Crash, Magnolia and Short Cuts
 

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...

Short Cuts is hands down my favorite of the three, and I am not a big fan of Crash, really. I LOVED Magnolia when I first saw it, and watched it a few times in a week. Then i saw Altman's Short Cuts, and Magnolia slid down a few rungs on the ladder for me. The snagging of Altman's narrative structure combined with the blatant aping of Scorsese's camera techniques made me take a hard second look at exactly why I liked Magnolia. I still like the screenplay, and many of the performances are top notch, but ultimately, the ripped of craftmanship and the complete snarfing of the act-of-god end from the Altman piece (Magnolia's being WAY over the top) have minimized the film for me. Short Cuts all the way, for me.

I'd say Magnolia with a bullet.

Great. But I'm really trying to spark discussion here, so perhaps you could describe the differences you see between the films, and the differing levels of merit each one has based on those differences.

Lol, I'm sorry. I think they're all good films but not much for comparison outside of personal preference. I understand the grounds for comparison here... the essential structure of the films... but outside of the fact that I just like Magnolia best? I don't know; I thought Magnolia was also the tightest production in terms of a combination of acting, directing, and writing. It's definitely over the top and not the least bit subtle, but neither were the other two movies. As far as message-movies go, Magnolia is one of my faves.

I can't stand some of the acting in Magnolia. ;)

If someone nailed me to a chair and forced me to choose between Crash or Magnolia I'd pick the former. Structurally, it's quite plodding but, I think, much better written and acted than Magnolia.

Short Cuts is officially my 34th favourite film and I think it's a country mile ahead of the other two. :)

I own Crash so will probably watch it again sometime, Short Cuts gets an airing every few months but I don't ever want to see Magnolia again. This is rather unfortunate as I seem to remember promising Blibby that I'd give it another chance.

Help! :D

well...so much for trying to create an interesting discussion... :(

I have been wondering for a few weeks now myself if Short Cuts held up but haven't watched it recently. I know I was very impressed with it for a time when it came out on video and would show it to people to get their reactions. Guess I need to track it down. What I liked about it was the thing I liked about most Altman movies...the way in which he showed how several seemingly unrelated story lines intersected. But I'm also a fan of the often maligned Grand Canyon for the same reason.

I found Crash to be a bit too predictable and heavy handed in its efforts to make a point.
And Magnolia just completely lost me when all the characters started singing along with Aimee Mann, even the character who was lying on his deathbed. I started laughing right there in the theater...if anyone would like to explain why this device was not ridiculous I'd be happy to listen and give the film another shot. I will say I thought it was one of Tom Cruise's best if not his best performance. It was one of the first times I remember seeing him break out of the cocky upstart race car driver/fighter pilot/unwilling pimp/fill in the blank role.

Crash. I enjoyed it and it got more engrossing with each viewing. Definitely worth winning that oscar of Best Picture at this years Academy Awards. :cool:

In concept-setup and shooting, Magnolia is brilliant. The concept falls a bit flat, as the coincidences in the movie don't really pan out as the examples do in the prologue. Also, the overacting of pretty much the whole cast makes it a bit over the edge.

Crash is one of those films that I put off watching for a while because I knew it would be powerful and I just needed to be in the right mood to absorb it. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I thought that the message was telegraphed perfectly, entwining itself through every character and blasting it out into the audience.

Having read everyone else's responses, I may have to give Shortcuts another look. I love Altman's style, but I found it to be long, boring and without much of a point. Bear in mind it's been many years since I saw it. I'll have to netflix it and see it again.

I can see how these three get lumped together, what with the large ensemble cast and interweaving stories, but until this thread, I would have never even really thought to compare them.

Crash by far the best movie in a while

Crash, Its not even close

I've seen them chronologically and I'd rate them in that order as well: 1. Short Cuts, 2. Magnolia and 3. Crash. I love Short Cuts and I like Magnolia very much. I didn't like Crash very much, I thought it was very uneven, a few good if not great scenes but lots of lows. The smiliraties between the films are obvious but I think those who blame for instance Magnolia for being a complete Short Cuts rip off only look to the most obvious similarities, that is the narrative structure. I think Altman's style is so much more than combining lots of different stories and events in one film and I think that all the films are very different from each other if you look beyond the narrative structure. The reasons to why I disliked Crash include the way it owns a lot to Magnolia (more than to Short Cuts, really) but more importantly I thought it was filled with clichés, pointing fingers and totally unrealistic situations that were impossible for me to relate to. The actors don't have anything to be embarrassed about though.

Magnolia, because I talk to myself in the car like I'm on COPS too.

Care to give some reasoning for this? To me, it isn't close either, but Crash is dead last. Short Cuts is better than both in every way, IMO. It also came first, so it gets points for originality...

I've been meaning to chime in on this discussion for a while. I would have to rate them:
1. Magnolia
2. Short Cuts
3. Crash.

I'm bias though. Magnolia was a film i saw just as i was 'maturing' in the sense of my movie tastes and i hold it very close to my cinematic heart. It has everything i look for and love in a movie. The acting and the characters and the script is top top notch. As for Altmans Short Cuts, i think this only comes in second due to my lack of Altman Experience. My first Altman film was Gosford Park which i loved, but now looking back after seeing his other films, its quite a different style for him, and perhaps this is why it is my favourite of his films that i have seen. I bought the Criterion edition of Short Cuts due to its comparisons against Magnolia, and whilst i enjoyed it, i was not ready for his style of filming. I'm getting more and more used to it as i see more and i loved A Prairie Home Companion - the way it feels as though a camera has been left around and these characters on screen are just going about their everyday lives whilst we watch on voyeuristically. Maybe after repeated viewings i my preference will change. But it will be tough. Magnolia has a sense of the supernatural about it, this idea of chance, fate and divine intervention. Where as Short Cuts has a big old earthquake act of God and a little too much realism for me. I prefer falling frogs for my redemption.

Oh and as for Crash. I agree with Pidd and Sedai's opinions. Whilst i thought it was a pretty decent movie, it didnt exactly unearth any shattering statements on racism. There were a couple of scenes i liked, (Thandi Newton in the crashed car) and some other scenes and story arcs i thought were pointless (Sandra Bullocks story - totally unremarkable). I would watch it again. But not buy it.

Short Cuts is a movie I really want to see. Everytime I’m about to see it something comes up.

I saw Crash last night and thought it was highly overrated. Great idea, but the characters had little depth, and the situations they encountered bordered on absurdity. Too many extremes without a focus on the grey areas.

In terms of fils dealing with multiple, interconnected stories, I much preferred “El Callejón de los milagros” and “Amores Perros” (both from Mexico).

Re: Crash vs. Magnolia vs. Short Cuts
 

Notice how all the Crash fans don't go into any detail why they think it's the best?

Re: Crash vs. Magnolia vs. Short Cuts
 

I just finished Short Cuts a couple minutes ago and it's easily 100 times better than the laughable Crash , but I wouldn't compare it with Magnolia.

Short Cuts is much more focused on having multiple characters interact with each other , much more interested in creating weird scenarios where all the different people come together in coincidence and help or hurt each other.

Magnolia dives much deeper below the surface than Short Cuts , it has a cast of half the characters (and is able to make them much more important than those in Short Cuts) , and is expertly crafted raising and lowering tension and excitement throughout instead of the messy structure of Cuts.