Short Cuts (1993)

Featured Audience Ratings

• Lucas M

  
  The best american film of the 90's.

• Daniel P

  
  I count several of the stories in Cathedral, by Raymond Carver, among the best I've ever read. One of them, "A Small, Good Thing," even won the 1983 O. Henry Prize. This is the one story I already knew, the one that's most prominent in Altman's film… More
  I count several of the stories in Cathedral, by Raymond Carver, among the best I've ever read. One of them, "A Small, Good Thing," even won the 1983 O. Henry Prize. This is the one story I already knew, the one that's most prominent in Altman's film adaptation, and it features Bruce Davison and Andie MacDowell as parents to a boy who's been hit by a car. It's among the more filmable stories that were chosen (Altman took eight, from more than one of Carver's collections, plus a poem), but it's one of the worst acted... until Jack Lemmon turns up. The Frances McDormand-Tim Robbins-Madeline Stowe love triangle might have showcased the best work, filmed as it was at the very moment all three came into their own, and the couple dynamic that Chris Penn and Jennifer Jason Leigh manage is notable as well, as are Robert Downey Jr. and Lili Taylor. But why focus so much on the acting? Look at the cast! This is one of the biggest, best, and (Huey Lewis??) bravest ensembles of my lifetime, if not of all time, and it's worth noting that the Golden Globes gave the group a special award for its performance. I trust that all of these talents signed on for the simple reason that Carver is an American legend. Like Altman's, his stories are ram-packed with subtleties, and attempting to carry them onto the screen - with the requisite simplification or exaggeration - must have been daunting for the director, not to mention an exciting challenge for the actors. Unfortunately, I'm of the opinion that the experiment failed. What Altman does to keep the movie going - with varying success - is a simple trick in which he interconnects the various stories. So, going back to the boy who was hit by the car, the woman driving (an excellent Lily Tomlin) is a waitress married to a drunk (Tom Waits) in a different storyline. The boy and his parents live beside a teenaged cellist with a bad relationship with her lounge-singing mother, which makes another storyline, (and so on like this). Interconnectedness is a reasonable approach, given that Carver wrote about the hard bits of American life as lived by common people - things that can and do ordinarily happen to any one of us - and I can even employ Edgar Allan Poe's term for what makes a good short story, "unity of impression," in Altman's defense. Each of Carver's stories make a unified impression in their own right, and they do so as a life's work, too. But in attempting to yoke them into one setting (L.A. instead of Carver's usual Pacific Northwest) and one weekend - almost the terms of the classical unities, which required that all action happen in one place and one day - Altman hopes to create this single impression, a sort of "Here's What Ray Carver Was All About" kind of film, during which he takes the viewer on a valuable tour that's a lot more like a big, baggy novel: a plausible sequence full of great dramatic moments. What goes wrong here, though, is that he ignores the fact that these were short stories, forgetting something else that Poe said about the form: you should be able to read it in one sitting. Jumping in and out of these stories, over and over again for more than three hours, is too jarring to allow the viewer to connect with most of characters at any level deeper than the surface, and it compromises the film's potential for that gut-level "whoosh" we've all felt at the end of a great story. When he taught Creative Writing, Carver would famously tell his students, "No tricks!" It's advice Altman would have done well to remember. Jumbling these stories together is a cheap trick that robs each of its individual power, taking eight narratives and turning them into something that barely qualifies as one. I write this days after finally seeing Paul Haggis's Crash, where a similar technique worked much better. In that film, (1h45m, approx.), the sequence of seemingly unrelated events was arranged in a clear, overarching plot. By comparison, Short Cuts leaves you investing a lot for no reward in the end, and forces you to make do with the little brilliant flashes along the way. Then again, maybe that's the point. Maybe that's how film differs from literature. But for my part, I'd much rather that Altman had made an anthology-like film, and tackled each story one at a time. Even better (though not for the box office), if it has to be three hours long, an anthology is something during which you can take breaks, to let each of these powerful stories set in. In the post-network TV environment - the still bright but fading age of the DVD box set - I'd love to see someone take a crack at Carver again, in a way that lets each of his stories do the work they set out to do, and engages the work on its own level, and respeciting that fact that Carver refused to write a novel, "driven toward brevity and intensity" as he claimed to be. (Next writing project: a letter. "Dear HBO," it begins...) By the way, in Canada, three Toronto writers have led the charge all year to declare 2011 "The Year of the Short Story," as challenge to the perception that the short story is a dying medium. If any of the above resonates with you, go to www.yoss2011.com for more short story love.

• Graham J

  
  This film is perfect in every way. I think Altman succeeds in showing us what real people and relationships are like as well as painting a perfect picture of Los Angeles. Maybe my favorite film, def top 5.

• Steven C

  
  I have never come across a film that lends itself so perfectly to two separate artists and mediums. "Short Cuts" is as much a Robert Altman film as it is a Raymond Carver story. "Short Cuts" is Altman's adaptation of Carver's short stories and poems and… More
  I have never come across a film that lends itself so perfectly to two separate artists and mediums. "Short Cuts" is as much a Robert Altman film as it is a Raymond Carver story. "Short Cuts" is Altman's adaptation of Carver's short stories and poems and it comes to thrilling life. Some have criticized the film for a seeming lack of character development but I don't think it's that simple. It's epic length (the picture runs over 3 hours) can give the impression of aimlessness (but is it really 'aimless' when that's an intention?). "Short Cuts," like "Nashville," is a film about people living in a specific time and place. Where "Nashville" was about the political climate and music industry colliding in the 70s, "Short Cuts" is about the moral climate of 90s Los Angeles. Altman is asking the questions: "What is right?" "What is wrong?" "What is the proper way to conduct yourself?" "How are you supposed to go about making decisions?" "Do you ever really know someone?" "Who are the people that can impact your life?" and these are large questions to be asking. Altman uses his ensemble format to great affect here. The characters are acting out these scenarios for us to use as a mirror to our own lives. If you observe their actions you will see their character. "Short Cuts" is a modern morality tale. It's an important film in Robert Altman's career, a love letter to Raymond Carver's legacy and a kaleidoscopic ode to the city of Los Angeles. One of my all time favorite films that's deeply rewarding each time I see it. "Short Cuts" is a masterpiece.

• Conner R

  
  It's just nowhere near as it want's to believe it is and has the production value of a tv mini-series, but this is an essential step in the ensemble drama genre. It is very similar to movies like Grand Canyon and Crash, but I don't really see its connection to Magnolia.… More
  It's just nowhere near as it want's to believe it is and has the production value of a tv mini-series, but this is an essential step in the ensemble drama genre. It is very similar to movies like Grand Canyon and Crash, but I don't really see its connection to Magnolia. It uses its subjects as props rather than living, breathing things, which is what Magnolia was all about. This almost has too many characters to handle, but the cast is incredible to say the least. The interaction is corny at times, but at others it's really clever and effective. Robert Altman is either a swing or a miss for me. This is definitely a miss, but a very interesting project.

• Megan S

  
  I should pay more attention to running times before I just get random movies from Netflix. Even though it was 3 hours long, it was enjoyable for the most part. There were a few times when I got a little bored, but it held my attention. I really like those movies where everyone is… More
  I should pay more attention to running times before I just get random movies from Netflix. Even though it was 3 hours long, it was enjoyable for the most part. There were a few times when I got a little bored, but it held my attention. I really like those movies where everyone is interconnected.

• Dean M

  
  Director Robert Altman scores again with this cool film that intertwines several of Raymond Carver's short stories into a fascinating, though-provoking panorama of modern-day life.

• Luke B

  
  An absolutely huge and extremely talented cast are at the focus of this film. Obvious inspiration for Magnolia it details the lives of many people in an area of LA. As the film moves forth connections are drawn between characters and relationships explored. It's a real piece of… More
  An absolutely huge and extremely talented cast are at the focus of this film. Obvious inspiration for Magnolia it details the lives of many people in an area of LA. As the film moves forth connections are drawn between characters and relationships explored. It's a real piece of tense cinema as twists arrive but are never forced in ridiculous soap opera ways. People act real, not always like we are used to in film. Some of their actions may be hard to explain but it is precisely this which allows the actors to fulfill their roles. Everybody gives their all to create a film that is so lifelike it is obvious to see that their stories don't end as the credits roll. There is a lot left open and some thing go unresolved, but not in a disappointing manner. At over 3 hours the pacing is excellent, moving from story to story with ease and never away long enough to forget and have trouble fitting the pieces together.

• Alice S

  
  Magnetic, insane, and heart-stopping. Excellent build, theme of redemption, and ensemble cast. Rating not higher because Altman's zooms still irk me.

• Red L

  
  I think one has to see this movie more than once to catch all the connections - there are a thousand interrelated stories (with an unbelievable large name cast - usually these sorts of movies feature unknown actors). I enjoy this type of movie. Now I need to see Magnolia.

• Tim S

  
  Probably my next favorite Altman film next to McCabe and Mrs. Miller. All of the sequences are well acted. My favorite performance had to be either Tom Waits as the drunk (so, he's playing himself, I guess) and Tim Robbins, who is hilarious.

• Michael S

  
  *On my "best of the 1990s" list.

• Christopher M

  
  A slick ensemble film by director Robert Altman based in L.A. I heard about this film in connection with it being based on the work of Raymond Carver, who is one of my favourite writers. I definitely see this after having watched it; the film paints a picture of dark suburban American… More
  A slick ensemble film by director Robert Altman based in L.A. I heard about this film in connection with it being based on the work of Raymond Carver, who is one of my favourite writers. I definitely see this after having watched it; the film paints a picture of dark suburban American life that Carver often focused on, and I think it's this inspiration that makes the film so special. There are a lot of similarities to later ensemble films like Magnolia or even Crash. Considering Magnolia's director P.T. Anderson was a co-director on Altman's last film, A Prairie House Companion, one can assume this film was definitely an influence on Anderson's ensemble masterpiece from 1999. It's similar to Crash in that it's an ensemble film that deals with racial issues and the death of a child based in L.A. - but unlike Crash, this is actually a very good film. Also unlike Crash, it deals with the racial issues present in a very subtle way which I really appreciated (the fact that the issues were so obviously presented and shoved down your throat is what I most hated about Crash). The other themes are not as subtle, but still handled very smoothly and with class - Altman's direction (I admit to not being extremely familiar with his work) is very graceful, his use of the songs of one of the characters, a night-club jazz singer, throughout the film and the awesome jazz soundtrack that was present almost throughout worked very well. The cast, and their acting, was overall very good. There were a couple sour apples (Andie MacDowell gets a little overbearing near the end), but they don't ruin the bunch - as the film exhibits solid performances from Chris Penn (great to see him in a more meaty role than usual), Bruce Davison, Tim Robbins, Madeleine Stowe, Peter Gallagher, and the great Jack Lemmon. It's always a pleasure as well to see Tom Waits acting (especially in something beyond a small cameo-type role), and he does very well. Overall, this is a very good episodic movie with a literary feel, I'd definitely recommend checking it out.

• Michael G

  
  Interwoven so incredibly. And finding out that Julianne Moore is a natural redhead did my heart good.

• Jason V

  
  Goodness gracious. It's not hard to see what director Robert Altman is trying to do here, but the over 3 hour running time is the death knell for Short Cuts. There's no sense of any of the individual stories leading to a dramatic conclusion and, to be honest, none of the… More
  Goodness gracious. It's not hard to see what director Robert Altman is trying to do here, but the over 3 hour running time is the death knell for Short Cuts. There's no sense of any of the individual stories leading to a dramatic conclusion and, to be honest, none of the characters are deep enough for the audience to root for. This feels like a vanity project, a way for a cadre of stars to work with a legendary director. Fine, whatever. But the disconnected feeling Altman is going for doesn't have nearly enough oomph to sustain 184 minutes. None of the stories could sustain a 90 minute movie by themselves and we never feel anything for any of the characters. After the 90 minute mark, the rest of the film is a slog to get through. In terms of logistics and telling a coherent story...sure, it works. Watching these well known actors? Alright, fair enough. It's the emotion which falls flat.

• Joseph E

  
  Long, but deeply affecting with it's great storyline, acting, and direction.

• Alec B

  
  No one can juggle this many stories as well as Robert Altman. A wonderful character study that gives us a glimpse into the lives of a group of people in california.

• Joey N

  
  Three hours fly by in an episodic ensemble film filled with memorable characters. It feels like a slice of life.

• matt s

  
  The most amazing soap opera you'll ever watch.

• Quinto W

  
  Though the performances are enjoyable (except Andie McDowell. Who gave her a screenplay?) and the movie has plenty of amazing moments, overall the characters are mostly whiny and annoying and so many that you keep forgetting them. It's also very uninvolving for a three hour film.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings