Nashville (1975) is canonically Altman's masterpiece. Nashville pioneered the use of 8 track sound that was key to bringing Altman's signature overlapping dialog to life. This coupled with the narrative open ended quality and Altman's fly on the wall direction (liberal use of zoom lenses and free flowing camera) cemented the film as THE Altman film. So it says something that I think a real argument can be made that Short Cuts should be considered Altman's masterpiece. I do not where I fall on the question but these two great films are pillars of America cinema.
Whereas Nashville's exploration of Americana is bold, vivid and striking Short Cuts present its exploration of modernity's isolation and alienation in italics. The Carver stories proved a fruitful ground to plant Altman's sensibilities. The way the short stories are broke apart and integrated leaves each story precisely ambiguous enough to hit the correct note while yielding a cohesive, emotionally powerful whole. There is a soullessness to these characters that nonetheless have a humanity to them in the way they try to pass time-take short cuts-in the wrong way. I imagine that Carver fans might be displeased with the looseness of the adaptation but to me it is a perfect example of how source material can inspire. This is Altman's rift on the Carver material; it is very much like a jazz variant on a classic melody.
Whereas Nashville was a leap forward in technique, Short Cuts is the work of a master who knows precisely how to paint a mosaic. The transitions between the various story threads are varied-some scenes are joined visually, some via dialog, some via concept-and the film's pace never legs as a result. Films like this often feel episodic and disjointed but Altman as writer reshapes the stories to fit together and as a director he knows how to shoot an end of scene to flow freely into the next. The editing is a masterclass of juxtaposition to add thematic weight and to keep the momentum of the narrative going.
Nashville is angry and filled with acidic wit. There is some of that disillusionment in Short Cuts-how could there not be?-but much of the film is tempered by Altman's aged compassion. Like I said I can't say which film is better.
Oh and *of course* the acting is wonderful. Lemmon is in the film for all of 10 minutes but turns in a show stopping scene. But that is the least of the performances.
Whereas Nashville's exploration of Americana is bold, vivid and striking Short Cuts present its exploration of modernity's isolation and alienation in italics. The Carver stories proved a fruitful ground to plant Altman's sensibilities. The way the short stories are broke apart and integrated leaves each story precisely ambiguous enough to hit the correct note while yielding a cohesive, emotionally powerful whole. There is a soullessness to these characters that nonetheless have a humanity to them in the way they try to pass time-take short cuts-in the wrong way. I imagine that Carver fans might be displeased with the looseness of the adaptation but to me it is a perfect example of how source material can inspire. This is Altman's rift on the Carver material; it is very much like a jazz variant on a classic melody.
Whereas Nashville was a leap forward in technique, Short Cuts is the work of a master who knows precisely how to paint a mosaic. The transitions between the various story threads are varied-some scenes are joined visually, some via dialog, some via concept-and the film's pace never legs as a result. Films like this often feel episodic and disjointed but Altman as writer reshapes the stories to fit together and as a director he knows how to shoot an end of scene to flow freely into the next. The editing is a masterclass of juxtaposition to add thematic weight and to keep the momentum of the narrative going.
Nashville is angry and filled with acidic wit. There is some of that disillusionment in Short Cuts-how could there not be?-but much of the film is tempered by Altman's aged compassion. Like I said I can't say which film is better.
Oh and *of course* the acting is wonderful. Lemmon is in the film for all of 10 minutes but turns in a show stopping scene. But that is the least of the performances.