Crash, Magnolia, Short Cuts. I watched these three films in that order. I conceed as others have noted that they posses similarities to such an extent that they are clearly not coincidental. Let's throw out a reference point to get things started here. Andy Siems and John Jansen of the podcast: Hollywood Saloon were discussing what makes a film endure and become a lasting piece of work when Crash briefly entered the conversation. Andy asked: do you think Crash will endure? to which John replied: do you think Short Cuts will endure? Clearly this shows the inevitable connection which is the basis of this thread. momentarily, both men reached a consensus that Crash would last only because it will be forever marked on the list of films that have won the oscar for best picture. I might be inclined to agree, due to the film's ultimately polished nature, and the fact that despite the thought-provoking subject matter, it failed to generate a noticable amount of controversy. In 30 years, it may just be another Ordinary People. However it probably won't even be that because there is no Raging Bull to be its foil and keep it alive in infamy. Ultimately though, I think the leagcy of this film depends on what Paul Haggis does with the rest of his career. His follow up film Honeymoon with Harry doesn't look like a step in the right direction as far as legacy is concerned. But keep in mind, Haggis is a television writer and director just getting his foot in the door on film, and although he's been extremely successful when it comes to connection with award winning films, however after only two movies, he still may not have the clout to do everything he wants. Obviously to tackle the issues he has in both Crash and Million Dollar Baby, he's got a vision and isn't afraid to express it and take chances in the process (chances which have paid off). However he's been working in television since the 70s. He is clearly patient and so what's a few more years to him? If he bides his time before challenging the system too much, he may be one of those film makers who gets final cut, and the freedom to make most any movie he desires. His credentials should give him the pull already, but I guess only insiders know for sure right now. Anyway, he should have enough money by now that he could make the films independently, but that takes a boldness that few probably have. Especially when they’ve seen the comforts of the Hollywood system. There are quite a few directors who broke through on a quirky little indie flick and then immediately became a part of the machine thereafter.
The main thing that sets Crash apart is that it is slick, polished and very Hollywood. Magnolia is polished too, but it takes chances with length and narrative. Magnolia seems to contain improv in its most emotional scenes while Crash is tight and reigned in.
However, this makes only a slight difference between Crash and Magnolia. It makes a huge difference between both of those films and Short Cuts. The two former films remind me of Nabokov’s quote about the characters in his novels being like chess pieces which he manipulates and which don’t do anything he hasn’t told them to do. All events line up in a very tightly managed way to bring these people together and deliver the films big moments.
Now, Short Cuts is heavy enough for a paragraph of its own. I watched that film with my grandmother (Yes, it was very awkward during the numerous phone sex scenes) and the next day she asked me why I liked it, in a way that suggested (albeit unintentionally) I was crazy and it had no artistic merit. It’s always interesting for a film buff (I hesistate to give myself such a lofty distinction, but go with me for a second here) is put in the position of defend a film. Especially when its an art film that’s not very accessible, but nevertheless great. My answer to the question was that it was fundamentally different from almost every other film I’d ever seen. The events were allowed to unfurl at their own pace. The characters went about their business as though no one was watching. I never felt as though a writer or director had a hand in what I was seeing. It was all so natural and free. This made each twist more involving and surprising because it was happening to real people and not characters. The running time is very bold, as there is much that could have been easily edited out, but I think if the film was streamlined, if it wasn’t an absorbing and tiring experience that taxed and challenged you on several levels, it would lose something. There was such a plethora of characters that none had a lot of time for expository style development. This is another seemingly flawed element that is actually a blessing. Enough information and the right information is given about the characters for us to infer the things we need to decide what we think of them, but we never see the things that would show us what the movie thinks of them. This is one of few movies that decides its audience is actually intelligent enough to play an interactive role in it. After you watch the film and discuss it with others, you discover it is whatever each individual wants it to be. Best of all, you get a feeling that these characters will keep living their lives long after you stop watching them, just as they began that way.
Magnolia is removed from this in that its message is practically delivered by voice over and Crash’s delivery of its message is ultimately the mundane: racism is bad. Here’s why. In the long run I enjoyed all three films immensely, but in terms of legacy, I give the edge to Altman, whose whole cannon is already a legend. Any film as infinitely discussable as Short Cuts will always have an audience even as mainstream pandering gets worse and worse. There will always be that subversive group that wants something substanial, seeks it out and revels in it. There will always be groups like Mofo.
Discuss...
The main thing that sets Crash apart is that it is slick, polished and very Hollywood. Magnolia is polished too, but it takes chances with length and narrative. Magnolia seems to contain improv in its most emotional scenes while Crash is tight and reigned in.
However, this makes only a slight difference between Crash and Magnolia. It makes a huge difference between both of those films and Short Cuts. The two former films remind me of Nabokov’s quote about the characters in his novels being like chess pieces which he manipulates and which don’t do anything he hasn’t told them to do. All events line up in a very tightly managed way to bring these people together and deliver the films big moments.
Now, Short Cuts is heavy enough for a paragraph of its own. I watched that film with my grandmother (Yes, it was very awkward during the numerous phone sex scenes) and the next day she asked me why I liked it, in a way that suggested (albeit unintentionally) I was crazy and it had no artistic merit. It’s always interesting for a film buff (I hesistate to give myself such a lofty distinction, but go with me for a second here) is put in the position of defend a film. Especially when its an art film that’s not very accessible, but nevertheless great. My answer to the question was that it was fundamentally different from almost every other film I’d ever seen. The events were allowed to unfurl at their own pace. The characters went about their business as though no one was watching. I never felt as though a writer or director had a hand in what I was seeing. It was all so natural and free. This made each twist more involving and surprising because it was happening to real people and not characters. The running time is very bold, as there is much that could have been easily edited out, but I think if the film was streamlined, if it wasn’t an absorbing and tiring experience that taxed and challenged you on several levels, it would lose something. There was such a plethora of characters that none had a lot of time for expository style development. This is another seemingly flawed element that is actually a blessing. Enough information and the right information is given about the characters for us to infer the things we need to decide what we think of them, but we never see the things that would show us what the movie thinks of them. This is one of few movies that decides its audience is actually intelligent enough to play an interactive role in it. After you watch the film and discuss it with others, you discover it is whatever each individual wants it to be. Best of all, you get a feeling that these characters will keep living their lives long after you stop watching them, just as they began that way.
Magnolia is removed from this in that its message is practically delivered by voice over and Crash’s delivery of its message is ultimately the mundane: racism is bad. Here’s why. In the long run I enjoyed all three films immensely, but in terms of legacy, I give the edge to Altman, whose whole cannon is already a legend. Any film as infinitely discussable as Short Cuts will always have an audience even as mainstream pandering gets worse and worse. There will always be that subversive group that wants something substanial, seeks it out and revels in it. There will always be groups like Mofo.
Discuss...
__________________
"Like all dreamers, Steven mistook disenchantment for truth."
"Like all dreamers, Steven mistook disenchantment for truth."
Last edited by Strummer521; 07-14-06 at 11:45 PM.