[Coen bros.] Please explain Fargo to me

Joe Dizzy

I watched Fargo the other day. I only vaguely remembered seeing it some ten years ago, and had no clear recollection of what it was about. I know that the Coen brothers have some very vocal fans, but I must admit that even though I've watched most of what they've done, I really only enjoyed a small handful of their movies (their most "approachable" I guess).

So I put in Fargo, watched it... and now I'm a little confused. Don't get me wrong, I am not claiming or even implying that they're bad film-makers, overrated or any such thing. The more I thought about the movie, the more appreciative I became of its unique tone and the craft that went into all its elements. But I was still left with a very profound... "what do I care?". Which is what confuses me so. What is it about that film, that has generated so much enthusiastic celebration and fandom (for lack of a better word)? It's well done, sure... but I find it difficult to wrap my head around what it is that makes people so excited about it.

Again, I want to understand the enthusiasm. I'm not looking to disparage the fans or the film. I've been looking online for blogs or essays that might delve into the film and why it would be so revered, but haven't found much yet. So if you're a Coen fan or more importantly a fan of Fargo, please take this thread as an encouragement to talk as in-depth about your appreciation of the film as possible. I feel like the Coens are making films that appeal to a very distinct aesthetic, that I am simply not seeing and I'd like to rectify that.

Zzulu

I usually enjoy the Coen bro's movies but I never quite got the praise people shower over them. Most of the time it feels like the movies are as good as they are because of the great actors and casting and less because of the directing

Atlas in Chains

I have the exact same reaction to The Big Lebowski. The movie is funny, but I feel like I am really missing something. I feel empty after I watch it, like nothing was accomplished. I've seen it a half dozen times, and I still don't get it.

Joe Dizzy

I don't know. I haven't sat down an analysed any of their movies thoroughly, but I think that great directing doesn't have to be showboat-y and "in-your-face". Sometimes it's just the ability to disappear into the background and just make it seem effortless in showing the interiority of the characters or the complexity of a situation, without pushing your nose into it.

It's just that with Fargo, neither of the two seem particularly "grabby" to me.

Joe Dizzy

Atlas in Chains wrote:

I have the exact same reaction to The Big Lebowski. The movie is funny, but I feel like I am really missing something. I feel empty after I watch it, like nothing was accomplished. I've seen it a half dozen times, and I still don't get it.

Hehe.. that's funny. Lebowski is one of the movies that does work for me. Although my appreciation for it has gone down somewhat recently, because it seems to fall into the same trap as a lot of Tom Stoppard plays. They're exciting and hilarious because of all the references and toying with genre conventions, and you're very happy and thrilled to get so many of them. (Not least of all because that makes you feel smart and special.) But once you look past those things there's just not much left there. It's admittedly a very hollow film, unless you enjoy the playful winks towards the hard-boiled genre.

matt has a problem

It's a dark comedy, through and through. It's a genre some people like, and some don't. It's not really a "it's not for you" comment though, it's just a genre that only appeals to some people. If you enjoy dark comedy, Fargo is a movie you would be enthusiastic about. If you don't, it's not. There's no real secret to it.

Joe Dizzy

I'm not convinced that's it, though. Dark comedies aren't a genre I'm unfamiliar with. There are some I really do enjoy, that aren't quite as well-crafted as Fargo. Rules of Attraction for example.

EDIT: I want to make sure that this isn't a misconception about the purpose of this thread. I am not trying to hear arguments as to why I should like this movie more than I do. I didn't start this thread to be convinced of what's so great about Fargo. I wanted to understand what others consider great about Fargo.

Litejedi

For me, Joel and Ethan Coen are probably my favorite directors for two reasons. The first is that they develop a place, and even if the place isn't factually accurate, the place feels more realistic as a place than most other movie locations. Fargo, Los Angeles, Wisconsin, New York City, Texas are some of their locations, and it is almost like they are attempting to develop a story within a fully-realized simulacrum of our world. They seem like real places, and from what I have seen of a lot of these places, they're pretty accurate (though quirky). The second is that they care a lot about their characters. Even their characters that have horrible experiences in the film, they seem to all be respected, and rarely devolve into self-parody as many other filmmakers do.The overall stories have always been less important to me, and most don't seem to move anywhere, but most of my favorite films and stories are less about the end than about the journey.

Joe Dizzy

@Litejedi

So would you say it has to do with a certain "truthfulness" in depicting characters and places, which you don't see with other directors or films? That there is something recognisably human or real about their films, underneath or even within this tone of irony and absurdity?

Fencingsax

Joe Dizzy wrote:

@Litejedi

So would you say it has to do with a certain "truthfulness" in depicting characters and places, which you don't see with other directors or films? That there is something recognisably human or real about their films, underneath or even within this tone of irony and absurdity?

I would say that this is the exact appeal of of the Coen brothers. They are able to make characters and situations "real", even when they are absolutely absurd on face value. In fact, the absurdity seems to be necessary and make their films better (A Serious Man was not my favorite film). At least, that's why I like them. Not necessarily my favorite filmmakers (Peter Jackson and Nolan are some of mine), but the Coens are up there.

Also, True Grit was one of the most beautifully shot movies I think I have seen. And Burn After Reading is hilarious.

RedTide

Fencingsax wrote:

Also, True Grit was one of the most beautifully shot movies I think I have seen. And Burn After Reading is hilarious.

Shoulda been called Burn After Viewing.

Riale

Fencingsax wrote:

Joe Dizzy wrote:

@Litejedi

So would you say it has to do with a certain "truthfulness" in depicting characters and places, which you don't see with other directors or films? That there is something recognisably human or real about their films, underneath or even within this tone of irony and absurdity?

I would say that this is the exact appeal of of the Coen brothers. They are able to make characters and situations "real", even when they are absolutely absurd on face value. In fact, the absurdity seems to be necessary and make their films better (A Serious Man was not my favorite film). At least, that's why I like them. Not necessarily my favorite filmmakers (Peter Jackson and Nolan are some of mine), but the Coens are up there.

Also, True Grit was one of the most beautifully shot movies I think I have seen. And Burn After Reading is hilarious.

Yeah, this is it. They're about the absurdity of life. Many of their movies are comedic, or have touches of comedy, but it is usually either absurdist (like in The Big Lebowski) or dark (Like Fargo). I haven't seen every single one of their films, but there is a consistency in the way they portray people and locations that creates a very authentic feeling. Also, although some may find their endings to be anticlimactic or lackluster, I personally enjoy that not all of their films end with a typical hollywood finish. Not everything has to end with a bang, or resolution. The lack of an 'oomph' ending helps add to the idea that you are simply viewing a slice of life, in all its absurd, random glory.

V1m

RedTide wrote:

Fencingsax wrote:

Also, True Grit was one of the most beautifully shot movies I think I have seen. And Burn After Reading is hilarious.

Shoulda been called Burn After Viewing.

Before Viewing. It was like some horrible parody of a Coen Bros. film

KalTorak

Also they do a really good job of giving even the tiniest bit-part characters enough personality that they feel like real people, rather than just bags of expository dialogue.

edit: you people are crazy, Burn After Reading is fantastic.

Jacobkosh

To continue with the slice-of-life theme, let me pull out an example from Fargo. That part with the grampa huffing and puffing about the kid getting up from the table.

He just ate - he didn't finish! He's goin' to McDonalds instead of finishin' here.
Jean Lundegaard: He sees his friends there. It's okay.
Wade Gustafson: It's okay, MAC-Donalds. Heh. Whaddya think they do there? They don't drink milkshakes, I assure you.
Jean Lundegaard: It's okay, Dad!

Everything about that, from the intimation that the kid might be up to something sinister at his small town McDonald's, to the hints of domestic tension, to calling it Mac Donald's, rings absolutely true. This is all stuff I have seen and heard in real life. And the faux-wood paneling of their home, the posters in the boy's bedroom, and the fact that the boy isn't cute, doesn't get "witty" dialogue - he's just a kind of lumpen, C-student type - it's exciting because it's stuff you almost never see in movies despite seeing all the time in real life.

By contrast, take The Lost Boys, a fun movie that I recently rewatched. The main kid in that lives in the spacious attic garret of this big house made entirely of hardwood in a scenic resort town by the mountains. His grampa is witty and tolerant and endlessly supportive of his grandson's quirks and would never darkly hint about what kids get up to at Mac Donald's. Individually, none of these elements are "unrealistic;" all of those things exist in life. It's just that, all put together into one story, they feel more glossy and artificial.

Skoal Cat

Zzulu wrote:

I usually enjoy the Coen bro's movies but I never quite got the praise people shower over them. Most of the time it feels like the movies are as good as they are because of the great actors and casting and less because of the directing

What is it you think a director does?

SanderJK

Coen brother movies are great because of the characters and the settings, and they write their own screenplays, so they are truely theirs.
Almost every Coen brother movie is filled to the brim with people that are just a bit weird in a strange place, yet it still seems believable. Everyone you meet could probably exist in real life, but the cascade of strange and somewhat dysfunctional people all interacting makes it fascinating to watch.
Of course, movies where the script and the direction have a united vision with little to no studio interference are a rarity at any rate, and often a treat. (Though a few of the directors who do get that freedom shouldn't, like Bay or Lucas.)

Skoal Cat

Only good things

Kyougu

Skoal Cat wrote:

Only good things

Yes. A million time yes.

ElJeffe

Skoal Cat wrote:

Zzulu wrote:

I usually enjoy the Coen bro's movies but I never quite got the praise people shower over them. Most of the time it feels like the movies are as good as they are because of the great actors and casting and less because of the directing

What is it you think a director does?

Yeah, this is part of it. Watch any of the Star Wars prequels and you can see how a great actor can be made to give a shitty performance, or even how good performances don't ensure a great film. A good actor needs a good director to really shine. It's not a coincidence that pretty much every actor, down to the bit parts, in every Coen bros. film turns in a perfect performance.

That's a big part of the appeal, to me. Story aside, script aside, most Coen films are technically near-perfect. The cinematography, the pacing, the acting, the tone, the sets, the editing... everything over which a director has control winds up being fantastic. Part of it is because the Coens know how to pick talent, but part of it is because they understand how a movie goes together and how to make everyone involved shine.

So that's basically why I love them as directors - it's pretty easy to make a case for them being the most technically skilled directors in Hollywood today. They have refined the fuck out of their craft.

In addition to that, I love their movies because they're quirky and generally funny while being very realistic portrayals of human beings acting human, even in the face of absurdity. I think they write dark comedies because life, as viewed from the outside, is a dark comedy.

Hahnsoo1

I love watching "O, Brother Where Art Thou" with a good DTS surround system. During the various singing scenes, you can actually pinpoint where the singers are relative to the camera. It's absolutely amazing.

With most Coen Brothers movies, I typically watch them to see a bunch of actors having fun, doing what they do best. They get quirky characters, great dialogue, and fun absurd scenes which you won't find in most other movies. Sometimes the movie as a whole misses the mark for me, but I always enjoy watching the actors in a Coen movie.

Cantido

Kyougu wrote:

Skoal Cat wrote:

Only good things

Yes. A million time yes.

O' Brother Where Art Though and No Country for Old Men are amazing. Burn After Reading is...okay.

Squirrelmob

Like others have said, it really is the odd believability of the characters that does it for me. The dialogue and the strange quirks of the different characters sets their movies apart from other films, imo. For example, the dialect that the Minnesotans speak with in Fargo? That's pretty much what I've experienced when dealing with people from and in Minnesota. Yeah, it's a little overblown in the film, but just enough to still be on the cusp of reality.

wandering

There are Coen movies I don't get - True Grit and No Country For Old Men didn't do much for me. Maybe because the Old West and Texas aren't that interesting. But I love everything about Fargo, and I will now talk about it in an embarrassing super-gushy way. It is a movie that gives me goosebumps every time I see it. The bombastic score is amazing. Jerry is so sympathetic and believable and puppy-dog-eyed and slimy and evil. Marge is one of the most loveable characters ever. The empty snowy expanses are beautiful. And in my opinion tragedy and comedy are two great tastes that taste great together.

The Coens create fantastic characters. You never think, in any of their films “oh, that character just did that because the plot required him to do that, he wouldn't really have done that in real life.”

The Coens also create fantastic worlds. Intolerable Cruelty wasn't that great but during one scene I was like: "this courtroom feels so real. I don't know why but somehow it feels more like an actual courtroom than other movie courtrooms." And during No Country for Old Men: "this feels like such a very real hotel room."

I read a review that makes an astute observation:

I felt pretty proud of myself when I figured out Fargo. The key to the whole thing is the moment at the end of the film (so, er, yeah, spoilers ahoy) where Margie tells the sullen Scandinavian killer that she can't understand why he'd throw his life away for a little bit of money — "And it's a beautiful day," she adds, looking out into a bleak blizzard. And there you have it: the secret to happiness isn't to get rich, or live in a nice climate, or have a good-looking husband, or eat well. The secret to happiness is to be happy — to look at your bald, pudgy husband and think to yourself that you're married to the best man in the world, to look out the window at a blizzard and think, without irony, "Gosh, what a lovely day!"

(Incidentally that quote made me laugh because when Marge said “it's a beautiful day” my only thought was: she's right, it is very beautiful! It would never have occurred to me that most people would disagree with her! Not because I'm an upbeat, Marge-esque person - actually I'm very miserable! I just happen to love snow.)

AresProphet

I never really felt like anything was at stake in The Big Lebowski, Fargo, Burn After Reading, or even in No Country for Old Men. Having read the source material for the latter I can't say that it's entirely the Coens' fault for that.

I don't mean that there isn't a conflict in any of these (there is) but that the conflict never felt indicative of a more profound human struggle. Slice-of-life narratives can be great, and the Coens do a fantastic job at establishing setting and characterization, but Fargo and The Big Lebowski didn't really engage me one way or another. Burn After Reading was even worse, and No Country is a film that's not for me; the lack of McCarthy's distinctive prose was profound.

I don't think it's enough to simply portray a (sometimes brutally) accurate setting and group of characters in a narrative that lasts more than a few dozen pages; a film should feel like a hundred or so, give or take, and the Coens' films feel to me like they need to have a little more going on story-wise to really hit home.

Technically, though, they're amazing filmmakers. The cinematography and editing in their films have never let me down.

Eddy

True Grit was about 1 and a half hours too long. The cinematography was good, although shots of empty prairie got pretty damned old after ... 1 and a half hours. The ending scene's cinematography was solid though.

fshavlak

Javier Bardem's character in True Grit was really well-done. You see lots of assassins in movies that have near-superpowers, but you aren't really afraid of them. Bardem's character is a believable unstoppable assassin, which makes him much more frightening than your typically movie assassin.

Hahnsoo1

fshavlak wrote:

Javier Bardem's character in True Grit was really well-done. You see lots of assassins in movies that have near-superpowers, but you aren't really afraid of them. Bardem's character is a believable unstoppable assassin, which makes him much more frightening than your typically movie assassin.

You mean No Country For Old Men? Anton Chigurh?

sain

Their films are enjoyable because of the absurdity, and because they tend to buck against the narrative cliches and tropes we've all come to rely on.

Prime example: (Burn After Reading)

When Brad Pitt suddenly dies in Burn After Reading. There's always an expectation that the big name actor will survive, and if he does end up dying, we see it coming through a music que or something.

But he just gets shot in the face .

Godfather

sain wrote:

Their films are enjoyable because of the absurdity, and because they tend to buck against the narrative cliches and tropes we've all come to rely on.

Prime example:

When Brad Pitt suddenly dies in Burn After Reading. There's always an expectation that the big name actor will survive, and if he does end up dying, we see it coming through a music que or something.

But he just gets shot in the face .

That kinda sounds like what happened in No Country for Old Men

AJR

Godfather wrote:

sain wrote:

Their films are enjoyable because of the absurdity, and because they tend to buck against the narrative cliches and tropes we've all come to rely on.

Prime example:

When Brad Pitt suddenly dies in Burn After Reading. There's always an expectation that the big name actor will survive, and if he does end up dying, we see it coming through a music que or something.

But he just gets shot in the face .

That kinda sounds like what happened in No Country for Old Men

No Country For Old Men definitely takes things a lot further.

I'm not a huge fan of Burn After Reading, but that scene got a big laugh out of me. It's so well done.

For a split second it looks like Brad Pitt is going to try and talk his way out of the situation, because he's smiling and getting ready to talk, but he gets a bullet in the head before he can do anything. It's something you'd expect to happen in real life, but in a movie it's completely unexpected.

Zampanov

I can't help but love Burn After Reading for the ending. That conversation was pure fucking gold.

Alistair Hutton

sain wrote:

Their films are enjoyable because of the absurdity, and because they tend to buck against the narrative cliches and tropes we've all come to rely on.

Prime example:

When Brad Pitt suddenly dies in Burn After Reading. There's always an expectation that the big name actor will survive, and if he does end up dying, we see it coming through a music que or something.

But he just gets shot in the face .

That bucks nothing (Burn After Reading Spoiler)

That is hyper-realising Chekhov's Gun. The setup for that was so deliberate, so exact, so precise that Pitt not getting shot would have been defying a narrative cliché.

Incidentally you should mark what film you are spoiling otherwise peope won't know whether to click your spoiler or not

Librarian

My favorite Coen movie is Miller's Crossing. The score, the actors, the shots, it's all good.
And it has a "proper" plot where a conflict is build up and resolved.

I was very impressed by A Serious Man and I liked most of their other movies, I still have not seen the Catherine Zeta Jones/George Clooney vehicle because that looked too much romcon for me and I do not like her as an actress and I also have not watched Burn after reading just because I never got around to do so.

But I also have to admit that while I liked Fargo I didn't really love it as much as many other people do.
I will need to rewatch it sometime, only watched it once and that was when it was just released.

The Ender

Alistair Hutton wrote:

sain wrote:

Their films are enjoyable because of the absurdity, and because they tend to buck against the narrative cliches and tropes we've all come to rely on.

Prime example:

When Brad Pitt suddenly dies in Burn After Reading. There's always an expectation that the big name actor will survive, and if he does end up dying, we see it coming through a music que or something.

But he just gets shot in the face .

That bucks nothing (Burn After Reading Spoiler)

That is hyper-realising Chekhov's Gun. The setup for that was so deliberate, so exact, so precise that Pitt not getting shot would have been defying a narrative cliché.

Incidentally you should mark what film you are spoiling otherwise peope won't know whether to click your spoiler or not

Uh. No.

Chekhov's Gun is a type of foreshadowing where we are introduced to something in the early part of a story that has yet-to-be-realized pivotal significance later. We were introduced to Clooney's gun, sure, but it never really proved to be any more significant than you'd expect an average American's gun to be during a break-in.

The set-up was not obvious in Burn After Reading, and I'd call bullshit on anyone who claims after they saw the film that they saw Pitt's death coming.

Burn After Reading has one of the best pay-off sequences at the end. Some of the stuff in the middle was a bit too weird for my tastes, but the film gets top marks for wrapping things up so deviously.

Bogart

They simply do everything well. Script, casting, coaxing great performances from the actors, shooting, editing, music, etc. They've turned their hand to a wide range of genres and subjects and turned in first rate work in all of them. I can't think of anyone offhand except Soderbergh that has their range, and his percentage of (heroic) failures far outnumbers theirs.

They've made some stinkers, like The Ladykillers, but I go see pretty much everything they do because their track record is, frankly, second to none in American cinema right now.

Fargo, for instance, has an incredible array of fine qualities. You have some top-notch performances from William H. Macy, Frances McDormand and pretty much everybody else, original characters that convince and involve you, some beautiful shots (the parking lot in the snow), some great jokes, a general air of believable human stupidity and delusion that's very rare in movies, moments of shock and points of wincing violence, and all wrapped up in a deceptively unflashy and highly rewatchable film. It's great. There's no weak point in the mix, no stumbling moments where the characters stop and explain the plot, no section obviously included at the insistence of a studio, no pandering to this or that audience, no moment where the film stops and the director chatters excitedly about his favourite topic via a mouthpiece character. It's just quality all the way through.

Alistair Hutton

The Ender wrote:

Alistair Hutton wrote:

sain wrote:

Their films are enjoyable because of the absurdity, and because they tend to buck against the narrative cliches and tropes we've all come to rely on.

Prime example:

When Brad Pitt suddenly dies in Burn After Reading. There's always an expectation that the big name actor will survive, and if he does end up dying, we see it coming through a music que or something.

But he just gets shot in the face .

That bucks nothing (Burn After Reading Spoiler)

That is hyper-realising Chekhov's Gun. The setup for that was so deliberate, so exact, so precise that Pitt not getting shot would have been defying a narrative cliché.

Incidentally you should mark what film you are spoiling otherwise peope won't know whether to click your spoiler or not

Uh. No.

Chekhov's Gun is a type of foreshadowing where we are introduced to something in the early part of a story that has yet-to-be-realized pivotal significance later. We were introduced to Clooney's gun, sure, but it never really proved to be any more significant than you'd expect an average American's gun to be during a break-in.

The set-up was not obvious in Burn After Reading, and I'd call bullshit on anyone who claims after they saw the film that they saw Pitt's death coming.

Burn After Reading has one of the best pay-off sequences at the end. Some of the stuff in the middle was a bit too weird for my tastes, but the film gets top marks for wrapping things up so deviously.

Whoah - are you forgetting that:

Way at the start of the film we have Clooney describing in detail how he is a reflex killing machine and how he would react to a surprise threat by speed drawing and shooting. We know at that point Clooney will shoot someone in the film. As soon as Pitt was in the closet he was dead.

I'm not claiming psychic powers and saying that I knew it was Pitt's character that would be the person killed at any great distance from when it happened- I'm just saying that it was blatantly obvious someone was going to get shot by Clooney and Pitt was the first character who put himself in that position.

I think this is an accurate transcript of his dialogue about the gun at the party:

Clooney: Anyway, my job's more administrative
now, not so much PP. Personal Protection. Though I still carry the gun.
It's no big deal. Never discharged
it, twenty years service. Security
blanket now. I don't think about it----
course, you're not supposed to think
about it; in a situation where your man is
threatened the training kicks in.
Muscle memory. Reflex.

It's like the very first thing we learn about Clooney's character. That's the Chekhov's Gun - not the actual gun itself.

Joe Dizzy

I feel that this exchange in the spoiler blocks kind of encapsulates something that might be a quality to some, but somewhat annoying to me about Coen films. They're movies for people, who feel like they are smarter than the film they're watching because they know about the implicit/unspoken "rules" of film-making.

Litejedi

That's a pretty legitimate complaint, sometimes they stray from technically adept to meta-adept. Which can become a little boring. When they can tread the line and stay away from the knowing wink though, the payoff is great. Plus, they often take a lot of risks as filmmakers, and have been able to use their brand to blend filmmaking with moviemaking, showcasing big names and excellent actors in the same place. They try to have everyone shine in the film. The consequence is that they make movies that also sell well, and keep getting producers on their sides. There is a big difference with this and Terry Gilliam, who I adore, but when he falls he falls hard. He almost seems paralyzed by the studio system sometimes, as well. He is a filmmaker who tries to make movies, but isn't as good at it!

Donkey Kong

Oh god, film vs movie.

Literature vs book.

Music vs pop.

KalTorak

That thing re: Clooney's character doesn't get introduced until well into the movie,

when he's on the date with McDormand's character. By that point we've seen him do a ton of other things; it's not "the very first thing we learn about his character;" it's one of a number of quirks the guy has.