Dear Mr. Altman,
Short Cuts wasn't necessary. You'd already assured your place in cinematic history with a string of great films in the 1970s and some adventurous, stagy productions during the 1980s. You'd even staged a comeback of sorts with the bitingly funny The Player. You could have rested on your laurels. Instead, you made your most ambitious and rewarding film if not your greatest. I cannot tell you how many times I've promised myself I'd only watch half of it and then head to bed; I cannot tell you how many hours I've spent engrossed in the trials and tribulations faced by these various couplings and families over the course of a few days. Would I give any of those hours spent in the dark back? Never.
Sincerely,
Jason Forestein
Short Cuts is among my favorite Altman films (quite possibly my favorite) and among my favorite films of all time. It's three-plus hours unfold smoothly in an amazing display of editing and pacing. I've seen 80 minute movies that are interminable, yet I often want to start Short Cuts over as soon as it's finished. It's simply amazing on every level.
First, and foremost, there's Altman's direction, which is at the top of its form here. Yes, The Player is a fantastic satire (and really really funny), but Short Cuts has the subdued cinematography and jazzy editing we've come to expect from an Altman film. It also, of course, has the requisite layered conversations. Like Nashville, Short Cuts is the definition of an ensemble piece, where no character takes precedence over any other. There are, I think, more than 20 characters integral to the stories in one form or another and Altman has the unimaginable ability to give them all enough space to come to life. You do not feel that there is a single two-dimensional character in the bunch; that's a major achievement.
Then, you have amazing performances from the usual suspects (Time Robbins, Lily Tomlin, Jack Lemmon, and Robert Downey Jr.) as well as amazing performances from some soon-to-be household names (Lili Taylor, Frances McDormand, and Julianne Moore). This doesn't even count the wonderful turns from the criminally underrated Fred Ward, Tom Waits, Chris Penn, Peter Gallagher, and Matthew Modine. Huey Lewis even delivers a reputable performance. Like Gosford Park and Nashville, the ensemble is perfectly cast and they all perform above and beyond what is necessary. You expect a few duds (like, say, Robin Williams in Branagh's Hamlet); you don't expect perfect characterizations from everyone--especially when you have at least three musician- cum-actors.
The writing is also superb. Sure, Altman was working from stories by Raymond Carver (who you all should go out and read immediately), but the tales were not told by Carver in such an inter-related fashion. He wrote short story collections not connected short story collections. Thematically, his tales resonated with one another, but there was not the crossing-over that takes place here. Altman and Barhydt do a simply amazing job translating those tales to the screen (they also do a commendable job translating from the Pacific Northwest to Los Angeles).
Short Cuts is an ambitious film that, in the hands of a lesser director, would have likely lost its way. It's probably not perfect (is any film perfect?), but it comes as close to perfection as any film can. It's one of a kind and a film that has had its own effect on cinematic history (Magnolia and Crash crib, to a degree, from this film). It's a monumental achievement and beautiful and wonderful and I love it.
Short Cuts wasn't necessary. You'd already assured your place in cinematic history with a string of great films in the 1970s and some adventurous, stagy productions during the 1980s. You'd even staged a comeback of sorts with the bitingly funny The Player. You could have rested on your laurels. Instead, you made your most ambitious and rewarding film if not your greatest. I cannot tell you how many times I've promised myself I'd only watch half of it and then head to bed; I cannot tell you how many hours I've spent engrossed in the trials and tribulations faced by these various couplings and families over the course of a few days. Would I give any of those hours spent in the dark back? Never.
Sincerely,
Jason Forestein
Short Cuts is among my favorite Altman films (quite possibly my favorite) and among my favorite films of all time. It's three-plus hours unfold smoothly in an amazing display of editing and pacing. I've seen 80 minute movies that are interminable, yet I often want to start Short Cuts over as soon as it's finished. It's simply amazing on every level.
First, and foremost, there's Altman's direction, which is at the top of its form here. Yes, The Player is a fantastic satire (and really really funny), but Short Cuts has the subdued cinematography and jazzy editing we've come to expect from an Altman film. It also, of course, has the requisite layered conversations. Like Nashville, Short Cuts is the definition of an ensemble piece, where no character takes precedence over any other. There are, I think, more than 20 characters integral to the stories in one form or another and Altman has the unimaginable ability to give them all enough space to come to life. You do not feel that there is a single two-dimensional character in the bunch; that's a major achievement.
Then, you have amazing performances from the usual suspects (Time Robbins, Lily Tomlin, Jack Lemmon, and Robert Downey Jr.) as well as amazing performances from some soon-to-be household names (Lili Taylor, Frances McDormand, and Julianne Moore). This doesn't even count the wonderful turns from the criminally underrated Fred Ward, Tom Waits, Chris Penn, Peter Gallagher, and Matthew Modine. Huey Lewis even delivers a reputable performance. Like Gosford Park and Nashville, the ensemble is perfectly cast and they all perform above and beyond what is necessary. You expect a few duds (like, say, Robin Williams in Branagh's Hamlet); you don't expect perfect characterizations from everyone--especially when you have at least three musician- cum-actors.
The writing is also superb. Sure, Altman was working from stories by Raymond Carver (who you all should go out and read immediately), but the tales were not told by Carver in such an inter-related fashion. He wrote short story collections not connected short story collections. Thematically, his tales resonated with one another, but there was not the crossing-over that takes place here. Altman and Barhydt do a simply amazing job translating those tales to the screen (they also do a commendable job translating from the Pacific Northwest to Los Angeles).
Short Cuts is an ambitious film that, in the hands of a lesser director, would have likely lost its way. It's probably not perfect (is any film perfect?), but it comes as close to perfection as any film can. It's one of a kind and a film that has had its own effect on cinematic history (Magnolia and Crash crib, to a degree, from this film). It's a monumental achievement and beautiful and wonderful and I love it.