Short Cuts

My initial reaction to “Short Cuts” (1993) was that it was a little disturbing. I mean it was a lot to take in and it was quite the unpleasant film (a gross understatement, of course). A friend that was watching it with me mentioned that they felt as if they had just lost 3 hours of their lives to a film that desperately tried to be “artsy” and failed. If there is one thing that I have learned during this cinematic art course so far, is that just because a film is unconventional, leave us feeling distraught, and has subtle meanings that interwoven deeply beneath the storyline, does not mean that it has no value. On the contrary, I believe that the reason why these films make us so feel disgusted is that they usually reflect something about human nature or society that is normally concealed or taken for granted. I agree that this is not something that I would probably watch over and over again for fun, yet I felt a moral obligation to defend its artistic capacity when its worth came into question.

On the surface, this seems to be a film about lost individuals in the city of angels, trying to find meaning through their affairs and trivial pursuits. Everyone in this film seems to cheat on each other, smoke, drink, and most of the characters (particularly the males) appear to be heartless jerks. It was explicit on many levels and, in my opinion, was a bit excessive. A few scenes that come into mind are the phone sex operator’s graphic language, her husband’s murder of the young woman near the end, the close-ups of the dead girl that the fishermen found in the lake, and the long speech on infidelity that made me never again question whether Julianne Moore is a natural redhead (not that I have ever really wanted to know). I understand that Altman felt the necessity to be explicit so as to convey certain things that would have otherwise not been properly communicated… I was just not expecting to see and hear so much.

Despite this, I do believe that this movie is not "trash" and could even be considered a masterpiece by some. I have to admit that another movie about Los Angeles that I enjoy is “Crash,” and this film is similar to it but is many times more complex. Just think about it- twenty-two characters! I was amazed at both the extraordinary cast (great, renowned actors) and the way that the director was able to weave in all of the stories so that they were both relevant and essential to the film. I did not think it could be done, but I was proved wrong. I had fun trying to keep track of all of the storylines and became excited when I was able to find links that tied them together. I was actually wondering how it would be possible to bring all of the stories together at the end- something that I felt would be crucial for this type of film. I predicted that this task would be too overwhelming and that the film would end with no obvious connecting thread. I was wrong (yet again) because the earthquake worked wonderfully to and made it possible to show all of the characters in different places experiencing the same thing at the same time. It really made it feel as if this was one solid film instead of many short irrelevant stories compiled together.

There were a few scenes that I felt were particularly powerful that contained more of these common threads. One of them was when Casey’s parents go to confront the baker about the threatening phone calls. You could feel the pain the mother must have been going through her furious punches toward the baker turned into a consoling hug. And I can only imagine the regret and shame that the baker must have felt for doing something as childish and irresponsible as calling the mother of a child who was just run by a car (by the way, the driver never found out that Casey died, did she?). Another scene that I thought was hilarious and significant was when the wife of the makeup artist (played by Robert Downey, Jr. from “1969”) accidentally switched pictures with the fisherman. The fisherman saw the realistic pictured from the bloody photo shoot while the wife and friends saw the picture of the dead body in the lake. Horrified, they both returned the photos to the rightful owners while memorizing the license plates to report them. And neither of them initially realized how strange it would have been for the other party who saw THEIR pictures. They could only process the situation from their own point of view. This was such a funny way to tie in these two stories while effectively making a statement.

I thought it was brilliant how the music was almost always sung by Annie Ross or played by Lori Singer, who were characters themselves in the film. What an ingenious way of tying in the scenes and sub plots! The music usually reflected what had happened, was happening, or will happen (past, present, and future) and often overlapped to the next scene. The cinematography was also great and I loved how they would focus on certain key objects before moving on to the next scene. An example of this is the talking Jeopardy game during the barbeque that Moore had mentioned to her husband earlier to sidetrack a conversation.

There are many things that I have left out. I could talk about how I felt that the character’s professions were important in this film. Such as the clown who represented our tendency to hide our true identity in such an impersonal environment. Or the cop who was corrupted, creepy, and abused the law to get what he wanted, whether it be an affair or a “lost” dog. I could talk about the daughter who committed suicide after finding out about Casey’s death and watching her mother selfishly refuse to take five minutes off of her work to discuss it. I could bring up the amusing irony of a carpet cleaner providing a free demonstration while an ex-husband tears up the house. I could comment on how outrageous it was that the men knowingly fished in the same lake where there was a dead body, so as to not ruin their vacation.

I should probably mention that I believe the title of this movie could have various meanings. One could be in reference to the short slices of life portrayed which gives the film a French New Wave vibe. It could also be pointing out the “short cuts” that individuals in a city like Los Angeles take to avoid true human interaction. I could, should, and would talk about many things but there is JUST TOO MUCH. I have not yet written about half of the things that came to my mind while watching this lengthy film. Unfortunately I am not eloquent enough to concisely state what I need to and therefore I will end here before this massive post grows larger. I apologize for the scattered ideas and hope that I have somehow transmitted what I felt was important.

In conclusion, the great camera angles, the countless juxtapositions, and the effective overlapping of dialogue/images/music are what makes this slow-paced film seem to move much faster.