By the time Robert Altman directed Short Cuts, in 1993, his style of interconnected and quirky characters in the format of a large cast was becoming trendy. The nineties would see other famous examples of this approach by big name directors, notably Tarantino's Pulp Fiction in 1994 and Paul Thomas Anderson's' Magnolia from 1999. There was even a Simpson's episode in this vein in 1996 called '22 Short Films About Springfield'.
Even though Altman was one of the inventors of this style, or grouping of styles, Short Takes suffers some from being in the age of such movies, rather than a monumental predecessor. Altman came close to perfecting the large, interconnected ensemble film in 1975 with Nashville. This film was more of a portrait of a unique city with its own music and culture and a portrait of the times rather than a character study or a gripping pot boiler. So the title made sense. Perhaps an even more accurate title would have been Nashville 1975. Altman excited audiences by making a large scale portrait of a time and place, full of complexity and brimming with interesting little stories and people. By 1993, the charms of these new developments were starting to wear off, and the nineties would sap the creative reservoir (and audience patience) of such sprawling films.
Nashville is a better film---it cracks with energy and humor, it radiates a cynicism that was new in the 70's but is now commonplace. Short cuts fails to be a larger portrait as Nashville was. Nashville's true main character was the city herself. All the pieces fit to make a larger structure. This large structure may have been gaudy and odd, but it was worth building. Short Takes takes place in L.A. Suburbs, but is not about them. It feels like it takes place there because it was convenient, not because Altman had developed a Nashville-like interest in the area. The stories are thus highly reliant on their connections, though these can feel contrived. There is too much material here, even for 3 hours, to mine much real depth with individuals, and so the shattered pieces of a whole are hurt by never fitting into a larger structure. Nashville was 'weird' because it was about a city, Short Takes is 'weird' because it is about nothing. It seems appropriate that this movie came from the age of Seinfeld.
Nashville was better and more innovative, but Short Takes was still on the front edge of the nineties trend of piecemeal interconnection dramas. It seems unfair that Pulp Fiction is so much more heralded and Magnolia is more remembered and loved. Why? Pulp Fiction might be more silly fun, and Magnolia might be by arguably the most gifted director of the three, but Short takes feels left behind by these films even though it was first, from a historical point of view. Part of this comes from the tone. The film is not touching or dramatic in the conventional sense. The viewer doesn't care about anyone in particular. We feel as upset for the girl killed by Chris Penn's character (she has only a few lines) as we do for anyone. Through its sheer fun Pulp Fiction makes you care about the characters in at least a passing way. Magnolia is a web of quirky, interconnected characters, but has more thematic and emotional focus. Short Cuts feels insincere at times, dramatically, and falls into clichés which are amplified by the lack of time any one line of a character is given. The attempts at darkish humor fall flat or feel confusing as to whether they are serious or tongue in cheek. Despite a huge cast of huge names, the actors seem as confused and aimless as the audience. There are very good actors everywhere here and so sometimes good acting comes here and there, but there is a subdued feeling like all the talent has been handicapped. This is a good film if you are in a patient mood, but far from Altman's best work. Six stars.
Even though Altman was one of the inventors of this style, or grouping of styles, Short Takes suffers some from being in the age of such movies, rather than a monumental predecessor. Altman came close to perfecting the large, interconnected ensemble film in 1975 with Nashville. This film was more of a portrait of a unique city with its own music and culture and a portrait of the times rather than a character study or a gripping pot boiler. So the title made sense. Perhaps an even more accurate title would have been Nashville 1975. Altman excited audiences by making a large scale portrait of a time and place, full of complexity and brimming with interesting little stories and people. By 1993, the charms of these new developments were starting to wear off, and the nineties would sap the creative reservoir (and audience patience) of such sprawling films.
Nashville is a better film---it cracks with energy and humor, it radiates a cynicism that was new in the 70's but is now commonplace. Short cuts fails to be a larger portrait as Nashville was. Nashville's true main character was the city herself. All the pieces fit to make a larger structure. This large structure may have been gaudy and odd, but it was worth building. Short Takes takes place in L.A. Suburbs, but is not about them. It feels like it takes place there because it was convenient, not because Altman had developed a Nashville-like interest in the area. The stories are thus highly reliant on their connections, though these can feel contrived. There is too much material here, even for 3 hours, to mine much real depth with individuals, and so the shattered pieces of a whole are hurt by never fitting into a larger structure. Nashville was 'weird' because it was about a city, Short Takes is 'weird' because it is about nothing. It seems appropriate that this movie came from the age of Seinfeld.
Nashville was better and more innovative, but Short Takes was still on the front edge of the nineties trend of piecemeal interconnection dramas. It seems unfair that Pulp Fiction is so much more heralded and Magnolia is more remembered and loved. Why? Pulp Fiction might be more silly fun, and Magnolia might be by arguably the most gifted director of the three, but Short takes feels left behind by these films even though it was first, from a historical point of view. Part of this comes from the tone. The film is not touching or dramatic in the conventional sense. The viewer doesn't care about anyone in particular. We feel as upset for the girl killed by Chris Penn's character (she has only a few lines) as we do for anyone. Through its sheer fun Pulp Fiction makes you care about the characters in at least a passing way. Magnolia is a web of quirky, interconnected characters, but has more thematic and emotional focus. Short Cuts feels insincere at times, dramatically, and falls into clichés which are amplified by the lack of time any one line of a character is given. The attempts at darkish humor fall flat or feel confusing as to whether they are serious or tongue in cheek. Despite a huge cast of huge names, the actors seem as confused and aimless as the audience. There are very good actors everywhere here and so sometimes good acting comes here and there, but there is a subdued feeling like all the talent has been handicapped. This is a good film if you are in a patient mood, but far from Altman's best work. Six stars.