so many of his films u start to wonder.

[–] sim7396 14 years ago

"MASH" and "Nashville" had scenes of female nudity that were just embarrassing and not at all funny or erotic.

Along the same lines, someone also complained above that nudity is "so casual" in Altman movies. I think that's the whole point! Nudity here is not meant to be erotic. His movies attempt to replicate life as it really is, and people take their clothes off at home, and don't necessarily put them back on if it's only them and their spouses.

In other words, you see skin b/c that's what happens in real life.

[–] preppy-3 14 years ago

Very good point but it still doesn't explain why it's always women in his films. Men take off their clothes too!

[–] ThatGuamGuy 13 years ago

"that were just embarrassing and not at all funny or erotic"

So being funny or erotic for the audience are the only valid reasons for nudity in film? In both of those cases, the characters are meant to be embarrassed by the situation.

On the DVD for 'The Player', somebody (I want to say Beatty or Nicholson) is quoted as having said to Altman "I get it -- the girl you want to see naked is the one who stays clothed." The nudity in his films is rarely, if ever, about eroticism.

[–] preppy-3 13 years ago

I was talking about ther nudity in "Short Cuts" ONLY. I NEVER said nudity has to be funny or erotic. Reread my comment again please. Also AGAIN--I said I can see why he did it (because she was discussing having an affair) but it doesn't mean I have to enjoy it or support it. I respect his choice--I just don't agree with it.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MovieMan1975 13 years ago

the female nudity in this movie is absolutely benign - they dont even show a vagina in it....all you get is partially exposed breasts and lots of pubic hair.

that really isnt anything.

they do show a penis in the movie, but nobody was outraged at that, so why care about Julianne Moore's bush?

pubic hair is hardly nudity. women can get away with alot in movies. exposed breasts hardy count, you can see those at an art gallery, beach, even in most magazines.

exposed male genitals are quite popular nowadays in movies, but exposed females are still quite taboo. hide that vagina hollywood! lol

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]