The ultimate anti-climax - Short Cuts (1993) Discussion

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pbl1 16 years ago

thank you for completely (and not just a "wee bit") missing the point of the initial question.

What the $%*& is a Chinese Downhill?!?

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Gloede_The_Saint 16 years ago

I always love anti-climaxes so perhapes we're not much alike but anyway my opinion is that it was a better way to leave the movie. What I got was that when everything builds itself up it has to burst but nothing will stop because of it.

It can also be a symbol of clenching or a new beginning (to the same story).

Somebody here has been drinking and I'm sad to say it ain't me - Allan Francis Doyle

reply

[–] paulmarkj 16 years ago

I think each story had its own climax, and the though the stories linked, they were not reaching one conclusion.

Though the earthquake makes you think something big is going to happen, it just finally shows there is some loose connection between the characters. Which, I suppose, is what the film is about: connections between people in a big city, but really the story of any city is made up of thousands of little stories.

Eg: Tom Waits & Lily Tomlin - a portrait of a couple repeated a million timese over around the world, but just like the real world, it doesn't really have an ending, couples and families often just get by with good times and bad times.

reply

[–] artihcus022 16 years ago

Though the earthquake makes you think something big is going to happen, it just finally shows there is some loose connection between the characters.

These characters are already connected by virtue of being Angelenos and living in roughly the same topography. Unlike other pretend-Altmanesque films this film isn't interested in positing how "we are connected" in a New-Age kind of way, ergo Babel.

"Ça va by me, madame...Ça va by me!" - The Red Shoes

reply

[–] sheywhat 16 years ago

"this film isn't interested in positing how "we are connected" in a New-Age kind of way, ergo Babel."

My preferred spelling of that dull movie (as opposed to a film which promises so much more than a "movie") is Babble. In the same vein of movie-making as Babble is the Best Picture winner Crash. My preferred spelling of Crash is Wreck: as in, everything is a big smashed up snafu of a collision. Not sure which of the two movies is less watchable but the differential is so slight as to be inconsequential. Regardless, any comparison to Short Cuts is egregious but for when it is used an example of what Wreck and Babble are not.

"All deaths are sudden/
and quickly beyond our reach"- the end to one of my poems

reply

[–] artihcus022 16 years ago

Not sure which of the two movies is less watchable but the differential is so slight as to be inconsequential.

Surely Babel. Crash is kind of cute in it's old-fashioned preachiness. Babel is simply intolerable. I could literally see it begging on it's knees, "please take me seriously, I am really deep!"

Regardless, any comparison to Short Cuts is egregious but for when it is used an example of what Wreck and Babble are not.

Well the thing is Short Cuts is the defining influence on these modern day interlocking narrative films and naturally they'll always be found vaunting. To add another pile on the heap, Paul Thomas Anderson's Magnolia, which is practically a remake and a very bad one.

What puts Altman above them is that his ensemble films treat characters as characters rather than as devices or blocks to create ONE GRAND STATEMENT. They show the impossibility of grand statements.

"Ça va by me, madame...Ça va by me!" - The Red Shoes

reply

[–] sheywhat 16 years ago

And right up to the end with Gosford Park and Prairie Home Companion. Though the former of those two was certainly the greater achievement. The latter, well worth a watch (or two), seemed almost a labor of love. A peculiar film but, as a longtime fan of the radio show, one that I very much appreciated.

I can't say that I have much of a memory of Magnolia to say much about it.

"All deaths are sudden/
and quickly beyond our reach"- the end to one of my poems

reply

[–] Senator_Corleone 15 years ago

Robert Altman loved Magnolia. He told PTA as much. None of your criticisms (characters used as devices for a big statement) hold weight against Magnolia, which certaily creates several different interpretations while maintaining a believable image of everyday lives and problems. To dismiss a film that is just as much a monumental achievement as "a pretty bad remake" is pretty shallow.

Anton Chigurh is dead and Spider-Man 3 is superior in every way to Funny Games.

reply

[–] artihcus022 15 years ago

It may be shallow but it is true.

"Ça va by me, madame...Ça va by me!" - The Red Shoes

reply

[–] Senator_Corleone 15 years ago

Shallow = not doing the required mental work. It's not true. You're a neophyte with snobbish aspirations. Those aspirations are terrible.

Anton Chigurh is dead and Spider-Man 3 is superior in every way to Funny Games.

reply

[–] artihcus022 15 years ago

Well you said my opinion on Magnolia is shallow. I said that it may be shallow but it is also true.

What you didn't get was the implication that Magnolia itself doesn't deserve anything deeper than that glib dismissal. That is I don't need to do much mental work to see it for what it is, a cold remake of Short Cuts.

You're a neophyte with snobbish aspirations.

I find it hard to accept being called a "neophyte" by someone who is easily impressed with Magnolia. When Robert Altman praises the film he was simply being polite that someone of the new generation is interested in doing ambition films...that doesn't necessarily mean he thinks it' grea.

And I don't see how I can be snobbish when Altman is as anti-snob a film-maker you can get anywhere. Unlike Magnolia with that over-the-top gimmicky opening.

"Ça va by me, madame...Ça va by me!" - The Red Shoes

reply

[–] Senator_Corleone 15 years ago

Anyone who glibly dismisses either film is neither a film connoisseur or someone to argue with. They're just lazy. Few films I can think of are warmer and more humane than Magnolia. I'd dare say that it's actually Short Cuts that is the "colder" of the two. I own both movies so it's not like I meant that as hate on Altman's film. The two movies have only the most passing parallels plotwise, they could not be more different in their storytelling styles or ultimate themes.

And Altman was "simply being polite?" What the hell are you talking about? Altman was the kinda guy who would say if he hated something. Why would he approach PTA to "just be polite?" That doesn't sound like the Robert Altman I had read about. If he was "simply being polite" why would he ask PTA on as a guest director when he worried he wasn't going to be able to finish A Praire Home Companion. Sounds to me like he was pretty impressed with the kid's stuff. Ingmar Bergman must've been just being polite, as well, through journalism a world away when he listed Magnolia as one of his favorite modern films.

The "gimmicky opening" is just one of many ways you can tell PTA loves to make movies. There's more thought and studied execution in that prologue than in most full-length movies. Such ambition and joy should be praised and welcomed. People, like you, who see it as gimmicky and shallow are missing the forest for the trees. Robert Altman would've never wanted to watch a movie with a person like you. You act like you're the great authority on what's good cinema and what's not but in reality you're the last sort of viewer Altman (or Powell and Pressburger) were interested in entertaining.

Anton Chigurh is dead and Spider-Man 3 is superior in every way to Funny Games.

reply

[–] artihcus022 15 years ago

Few films I can think of are warmer and more humane than Magnolia. I'd dare say that it's actually Short Cuts that is the "colder" of the two.

Not how I see films. Altman never makes "cold" films or for that matter "warm" films. Well his last film was a warm film, I suppose. A warm film about death not being so bad after all.

I own both movies so it's not like I meant that as hate on Altman's film.

"hate", why are you taking this so seriously? I don't hate Magnolia, I just think that it's not a very special film, especially compared to the very highest standards, i.e. Short Cuts.

If he was "simply being polite" why would he ask PTA on as a guest director when he worried he wasn't going to be able to finish A Praire Home Companion.

Actually, Altman only needed a standby because he had problems getting insurance, it was a given that he would complete the film.

Sounds to me like he was pretty impressed with the kid's stuff.

Which doesn't necessarily mean that he thinks that the films he makes are great or masterpieces. Altman mentioned in many interviews in the past few years that he didn't think or see much contemporary cinema and he thought that American cinema was in decline. What Altman means is that PTA makes films that at least try to engage with adult audiences.

The "gimmicky opening" is just one of many ways you can tell PTA loves to make movies. There's more thought and studied execution in that prologue than in most full-length movies.

It's still a gimmick and it's actually a very simple conceit. Just search for bizarre accidents(which itself isn't difficult) and find the best ones to match. Nothing like the unbelievably complex shifting patterns and visual rhymes in Short Cuts.

Such ambition and joy should be praised and welcomed.

It doesn't necessarily mean it's great. I think there must be misunderstanding. See, when I watch films, I take them very seriously and am constantly bowled over by really great films. Now Magnolia is on it's own charming and light, and very much different from the usual Hollywood films(at least on the surface, it still has a "happy ending" unlike Short Cuts which actually stops rather than ends) but it's got no magic in it anywhere.

Robert Altman would've never wanted to watch a movie with a person like you.

I think Mr. Altman would be flattered by both of us fighting over what his opinion on a film is.

You act like you're the great authority on what's good cinema and what's not but in reality you're the last sort of viewer Altman (or Powell and Pressburger) were interested in entertaining.

You have some nerve accusing me for playing an authority when you claim authority on the intended audiences of dead artists.

"Ça va by me, madame...Ça va by me!" - The Red Shoes

reply

[–] Senator_Corleone 15 years ago

"You have some nerve accusing me for playing an authority when you claim authority on the intended audiences of dead artists."

They were quoted in articles I read. I can take authority for quotes that I read them say. You're taking authority for matters of taste. It's totally different.

"See, when I watch films, I take them very seriously and am constantly bowled over by really great films."

The implication being that I don't?

"Altman mentioned in many interviews in the past few years that he didn't think or see much contemporary cinema and he thought that American cinema was in decline."

I read that interview. RIGHT AFTER he said that he listed Magnolia as one of the movies he felt was an exception.

"Actually, Altman only needed a standby because he had problems getting insurance, it was a given that he would complete the film."

Strawman. He still asked for PTA.

"Just search for bizarre accidents(which itself isn't difficult) and find the best ones to match. Nothing like the unbelievably complex shifting patterns and visual rhymes in Short Cuts."

1. The first part of this quote shows you have no idea what the production of a film is actually like.
2. "Shifting patterns and visual rhymes" are a major, totally unmissable, huge part of Magnolia.

"I think Mr. Altman would be flattered by both of us fighting over what his opinion on a film is."

No, he would've hated you because you're a downer. And there is no argument for how Robert Altman felt about Magnolia: he liked it, a lot. You know how I know? Because he said he did.

Anton Chigurh is dead and Spider-Man 3 is superior in every way to Funny Games.

reply

[–] artihcus022 15 years ago

You're taking authority for matters of taste.

How? Did I tell you not to watch Magnolia or that it should be banned...no. There are a couple of decent performances in that worth seeing.

Instead of saying "I" am an "authority" on taste, you should try and argue what's so special about Magnolia beyond stuff like it's "warmer" than Short Cuts, that usually means safer, nicer and easier.

He still asked for PTA.

Which itself doesn't mean anything. Altman liked the guy, the guy liked his films and it was a simple, honorary position with no real consequence. Altman still had enough left in him to complete that film...not that I want to minimize the pangs of old age or anything.

Strawman.

Which is actually your argument. You are basing it on vague assertions of directors liking the film rather on anything intrinsic in the films themselves. By itself, it's not wrong but if that's all you have to say about it then...

I read that interview.

I said "many interviews" not one. Plural, rather than singular. I've never come across one mention of Magnolia in that. Actually one film he cited a lot is City of God(which I don't care for, actually). You have to understand that directors don't really mean what they are quoted to say at times in interviews and that to understand the real meaning you have to glean many and then get an idea what they really "meant". He may have mentioned Magnolia once or twice but in most interviews he hasn't and has instead expressed concerns with American cinema and society today. In any case, Altman was never the most cinephillic of auteurs.

Then Bergman was notorious for making many bald statements of dislike during his lifetime, the art cinema world of Europe being very competitive and even a little bitchy. He once praised Tarkovsky's Ivan's Childhood but said in another interview that he felt it was raw and unprofessional but that it was something fresh and so he said he liked it.

1. The first part of this quote shows you have no idea what the production of a film is actually like.

Well I wasn't talking about the "production", I was talking about what's there in the film. During production it probably took a good deal of practical problems to achieve what the director wanted but the idea expressed in the editing is gimmicky and easy...

2. "Shifting patterns and visual rhymes" are a major, totally unmissable, huge part of Magnolia.

In Magnolia what we have is simple parallelism that has a very simple pattern of children struggling against their fathers and trying to reconcile with that. In Short Cuts, the Andie McDowell story is about that, the couple's loss of their child and Jack Lemmon's sudden appearance and disappearance but it is moving and profound and very complicated.

"Ça va by me, madame...Ça va by me!" - The Red Shoes

reply

[–] Senator_Corleone 15 years ago

My point originally was that you can't just dismiss Magnolia (or City of God) with the wave of a hand and a bunch of words like "simplistic" and "gimmicky." But, you do, and insist on trying to be pedantic about how I should watch movies and read interviews. Hilarious.

I know that Magnolia AND Short Cuts AND City of God are among the finest films I've seen. If you don't like them it's your loss, but the "way you watch films" is a terrible and hollow way to "appreciate" movies. Maybe once you watch some of these movies more than once you'll get on board.

I could point out that Tom Cruise's character is equally complicated as anybody in Short Cuts. Why, when he so obviously is "struggling with his father," has he turned his hatred to women? But, wait, I'm arguing with someone who writes with this much tortured syntax: "Andie McDowell story is about that, the couple's loss of their child and Jack Lemmon's sudden appearance and disappearance but it is moving and profound and very complicated."

In the words of Arrested Development: "FAMILY LOVE MICHAEL!"

What's the point? I've finally realized that you're a waste of time. Father-child relationship mending is nowhere to be found in Short Cuts. Jack Lemmon's character, and his relationship to his son, could not be more different than the characters of Magnolia. Again, you take the most passing plot parallels and see them as the same exact thing. Watch the movies more than once.

"You have to understand that directors don't really mean what they are quoted to say at times in interviews and that to understand the real meaning you have to glean many and then get an idea what they really "meant"."

Other than the giant punctuation error at the end, the fact that you're lecturing me about what I need to understand about directors talking is maybe the most insulting thing you've yet said. And everything you say is insulting. Robert Altman watched tons of movies. You can't be one of America's greatest film artists without doing that. "Warmer" does not mean easier, and, NO, it is NOT wrong to mistake children for angels!

Anton Chigurh is dead and Spider-Man 3 is superior in every way to Funny Games.

reply

[–] artihcus022 15 years ago

I could point out that Tom Cruise's character is equally complicated as anybody in Short Cuts. Why, when he so obviously is "struggling with his father," has he turned his hatred to women?

His father married a trophy wife in his later years (the character played by Julianne Moore) and Cruise's character like most in that film suffer from tortured Oedipal issues and so become neurotic half-adults with problems. You have read Freud haven't you? Though I must say that the issues presented in the film never really make us care for these folks' daddy-issues.

...the fact that you're lecturing me about what I need to understand about directors talking is maybe the most insulting thing you've yet said.

You are getting paranoid. I may have traded barbs and quips here and there, I can't help it...you are too sanctimonious a target for me to pass by...but I never really, really insulted you. I could. But what a waste of time.

Robert Altman watched tons of movies. You can't be one of America's greatest film artists without doing that.

He did watch a lot of fims but that's not necessarily the same thing as being "cinephillic" like Martin Scorsese or Francis Ford Coppola obviously are.

...it is NOT wrong to mistake children for angels!

So Captain Syntax will gesticulate at other people's pronounciation errors while bathing in his incoherence.

"Ça va by me, madame...Ça va by me!" - The Red Shoes

reply

[–] Senator_Corleone 15 years ago

Tom Cruise's character had his career long before the trophy wife showed up.

And that last line was a piece of dialogue from Magnolia.

You have no sense of humor so you didn't get it.

Also, you haven't paid attention to Magnolia, which is why you think it is light entertainment.

Anton Chigurh is dead and Spider-Man 3 is superior in every way to Funny Games.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 15 years ago

I wouldn´t say Magnolia is ´light´ nor ´entertainment´ (it certainly has aspirations to be more than just a pleasent background for popcorn dinner) and warm does not mean easy necessarily - although it usually tends to and, unfortunately, to some extent it´s also true with PTA`s opus. I think Magnolia is just overreaching, going for depth and complexity that proved somewhat beyond the directors capabilities at the time. It is a lot more obvious, heavy handed and melodramatic than Short Cuts. And for all the stuff said about how much more empathy PTA displays towards his characters, Short Cuts is actually the more emotionally affecting of the two.

Although not bad exactly, I consider Magnolia to be PTA´s worst film - while Short Cuts is one of Altman´s best.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] Senator_Corleone 15 years ago

Overreaching how? Beyond the capabilities how? Just saying that isn't enough.

I think you're just saying that because you couldn't grasp what it was saying on the one time you watched it. You haven't experienced real pain in your life, and Short Cuts is easier to fit into a cynical "everyone sucks" viewpoint that works better for most IMDb posters. So you think its better. Your last two sentences are purely opinion. How is Short Cuts the more emotionally affecting? Explain! Don't just state it like a fact.

Anyway, I've decided people who think Magnolia is shallow are actually shallow themselves, and unwilling to do the heavy lifting necessary to properly watch the movie. And they're *beep*

Anton Chigurh is dead and Spider-Man 3 is superior in every way to Funny Games.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 15 years ago

Well ´I´ think I said that because it takes on a huge task to paint such a large canvas and provide great insight into the lives of these people, but ends up being a rather obvious message movie, resorting to relatively predictable melodrama. All the stuff with mistreated kids gets terribly heavy handed at some point; it practically begs for viewer´s empathy. Short Cuts on the other hand insists on no such thing, it´s rather impassive & yet manages to be a lot more harrowing with a lot less exposition. With stuff like this, I usually tend to prefer understatement. And I´m not saying Magnolia is shallow - just that it overplays its hand when it comes to emotional content. Empathy is one thing, art is another and by your logic one should apparently love each and every tearjerker out there in order to avoid being labelled cold hearted. And Magnolia IS a decent movie despite its shortcomings; there´s a lot to like about it - it just doesn´t quite gel as a whole. Short Cuts is more mature, but this also makes sense since Altman was 68 when he made it and PTA was 29 when he made Magnolia.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] maz89 12 years ago

Short Cuts on the other hand insists on no such thing, it´s rather impassive & yet manages to be a lot more harrowing with a lot less exposition. With stuff like this, I usually tend to prefer understatement.

Is it 'that' impassive, though? It definitely thrives on viewer empathy itself and contains plenty of the melodramatic elements characteristic of Magnolia (although, I do agree, to a lesser extent).

I found the melodrama in Magnolia to be only a little bit more predictable than the kind found in Short Cuts. I suppose you could say that PTA's approach was more invasive and manipulative than Altman's... I don't know, maybe. But I do believe that the predictability did not weigh down the emotional drama in either case.

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 12 years ago

There are instances where "melodramatic elements" or -reactions are unavoidable (however, there are hardly "plenty" of those in Short Cuts). Magnolia, however, is one long succession of scenes of overwrought emotional excess and general heavy-handedness in getting its points across.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] maz89 12 years ago

Magnolia, however, is one long succession of scenes of overwrought emotional excess and general heavy-handedness in getting its points across.

Well, I'd probably need to see it again before I can convince myself of that. Perhaps I'll find the "melodrama" in Magnolia "unavoidable" too.

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 12 years ago

"Perhaps I´ll find the "melodrama" in Magnolia "unavoidable", too".

Unfortunately, PTA sure did.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] trymyproduct11 15 years ago

What puts Altman above them is that his ensemble films treat characters as characters rather than as devices or blocks to create ONE GRAND STATEMENT. They show the impossibility of grand statements.

That, right there, is perhaps the best explanation I've ever read regarding Altman's style.

reply

[–] artihcus022 16 years ago

The film had been careful, almost meticulous, in the way it built up each individual plot line and conflict, only to leave most everything unresolved.

Well that's what makes this film so stunning and monumental.

... but I'm having a hard time figuring out what Altman is trying to say here. What purpose does he gain in bringing in such a deus ex machina to halt the narrative? Is the theme then that peoples' lives will go on, despite their arguments, their twists of fate, and the crappy things they do to each other?

YES.

Life goes on because these characters are "prisoners of life", just like us.

The earthquake comes in because it ties into the ecological subtext of the film. It opens with helicopters disinfecting the land against medflies and ends with a earthquake.

If anyone has any theories on what they'd postulate the end is supposed to mean in the larger context of the film, I'd appreciate it a lot!

It's something you have to think for yourself. Altman presented the images, the stories, the characters who are wrapped in their own subjectivity but the meaning must be created by the audience.

"Ça va by me, madame...Ça va by me!" - The Red Shoes

reply

[–] cowboymovies 15 years ago

artihcus definitely lost that one.

Both great films indeed!

reply

[–] munspel 15 years ago

I love Magnolia and Short Cuts isn't bad either. Why the over intellectualizing?
Different people feel different things. I love movies that are heavy on the emotions. Other people might like other things.

reply

[–] Harriet-Weaver 15 years ago

Robert Altman was inspired by a selection of stories written by Raymond Carver, which are now compiled into one book, called "Short Cuts" after Altman's film. I would recommend the book. Altman took the basic characters and themes of the stories and extrapolated from there to give them more defined lives. The film also intertwines each of the stories (which are completely separate units in Carver's work) physically with editing (cross-cutting, or "short cuts") and by "Los Angelizing" the story and making the characters connect as neighbors, relatives, etc. I think you will gain some understanding if you read the stories. The form of the movie seems to represent its subject matter: the fragmentation of (American) life and the triumph of chance, or the arbitrary. I will say, though, that the earthquake is totally Altman's invention and I agree, it is an odd deus ex machina. I hope that this information helps, though. I wouldn't begin to formulate a theory about the end, but knowing that "Short Cuts" is an adaptation of Raymond Carver might shed a lot of light on the subject.

reply

[–] Zoomorph 15 years ago

I think the ending was sloppy. It's too bad because the first 3/4 was nearly flawless.

~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~

reply

[–] maz89 12 years ago

Agreed.

Sure, it allowed Altman to create that apocalyptic, otherworldly sequence in which the sexually frustrated Jerry (predictably) projected his anger at that young biker just as all hell around him is breaking loose. And perhaps, what saves that scene from becoming terribly heavy-handed is the fact that Altman reminds us of all the other people (who haven't just murdered) merely scrambling to get under a secure surface like normal people (well, the ones who weren't inadvertently responsible for the death of their daughters). Indeed, life goes on. But I can't help but be a little unsatisfied by the resolution of that little narrative thread.

And is it completely ridiculous that I prefer the completely fantastical ending in Magnolia instead? I thought there was something poetic (and perhaps, comical... in some absurd way) about how an unusual occurrence that contradicts with the preconceived notions of the universe's rules can, at least momentarily, make one lose sight of all the worldly pain and drama. All of these very real people (who were dealing with familiar issues) suddenly face this insane situation and it makes them re-consider what they are, who they are and where they are; suddenly, everything seems so trivial... yeah, regardless of whether it worked or not, it was definitely an ambitious ending. And fascinating too.

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

reply

[–] sim7396 14 years ago

only to leave most everything unresolved

That's the whole point in a movie that seeks to mimic life. Real life is seldom or never "resolved," even if you or I die, there's always another day. Life goes on.

reply

[–] suebeer 14 years ago

I think maybe the director had wrestled with this and just couldn't find a feasible way to close, whilst including all the characters' responses. He couldn't do a plague (e.g. frogs, as in Magnolia) so had to find something else. But I agree; not satisfactory. Although a relief that, after three hours, at least it meant the end of the film. Interesting characters, but the connections between all had been well established and didn't need to be hammered home in such an exhausting manner.

I can't find an earthquake ending in any of Carver's stories - can you?

reply

[–] franzkabuki 14 years ago

I don´t think anything was hammered home in Short Cuts at all - I find it remarkably subtle, in fact, allowing things & story threads to progress and occasionally interwine naturally and organically; if you want hammering, look no further than that same Magnolia that keeps popping up wherever SC is mentioned. But I agree that the ending wasn´t quite as great as it could have been and was probably the weakest part of the (very impressive) whole.

Although, all the same, it´s still much better than ending The Trial with an explosion.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] maz89 12 years ago

What's so intelligent about using "deus ex machina"? Just curious here...

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

reply