Film review

  • Short Cuts

    Robert Altman (1993)

    The nine short stories and one poem by Raymond Carver from which Short Cuts derives were re-published in a special edition to coincide with the release of Robert Altman’s film in 1993.  In his introduction to the collection, Altman, who wrote the screenplay with Frank Barhydt, gives a clear explanation/justification of how much he reworked the material, in consultation with Carver’s widow, Tess Gallagher.  Over the course of the film’s 188 minutes, I struggled to find changes for the better.  Unlike the writing that inspired it, Short Cuts is reductively misanthropic.

    It wouldn’t be surprising, given the nature of the source material, for a filmmaker to introduce some kind of link between the components, if only in the form of a bridge between one story and the next.  Altman goes further.  Rather than telling each story in its entirety before moving on to another, he jumps about between them.  He thus abandons one of the potential major strengths of the short story (and an actual strength of the Carver pieces in question) – absorbing the reader, for the duration of the story, in its unique world.  Although I felt this as a loss, it isn’t, in itself, exceptionable; Altman’s changing the location of the action is understandable, too.  Carver’s short stories share a broad geographical setting, the Pacific Northwest.  Short Cuts takes place in what Altman’s aforementioned introduction describes as ‘untapped Los Angeles …, not Hollywood or Beverly Hills – but … American suburbia, the names you hear about on the freeway reports’.  Altman also sometimes has characters from different Carver stories appear in more than one strand of the film, be neighbours, or meet at social events or by chance.

    These new connections seem designed to suggest, despite socio-economic differences, a cultural commonality across the several narrative threads – Nashville-­style – but if that’s what Altman intended, he didn’t achieve it.  The dramatic action is punctuated by music:  songs performed by a nightclub singer, Tess Trainer (Annie Ross), cello playing by Tess’s daughter, Zoe (Lori Singer).  (Both characters are invented for the movie.)  This device, which also calls to mind Nashville, serves mainly to expose the gulf in creativity between that film and Short Cuts.  What’s most exasperating about the picture, however, isn’t so much the changes Altman and Frank Barhydt made but, having made them, the effect of what they then choose to retain from the Carver stories.  Here are a few, typical illustrations.

    In Carver’s ‘Jerry and Molly and Sam’, family man Al is worried about the security of his job (with a weapons manufacturer) and uneasy about the extramarital affair that he’s having.  The barking of his kids’ pet dog, Suzy, gets on Al’s nerves; he decides to get rid of the animal without anyone knowing.  In the film, Al becomes Gene (Tim Robbins), a police officer, but the other basic details are the same.  Soon after driving out to countryside and leaving Suzy running loose in a field, Al has second thoughts, partly because of his children’s distress but mainly because the landscape where he ‘loses’ Suzy is the one he grew up in, and where he remembers happily playing with his own pet dog.  Al finds Suzy, who, when she sees him, wags her tail before heading off in another direction.  In contrast to this, there’s next to no rationale for Gene’s change of heart, beyond the fact that his wife Sherri (Madeleine Stowe) and their kids, after the dog has gone, make more noise than its barking did.  Gene, in his cop’s uniform, succeeds in retrieving the animal and gives the family who’d adopted it a threatening reprimand.  Altman thereby gets an amusing shot of a dog on a police motorcycle and demonstrates that Gene is a hypocritical ratbag.

    In Carver’s ‘So Much Water Close to Home’, Claire Kane is a housewife and mother; her husband Stuart is one of four men who, on a weekend fishing trip, find, soon after arriving at the lake where they’ll fish, a young woman’s corpse.  They tie the body up and don’t report its discovery to the police until the end of the weekend.  Carver explores, through Claire’s reactions to the men’s startling order of priorities, her history of nervous illness and sexual anxieties.  Her distress at what has happened culminates in Claire’s embarking on an impulsive, long, solo drive to attend the funeral of the girl in the lake (who, by now, is known to have been murdered).  In the film, Claire (Anne Archer) doesn’t have a child and works as a children’s party clown.  There’s no background to her marriage to Stuart (Fred Ward) and little tension between them.  Even without this, Claire’s horror at what happened on the fishing trip is credible enough.  But by removing the context of her personal history and any sense of Claire as particularly vulnerable, Altman turns her visit to a funeral home to see the dead girl into nothing more than a melodramatic capper to the story.

    In the story ‘Will You Please Be Quiet, Please’, Marian and Ralph Wyman are high-school teachers.  They’re apparently satisfied with their jobs and with each other, though Ralph is occasionally nagged by the memory of a party they went to a year or two back.  They both drank plenty; he saw Marian kiss another man and wonders, since he got too drunk to remember anything else about the evening, if she went further.  The jealous doubts that Ralph harbours about his wife come suddenly to the surface, with dramatic effects on their relationship.  In the film, Marian (Julianne Moore) is an artist and Ralph (Matthew Modine) a doctor.  He’s irritated by her predilection for painting nudes, and this isn’t the only fly in the ointment.  Altman’s Wymans, constantly sniping, seem to loathe each other’s company.  Yet Altman still uses the party as Carver did.  It’s mildly astonishing when the film’s Ralph starts up about what happened there:  you just don’t believe he would have kept his worries about this to himself.  And Marian’s admission of the extent of her infidelity means little.  The couple’s marriage is already toxic.

    The Carver stories are full of fraught, fractious, frustrated partnerships but usually impart some idea of what the partners have, or might have had, in common to draw and keep them together.  Viewers of the film who’ve read and remember the stories may find themselves making use of their substance to enrich Altman’s version, but this works only for a while.  His agenda is so wilfully diminishing of his characters that you soon get to feel indifferent to most of them and antipathy to the director’s approach – and this is a long film (half an hour longer than Nashville, though it feels twice the length) from which to disengage early.  Of course, there’s interest in watching the high-powered cast at work – though some of this is now historical interest (Frances McDormand and Julianne Moore at early stages of their long screen careers).  Where a Carver character is largely an invention of the screenplay, Altman tends to rely on gifted performers to build up a slender role – Robert Downey Jr, for instance, who plays Bill Bush, a make-up artist specialising in facial injuries.  Bill uses his wife Honey (Lili Taylor) as a model.  One of the neater collisions of characters from different strands occurs when Honey and Stuart Kane’s fishing pal Gordon Johnson (Buck Henry) coincide at a Fotomat, pick up each other’s pictures by mistake, and are equally shocked – he by the images of Honey’s injured face, she by snaps of the dead body in the lake.

    Honey’s parents are Doreen and Earl, played by Lily Tomlin and Tom Waits respectively.  The latter’s casting has a glamorising effect, albeit in an offbeat way.  In Carver’s story ‘They’re Not Your Husband’, Earl is a blowhard slob; the Waits persona gives his abjectness a bohemian, raffish edge.  In the story, Earl is dismayed when, calling in at the fast-food place where Doreen works, he overhears two other men ridiculing ‘the ass on her’, as Doreen bends down to scoop ice cream for them.  Earl promptly orders Doreen to lose weight.  Even though she does so with impressive speed, the film’s compressed timeframe – everything appears to happen over the space of a few days (another Nashville echo) – doesn’t allow for that.  Yet the script still includes Earl’s scathing deprecation of the size of his wife’s backside, even though it makes no sense with Lily Tomlin playing Doreen.  Frances McDormand is Betty Weathers, policeman Gene’s mistress, though she’s cheating on him, as well as in the process of divorcing her husband, Stormy (Peter Gallagher).  In the most tedious of all the film’s episodes – and the competition is keen – Stormy, invading the marital home while Betty’s out of town with her other man, destroys everything in it.  This takes time, to put it mildly.

    For several reasons, the adaptation of ‘A Small Good Thing’ merits more extensive comment.  Its subject matter alone – a young boy, hit by a car, falls into a coma and dies – makes this the most emotionally powerful of the Carver stories.  The boy picks himself up from the road unassisted and is conscious for some time after the accident; the hospital doctor gives repeated, though increasingly equivocal, assurances that all will be well.  Interrupting the story’s narrative, as Altman does, weakens not only its grip but the sense, so strong in the original, of the child’s parents finding themselves in a nightmare that keeps getting worse.  Even so, this element is still more involving by far than any other in Short Cuts:  you naturally hope against hope that little Casey Finnigan (Zane Cassidy) will pull through; his parents, Ann (Andie MacDowell) and Howard (Bruce Davison), are unusual in not being dislikeable.  The sequence in which the boy refuses help offered by the motorist who knocked him down – his mother has told Casey never to get into a stranger’s car – and makes his own, stunned way back home, a couple of streets away, is the film’s most memorable.

    The car driver is Doreen (and the doctor treating Casey will be Ralph Wyman).  Lily Tomlin does well to express her distress at hitting Casey, both at the scene and when Doreen first gets back to her trailer home, but her remorse doesn’t last – an illustration of the shallowness of Altman’s working characters into different stories rather than of Doreen’s short memory.  Shortly before the accident, Ann has ordered a cake for her son’s birthday.  While he’s in hospital, the baker makes phone calls to the Finnigans’ home, with reminders about the order to be collected but without identifying himself.  In the story, the baker asks on the phone, ‘Have you forgotten about Scotty?’ (as Carver’s boy is called).  Carver is pushing it by making these repeated calls anonymous, but you just about accept it, such is the momentum of Ann and Howard’s disorientation.  Altman retains the anonymity while making the calls much more unpleasant – with references to ‘that little bastard Casey’, and so on.

    The story concludes, on the page and on the screen, with Ann realising who the calls are from, and going with Howard to confront the baker.  In the Carver, once Ann and Howard explain their situation, the baker is mortified.  He says he works such anti-social hours that he’s forgotten the rudiments of social behaviour.  By way of apology, he bakes the couple cinnamon rolls and, as they eat, starts to talk about himself.  The food is the ‘small good thing’ (the baker’s words) that gives the story its title.  Even in their terrible circumstances, Ann and Howard find that eating and listening absorb their attention and deflect their grief – ‘they did not think of leaving’.  The corresponding scene in the film is well played by the three actors concerned but the baker (Lyle Lovett) is given scarcely any opportunity to explain himself.  What’s more, Altman has previously included a shot of him making one of the calls, his face fixed in a malign grimace as if he’s determined to be nasty.  As a result, the baker’s change of heart comes across as a mechanical volte face.  The encounter doesn’t at all suggest that Ann and Howard are deriving a temporary consolation that they don’t want to end.

    This strand of the film is also remarkable for a new character that makes a strong impression but not a good one.  Some of the lines delivered by Howard’s father, Paul Finnigan (Jack Lemmon), echo those of another father and grandfather in the Carver poem ‘Lemonade’, but this elderly man is largely the creation of Altman and Frank Barhydt.  Paul, estranged from Howard for decades, turns up at the hospital where Casey is being treated, and regales his son with an account of how, when Howard was a child and also involved in a car accident, his mother went to her sister’s house and found her seducing Paul.  Bruce Davison does a beautiful job of listening to this monologue, registering Howard’s mute, baffled misery.  Jack Lemmon’s forceful, over-prepared acting is thoroughly incongruous in an Altman movie.  It’s hard to fathom what value the latter saw in adding the Paul ingredient, except that it further increases the tally of unhappy marital experiences in the film.

    It’s even harder to ignore how many female members of his cast Altman undresses.  Madeleine Stowe’s Sherri poses nude for Marian to paint.  Julianne Moore wears nothing from the waist down throughout the showdown argument between Marian and her (fully clothed) husband.  The stripped body that Stuart et al discover in the lake might be thought enough naiad-ity for one film but Altman also has Zoe Trainer emerge naked from her mother’s house and  get into their swimming pool.  Zoe’s progress is shot through the glass of a window, which reinforces the composition’s peeping-tom quality.  This is not so much the male gaze as male ogling.  Altman seems to be on the same wavelength as the two men in the fast-food joint getting themselves repeated views of Doreen Piggot’s rear end.  (This kinship is made queasier by these two voyeurs being Gordon and Vern Miller (Huey Lewis), shortly before they join Stuart Kane for the fishing weekend.)

    Short Cuts begins with a line of helicopters over Los Angeles, spraying against a Medfly infestation.  It ends with an earthquake in the light of which television news reports a single fatality, killed by falling rocks.   We know better:  the young woman concerned (Deborah Falconer) has been beaten to death, moments before the quake begins, by the crazed Jerry Kaiser (Chris Penn).  We’ve watched Jerry’s mostly silent sexual frustration grow over the course of the film, as he listens to his wife Lois (Jennifer Jason Leigh) at work as a phone sex operator.  The implication of the TV news report is that the earthquake will allow Jerry to get away with murder but why should it?  His attack on the young woman is witnessed not only by his friend Bill Bush but also by the victim’s friend (Susie Cusack); why would she, at least, conceal the truth?  In his introduction to the Carver short stories, Robert Altman says that ‘Raymond Carver’s view of the world, and probably my own, may be termed dark by some.  We’re connected by similar attitudes about the arbitrary nature of luck in the scheme of things’.  The concealment of a killing that provides Short Cuts with its final flourish is characteristic of the film as a whole.  It illustrates, rather than arbitrariness, Altman stacking the deck to give a ‘dark’ account of human behaviour.

    4 July 2021

  • Our Friend

    Gabriela Cowperthwaite (2019)

    Terminal illness screen dramas tend not to be unflinching about the physical reality of the condition propelling their story.  ‘The Friend: Love Is Not a Big Enough Word’, an autobiographical piece by Matthew Teague published in Esquire magazine in 2015, describes the two years between his wife Nicole’s cancer diagnosis and her death, at the age of thirty-six.  The memoir is physically (and emotionally) unflinching.  It’s named for Matthew’s long-time best mate, Dane Faucheux, who, in December 2013, decided to put his own life, in New Orleans, on hold and moved into the Teagues’ home, in Fairview, Alabama, to help Matthew care for Nicole and the couple’s two young daughters.  Dane stayed for the next fourteen months.  Gabriela Cowperthwaite’s film tries hard to do justice to the Esquire article.  The result succeeds in plenty of ways, without ever being free of tension between its uncompromising source material and the type of movie that Our Friend is, to some extent, bound to be.

    The struggle and good taste involved in this project are evident even in the title.  A shamelessly commercial enterprise might have opted instead for the seven words after the colon in Teague’s original.  When Cowperthwaite’s adaptation, with a screenplay by Brad Ingelsby, premiered at the Toronto festival in September 2019, it was simply The Friend; at some point between then and its North American theatrical release in January 2021, The became Our.  If the film-makers were thereby trying to inject more appealing human warmth into the title – this is a $10m-budget picture after all – it was a tentative effort.  The promotional poster – with Nicole (Dakota Johnson) and Matt (Casey Affleck) in a loving embrace, Dane (Jason Segel) right beside them, all three smiling gently – has a similar quality.

    More substantially, the film’s construction gives priority to exploring the main characters and their relationships, rather than showcasing the twists and turns of Nicole’s decline.  Our Friend begins with her and Matt deciding it’s time for their daughters, Molly (Isabella Kai) and Evie (Violet McGraw), to be told that the cancer they already know their mother has, will soon end her life.  From there, the narrative shifts back and forward in time – to the couple’s early days together and encounters with Dane, to more recent history.  About two-thirds through (the film runs just over two hours), there’s a reprise of part of the opening sequence.  The action then moves ahead to Nicole’s end, and the immediate aftermath of her death.  For as long as she’s alive, each episode is dated on the screen as so many days/months/years before or after her diagnosis, so the story is easy to follow.  The structure also yields more sustained variety of mood than a strictly linear progress would allow.

    For a minority of critics, relieving the grimness in this way is just what’s wrong with Our Friend.   ‘”The Friend” is not an inspirational essay, and how dare they turn it into that kind of movie?’ asks Peter Debruge in Variety.  Although this misrepresents the film, the question does point up the yawning difference between Our Friend‘s and Teague’s article’s views of death:  Debruge describes the former as a ‘dishonest, sanitized no-help-to-anyone TV-movie version of death’.  The prevalence of this kind of account, he claims, was what ‘inspired Teague to set the record straight in the first place’.  Cowperthwaite’s version certainly is sanitised in the sense of removing most of the wrenching graphic detail of Nicole’s illness that’s a big part of what makes ‘The Friend’ an extraordinary piece of writing.  The film consequently tones down too how the effects on her body and mind of the cancer and drugs taken to combat it, affected a husband’s feelings about his wife.  Even so, Our Friend (whose executive producers include Matthew Teague) can’t fairly be described as emotionally squeamish.

    I don’t know how much Brad Ingelsby has added in terms of the principals’ lives outside the Teagues’ deathbound house.  The real Matthew obviously is a journalist; did his preoccupation with work and the time he spent on overseas assignments, as the film suggests, jeopardise his marriage until Nicole’s illness brought him home?  Was she really a musical theatre performer who had a fling with her director (Jason Bayle)?  Teague’s memoir notes simply that Dane, by moving in with his friends, ‘had given up a management position and a girlfriend back in New Orleans’.  In the film, he has a crappy job in retail and his move to Alabama leads to a break-up with his girlfriend (Marielle Scott).  He also has ambitions to be a stand-up but no talent for it.

    On paper, these inventions – if that’s what they are – smack of dramatic conventionality, even padding, but that’s not how they come across as you watch the film.   An early scene in a Middle Eastern hotel, where Matt resists the female colleague who’s making a play for him, comes to mean more when he reacts, rather self-righteously, to the discovery of Nicole’s brief affair (though his derisive bafflement as to what she saw in the theatre director is reasonable enough).  Giving Dane a largely unfulfilling life in New Orleans throws a different light on his motives for moving in with the Teagues.  This doesn’t  detract from the heroism of what he does for all four of them.  It does make Dane more than simply self-sacrificing.

    As always, Casey Affleck is unafraid to show his character’s less likeable aspects – and the actor’s integrity in doing this makes you root for the man he’s playing.  Affleck also shows fine imagination, especially when Matt tells their daughters that Nicole is dying, and at the very end of the film.  Jason Segel’s abundant wit and good humour are unfailingly anchored in the credible, nuanced personality that he creates.  The exchanges between Dane and Matt are reliably penetrating and sometimes funny – so too scenes between Matt and Nicole.  Dakota Johnson is doubly affected by the adjustments Cowperthwaite and Ingelsby have made.  Matthew Teague is unsparing to the bitter end, describing the sound of his wife’s last breaths as ‘like someone slowly dragging a cello bow across her vocal cords. I realized then that the last honest person to describe death may be whoever came up with “croaking”.’   The film’s Nicole, like many screen cancer victims before her, dies fragrantly and peacefully.  Besides, once the physical horrors are excised, the story is largely about the friendship of the two men so that Johnson’s role, compared with theirs, seems underwritten.  Even so, she gives a committed and compelling performance.  There’s an invigorating cameo from Cherry Jones as an end-of-life carer.  Isabella Kai does very well as the Teagues’ elder daughter.

    The film wobbles in the closing stages.  There’s a surfeit of sweetly melancholy music as Nicole approaches death, even allowing that some of this is part of a flashback to a stage show in which she was the star.  Shortly after she dies, Dane goes into a decline and shuts himself away in his room; it feels wrong that he revives the moment he discovers the piece Matt has been writing is a paean to him as much as a tribute to Nicole.  Our Friend recovers in its final moments, though, in the contained emotions of the men’s farewell to each other, as Dane returns to New Orleans and Matt embarks on life as an entirely lone parent.

    Gabriela Cowperthwaite’s background is in documentaries.  This is only her second dramatic feature and she does a good job.  She’s true to the dichotomy that Matthew Teague points up between the public and private aspects of death in affluent modern western society – bucket-list social life versus isolation behind closed doors.  Brad Ingelsby’s dialogue is consistently strong.  Scene by scene, the film impresses, even as you realise its limitations.  Because it has plenty of mawkish predecessors, you may feel, when tears come to your eyes (as they did a few times to mine), that the movie is par for the course.  But Our Friend is not that.

    1 July 2021

     

Posts navigation