MovieChat Forums > Short Cuts (1993) Discussion > As a huge Carver fan, I thought this mov...

As a huge Carver fan, I thought this movie sucked

posted 15 years ago by probably
12 replies | jump to latest

i'm not a troll, i'm just putting my opinion out there to see if anyone else feels the same way.

Raymond Carver is my favorite author of all time, i've read all of his stories and most of his poetry, and i didn't find this movie to be anywhere near dark enough to be representative of his fiction.

I have to say, i should've known this when i found this in the comedy section of the place i rent my movies, but because i love carver's work so much, i decided to rent it anyway. I just dont understand how Altman fathomed to make a comedy out of his work, it's truly mind boggling.

I think one of the main problems is the backdrop being LA, it's just laziness, and the stories don't translate well, at all. Second, andie mcdowell is a *beep* actress, and seeing her play a character from one of my favorite pieces of fiction is disheartening. Maybe i'm taking carver's work too seriously, but i doubt it. I'm frankly surprised no one else has started this thread already.

Here's a link to Carver's "A Small, Good Thing". The feelings watching it don't even come close to what you feel reading it.

http://wings.buffalo.edu/AandL/english/courses/eng201d/asmallgoodthing .html

[–] franzkabuki 15 years ago

"I didn´t find this movie to be anywhere near dark enough to be representative of Carver´s fiction".

Well that´s because it ISN´T representative of Carver´s fiction; it´s representative of Altman´s fiction, obviously. When will people finally understand that a film director is not obligated to follow the book it´s based on, to a tee.

As for the lack of darkness - to think that only grimness and tragedy are true to life is a terrible elitist cliche. There´s all sorts of sh-t going on in life... and Altman most certainly didn´t shy away from the darker stuff. Never did.

"I just don´t understand how Altman fathomed to make a comedy out of his work".

Wtf are you talking about? It most definitely isn´t anywhere near being a comedy. A lotta things happened in SC, some of them were funny but most weren´t.

"The backdrop being L.A. is just laziness and the stories don´t translate well".

How is it laziness? And could please give examples which stories, in your opinion, do not work with the L.A. setting - and why?

"Maybe I´m taking Carver´s work too seriously".

Yup, that appears to be the case.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] probably 15 years ago

to think that only grimness and tragedy are true to life is a terrible elitist cliche.

i was talking about carver's fiction, not day to day life in general.

i guess we have to agree to disagree about the movie. i thought it sucked major dick. since many of carver's stories are set in wa., i don't think it would've been that hard to also set the movie there.

When will people finally understand that a film director is not obligated to follow the book it´s based on, to a tee.

sounds like you have to deal with a lot of people who don't understand movies don't have to be carbon copies of the books they're based on and you should probly treat yourself to a break from it because it seems to be stressful for you. i'm not one, however, and this movie is based on carver's fiction, with central themes including alcoholism, infidelity, blue collar struggles and other generally depressing *beep* that said, nowhere in my post did i complain that the stories and the movie didn't match up perfectly, i simply stated i wish this movie had had a different tone. sorry for the confusion, but don't call me an elitist or ask "wtf" i'm talking about for typing my opinion.

also, franz, try not sounding like such a smug prick when you respond to posts. i've read a couple of your others. maybe you do and maybe you don't know a lot about movies, but you don't know everything.

[–] franzkabuki 15 years ago

"Try not sounding like a smug prick".

Whatta great guy you are - lecturing others about the virtues of being humble and calling them "prick" in the process. F-ck´s the matter with you? I think you´d come off a lot better if you adopted my policy of always sticking to discussing films rather than discussing people discussing films - and avoiding ad hominem.

"But you don´t know everything".

Are you suggesting I´ve claimed the opposite?

"Sounds like you have to deal with a lot of people who don´t understand movies don´t have to be carbon copies of the books".

There are usually a few too many on The Shining board, yes.

"Never did I complain that the stories and the movie didn´t match up perfectly, I simply stated I wish I had had a different tone".

Yes and I was talking about the film in general not just alteration of plot or dialogue; and the tone & atmosphere are often THE most eye (or ear -) catching qualities.

"Don´t call me an elitist".

Never did. I thought it was glaringly obvious I didn´t mean specifically you with that remark. I´m not in a habit of jumping to hasty conclusions or judging people by some single, isolated statement. "Darkness" suits some films while it don´t suit others and I kinda figured that as much might occur to you, too.

"Don´t /-/ ask "wtf"".

Why not? What are you, some kinda prude?

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] rsheppard-1 14 years ago

I have to agree in general. Whether or not one likes this movie as a movie is a matter of taste (personally, the style didnt work for me at all). But as an adaptation of Carver's work, this was pretty terrible in my opinion. I do think there is some humor to be found in Carver's work, Short Cuts doesnt capture the tone of the humor or the stories in general. Moreover, several of the "interpretations" have almost nothing to do with the original Carver stories. I think the onlyy thing that remains of "Neighbors" is the idea of one couple housesitting for another. All the ensuing events, the whole reason that Carver wrote the story, has been completely eliminated. "They're Not Your Husband" isn't as badly butchered, but all of the irony of the story is still lost in Short Cuts. Altman's way to convey Carver's humor seems to be playing that upbeat jazz over all of these awful events. Carver's humor and irony, on the other hand, come from the attitudes of his characters and the events that unfold. Altman completely changes the characters and the events!!

In general, I try to watch a film adaptation as a distinct piece of art and not compare too much, but this film was advertised in a way that was almost exploitative of Carver's name. The trailer flashes in full-screen text, "CARVER. ALTMAN." If there'd simply been a little note that the stories were loosely inspired by Carver stories, I'd take less issue and make fewer comparisons, but as such, I was pretty pissed off by this movie.

there's no place you can be that isn't where you're meant to be.

[–] franzkabuki 14 years ago

I still don´t see the relevance of any of this... and I don´t think Altman was responsible for the film´s marketing strategies so it´s hardly his fault that Carver´s name was played up so much.

Think of it this way though - why not have two separate works with their separate sensibilities and artistic goals rather than a book and a film that simply copies it step by step?

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] rsheppard-1 14 years ago

Well, of course youre right that Altman probably had little to do with that decision, but it's not a matter of assigning "fault." I only mentioned the marketing to give a background as to why I watched this movie with Carver's work so firmly in mind. Generally, I agree with you (as I said): we ought to take one work and its adaptation as separate pieces of art, because quite often they can be independently successful in achieving their own aims.

But as I said, Short Cuts simply didn't work for me on its own, a purely subjective judgment, and I won't pretend it's anything more than that. That's really all I can say about Short Cuts per se.

However, it is also valid to compare an adaptation to its source material, and that's all I wanted to do. I understand the limitations of such a critique. It's just that I have a lot more to say about the film as an adaptation, since I really enjoy Carver's work, and I really didn't enjoy the film.

It also seems to me that Altman was in fact trying to capture something of Carver's tone and humor, and I think that the way in which he went about it was cheap and easy, whereas staying truer to Carver's storylines and dialogue might have been more effective.

there's no place you can be that isn't where you're meant to be.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] joshua-m-kemp-262-422948 13 years ago

I somewhat agree with you, although I didn't mind the film. Something to leave on in the background perhaps. One thing that annoyed me was that the characters were too damn pretty and good-looking! What I love about Carver's stories is the sense of realism. These are meant to be ordinary characters; the sort of people we all recognize (proportionally, "normal" people are not ALL blessed with super model looks - middle-aged especially). I know the film business is shallow, but still I thought it detracted from Carver's vision of contemporary society. Maybe I am being trivial? but I just found it irritating, verging on sexist in that the majority of the female roles - in typical Hollywood fashion - were flawless, eye candy. Sure, as a male I can't complain too much, but in some ways it adds to the idea of glossing over Carver's work.

[–] franzkabuki 13 years ago

Frances McDormand, Lily Tomlin & Lili Taylor in particular hardly qualify as "eye candy". And even Jennifer Jason Leigh was made up to look ordinary.

I actually did get around to reading some of the Carver short stories at last and the general impression is that none of the stories individually packs half the punch a combination of them does in Short Cuts. Some interesting snapshots, but nothing particularly compelling or memorable.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] tobyrclark 13 years ago

I watched this in a Uni course on Adaptation: Literature and Screen (reading the short story collection at the same time) and I have to agree with you - it wasn't a great adaptation of Carver's work, and I much preferred the Ray Lawrence adaptation Jindabyne, an adaptation of "So Much Water So Close to Home" that relocates the story to South-East New South Wales but was much truer to the characters Stuart and Claire.

That being said, speaking as a fan of Hyperlink movies, I think the film is excellent on its own terms.

The Angels Have the Phone Box

[–] nutsberryfarm 11 years ago

no way. altman added life & much needed humor to them.

Where there's smoke, there's barbecue!