[Coen bros.] Please explain Fargo to me

Bogart

I would passionately disagree with this statement.

Joe Dizzy wrote:

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.

The Coen brothers movies are no such thing. The movies aren't for people who want to feel smug and superior, as you seem to indicate. They're for people who want to see quality movies that require attention and reward that attention with pleasure. These aren't movies for film buffs who want to congratulate themselves on their cleverness. To dismiss them as such seems incredibly defensive.

You don't need to know about Chekhov's Gun to enjoy Burn After Reading. In fact, it's arguable that the example Alistair comes up with there is an instance of it.

Clooney is on a date when he says that: he talks up his reflexes and his killer instinct to impress her, and it's by no means clear that the film is foreshadowing those killer instincts in action.

Atomika

Okay, so, not to be that guy, but if you (or your loved ones) are having trouble "getting" the Coens, I think we're at a point where simple explanation of their appeal may not be enough to rectify this fault.

The Coens are arguably the best directors in Hollywood today. They're insanely technically proficient, endlessly creative storytellers, and unafraid to make movies that are far more complex and inscrutable than the typical mainstream fare. However, they are not for the novice movie buff; I do not say this to impugn, I say this to further clarify.

The Coen brothers make movies, but they also make movies about movies. Their films are neck-deep in genre commentary, which is why they're so often proficient at subverting expectations and tropes; to make something original, you have to know what's come before, and this is a lesson I think very few filmmakers ever truly learn. To fully understand the potency of their work, a person must have a competent understanding of both cinema (and the history of) and the filmmaking process.

To make a crude cuisine-based analogy, asking "what's to get?" about the Coens is like asking what's so great about an aged prime filet, because in both cases there are several metrics by which the superior product fails against the alternative. A filet isn't large, or showy, or cheap to come by, and it's value is judged by its consumer based on that consumer's understanding of culinary methodology and previous experiences with similar products. If you're looking for a meal that doesn't ask a lot of the person holding the knife and fork, the filet probably isn't for you; you can get a great hamburger for a fraction of the price, or if value is your thing, McDonalds will sell you a burger for 79 cents.

Getting back to the Coens, asking for someone to explain their appeal is no small task. One doesn't "get" something without understanding the process behind creation, ergo the Coens can't be "got" by explaining specific destinations (i.e., films) without understanding the gravity of the journey it took to get there. Otherwise, we could apply the same question to every benchmark of human triumph. What's so great about Mt. Everest? It's just a place. What's so great about the Grand Canyon? It's just a hole. What's so great about penicillin? It's just a medicine.

Joe Dizzy

Bogart wrote:

To dismiss them as such seems incredibly defensive.

I didn't mean to dismiss them. But I think it's undeniable (and proven by the post right after yours), that this is part of their appeal. It just doesn't do anything for me, because while I do *get* that side of their film-making, it just leaves me very cold.

Joe Dizzy

Atomic Ross wrote:

To fully understand the potency of their work, a person must have a competent understanding of both cinema (and the history of) and the filmmaking process.

I know. And while I don't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of those things, I consider myself knowledgeable enough in those areas. I just find playing to those qualities a little self-indulgent. (I think No Country for Old Men was the worst offender in that regard, when they at parts dispense with the need for dialogue, just because of the familiarity of the events in a scene. That might seem efficient or even clever to some, but I just found it well... self-indulgent.)

Alistair Hutton

KalTorak wrote:

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.

Yes, I realise I was getting my chronology slightly confused. The fact that he had a gun was drawn attention to by another character and Clooney's character saying that he hadn't fired the gun in twenty years had happened at the party at the start of the film, not that he had the killer reflexes, that comes later. Still, as soon as he said he hadn't fired the gun I would have happily staked a vast sum of money of the gun being fired by the end of the film.

If anything, the killer reflexes not being mentioned till alter are even more exquisite setup, once again reminding us that he has a gun he hasn't fired in twenty years.

Bogart

Joe Dizzy wrote:

Bogart wrote:

To dismiss them as such seems incredibly defensive.

I didn't mean to dismiss them. But I think it's undeniable (and proven by the post right after yours), that this is part of their appeal. It just doesn't do anything for me, because while I do *get* that side of their film-making, it just leaves me very cold.

Someone making a post that agrees with you doesn't qualify as proof. I'd have no problem showing The Big Lebowski or Raising Arizona (or Fargo or any number of their movies) to someone who wasn't a film buff. You don't have to be a film buff to enjoy them, though it might help to be one to glean every last bit of enjoyment out of them. The Big Lebowski can be enjoyed and enjoyed repeatedly by anyone who likes laughing. Fargo is, at its basic level, a fantastic crime movie. Miller's Crossing is, at its most basic level, a great gangster movie. What kind of pituary retard can't enjoy Albert Finney marching up a road as his Tommy gun spits death to the tune of O Danny Boy?

I don't think the intelligence of the Coen brothers movies acts as a barrier to enjoying them (most of them, anyway - I'd hesitate before recommending Barton Fink, say, to someone who only likes movies that are shallow entertainment) or appreciating them. It adds another layer (several layers!) to ones enjoyment. I also don't think you need to be incredibly film-literate to get a great deal out of their films. You do need to be paying attention, however, and it probably helps if you're not stupid.*

*To be clear, I'm not saying this is you.

EDIT: I missed out the word 'don't', thus subverting the entire meaning of one of my sentences. Bravo, sir.

Eat it You Nasty Pig.

The Coen's dark comedies don't do much for me, either. Fargo, Serious Man and Lebowski have lots of enjoyable scenes, but they wind up feeling sort of unfocused (especially Lebowski.)

On the other hand, No Country and Oh Brother Where Art Thou and True Grit are fucking brilliant films. Intolerable Cruelty was surprisingly enjoyable for a romcom (although I think a lot of my enjoyment of it was just George Clooney doing George Clooney things.) I didn't see Burn After Reading because the previews just made it look really dumb, but maybe I should.

Atomika

Joe Dizzy wrote:

Atomic Ross wrote:

To fully understand the potency of their work, a person must have a competent understanding of both cinema (and the history of) and the filmmaking process.

I know. And while I don't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of those things, I consider myself knowledgeable enough in those areas. I just find playing to those qualities a little self-indulgent. (I think No Country for Old Men was the worst offender in that regard, when they at parts dispense with the need for dialogue, just because of the familiarity of the events in a scene. That might seem efficient or even clever to some, but I just found it well... self-indulgent.)

I'm really not trying to be offensive here, but are familiar with the phenomenon known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

I don't really now how to respond otherwise. Film enjoyment is subjective, granted, but film itself? Not so much. I can't even say with certainty I know what you're talking about in your example.

Eat it You Nasty Pig.

Atomic Ross wrote:

Joe Dizzy wrote:

Atomic Ross wrote:

To fully understand the potency of their work, a person must have a competent understanding of both cinema (and the history of) and the filmmaking process.

I know. And while I don't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of those things, I consider myself knowledgeable enough in those areas. I just find playing to those qualities a little self-indulgent. (I think No Country for Old Men was the worst offender in that regard, when they at parts dispense with the need for dialogue, just because of the familiarity of the events in a scene. That might seem efficient or even clever to some, but I just found it well... self-indulgent.)

I'm really not trying to be offensive here, but are familiar with the phenomenon known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

I don't really now how to respond otherwise. Film enjoyment is subjective, granted, but film itself? Not so much. I can't even say with certainty I know what you're talking about in your example.

this is really just condescension now

Joe Dizzy

Bogart wrote:

I don't think the intelligence of the Coen brothers movies acts as a barrier to enjoying them (most of them, anyway - I'd hesitate before recommending Barton Fink, say, to someone who only likes movies that are shallow entertainment) or appreciating them. It adds another layer (several layers!) to ones enjoyment. I also don't think you need to be incredibly film-literate to get a great deal out of their films.

I agree entirely with the first part. It adds to the enjoyment, if you find enjoyment in that kind of thing. I simply don't. I don't know about the second part, though. I think if you're not fairly film-literate, you'd probably only get some surface enjoyment out of a movie.

I mean The Big Lebowski is a fun film, even if you don't know anything about hard-boiled fiction, film noir and the academic discussion surrounding it. But if you do, there's a whole new level of winking, smiling humour and clever subversion going on.

I just happen not to rate this kind of thing too highly.

Atomika

Eat it, You Nasty Pig. wrote:

Atomic Ross wrote:

Joe Dizzy wrote:

Atomic Ross wrote:

To fully understand the potency of their work, a person must have a competent understanding of both cinema (and the history of) and the filmmaking process.

I know. And while I don't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of those things, I consider myself knowledgeable enough in those areas. I just find playing to those qualities a little self-indulgent. (I think No Country for Old Men was the worst offender in that regard, when they at parts dispense with the need for dialogue, just because of the familiarity of the events in a scene. That might seem efficient or even clever to some, but I just found it well... self-indulgent.)

I'm really not trying to be offensive here, but are familiar with the phenomenon known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

I don't really now how to respond otherwise. Film enjoyment is subjective, granted, but film itself? Not so much. I can't even say with certainty I know what you're talking about in your example.

this is really just condescension now

I can easily see how it would be thought so, but I'm quite serious.

When someone says, "I don't have a deep knowledge of film, but I know enough, and I don't think the Coens are all that great," there's a tangible disconnect there, as there are few metrics in filmmaking standards in which the Coens aren't masters of the objective crafts in film, and arguably few subjective ones as well.

Joe Dizzy

Eat it, You Nasty Pig. wrote:

Atomic Ross wrote:

Joe Dizzy wrote:

Atomic Ross wrote:

To fully understand the potency of their work, a person must have a competent understanding of both cinema (and the history of) and the filmmaking process.

I know. And while I don't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of those things, I consider myself knowledgeable enough in those areas. I just find playing to those qualities a little self-indulgent. (I think No Country for Old Men was the worst offender in that regard, when they at parts dispense with the need for dialogue, just because of the familiarity of the events in a scene. That might seem efficient or even clever to some, but I just found it well... self-indulgent.)

I'm really not trying to be offensive here, but are familiar with the phenomenon known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

I don't really now how to respond otherwise. Film enjoyment is subjective, granted, but film itself? Not so much. I can't even say with certainty I know what you're talking about in your example.

this is really just condescension now

I think it's just a panicked retreat, because I suspect that he is either unwilling or unable to actually articulate his point. I've looked up some older threads, and the Dunning-Kruger Effect shows up there as well as some kind of counter-argument thrown against people who do not share his point of view.

I was hoping for some substantial contribution, but I guess I will have to settle for quasi-academic mudslinging.

Joe Dizzy

Atomic Ross wrote:

When someone says, "I don't have a deep knowledge of film, but I know enough, and I don't think the Coens are all that great,"

Only that I didn't say that. At no point did I say anything other than the Coens make well-crafted movies. I wanted to talk about people's enjoyment of their films, and wanted to hear fans be enthusiastic about (one of) their favourite directors.

I have no interest in "debunking" their status. Please take your persecution complex elsewhere.

(I'd also appreciate if you didn't make guesses about how much I do or do not know about film-making. My knowledge is extensive, but as I said not encyclopedic.)

Atomika

Joe Dizzy wrote:

I think it's just a panicked retreat, because I suspect that he is either unwilling or unable to actually articulate his point. I've looked up some older threads, and the Dunning-Kruger Effect shows up there as well as some kind of counter-argument thrown against people who do not share his point of view.

I was hoping for some substantial contribution, but I guess I will have to settle for quasi-academic mudslinging.

Oh, FFS.

In this thread you've acknowledged you don't have a deep understanding of film. You've also gone on to remark that you disagree with others' academic and subjective opinions of the Coens work with middle-brow buzzwords like "smug" and "condescending" and accused people who like their work of being pseudo-intellectual elitists.

This is the definition of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Asking for delineations on a topic and then condescending to and denigrating those you seek guidance from is also the hallmark of an internet troll.

kedinik

That aside, you're being pretty condescending and smug Ross.

Joe Dizzy

Atomic Ross wrote:

Oh, FFS.

Quite.

Please take a break, relax and re-read what I wrote and try to remove your preconceptions about people who don't share your high opinion of the Coen.

If you're unwilling to do that, I don't see the point in you and I exchanging posts here.

Bogart

Joe Dizzy wrote:

Bogart wrote:

I don't think the intelligence of the Coen brothers movies acts as a barrier to enjoying them (most of them, anyway - I'd hesitate before recommending Barton Fink, say, to someone who only likes movies that are shallow entertainment) or appreciating them. It adds another layer (several layers!) to ones enjoyment. I also don't think you need to be incredibly film-literate to get a great deal out of their films.

I agree entirely with the first part. It adds to the enjoyment, if you find enjoyment in that kind of thing. I simply don't. I don't know about the second part, though. I think if you're not fairly film-literate, you'd probably only get some surface enjoyment out of a movie.

I mean The Big Lebowski is a fun film, even if you don't know anything about hard-boiled fiction, film noir and the academic discussion surrounding it. But if you do, there's a whole new level of winking, smiling humour and clever subversion going on.

I just happen not to rate this kind of thing too highly.

The enjoyment isn't just of the back-slapping "aren't we neat for recognising they're subverting that trope" variety, but also of a kind born from the fact that someone who has been watching movies for decades can still be surprised by their movies. I rarely know what's coming next in a Coen brothers movie, whereas in most other movies I can see the plot development, character beats and spot the foreshadowing from ten miles off (see the sarcastic "Oh, I wonder if that'll be important later" comment in Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang). And I think that the 'surface-enjoyment' you refer to is only ever going to be all that someone gets out of a Coen brothers movie isfthat's all they want from movies. If they're willing to invest some attention in the movie it'll reward them with more enjoyment, whether or not they're film buffs. Same thing with Tarantino. A film buff could dissect his stuff all day long and pull out the references and clever homages. It doesn't stop Pulp Fiction being a great piece of cinema that practically anyone with a fully functioning brain can enjoy.

I seriously don't think that the enjoyment someone gets out of the film buff aspect of things comes cloes to the enjoyment gained by an intelligent person watching and investing fully in the movie. If the movies relied that heavily on their audience being ultra familiar with, say screwball comedies and the minutiae of film noir they just wouldn't work as well as they do. The pleasure gained from recognising the ancestors of The Hudsucker Proxy is very small compared to the laugh of recognition when you realise what the circle ("You know. For kids.") actually is.

Atomika

kedinik wrote:

That aside, you're being pretty condescending and smug Ross.

I'll give you the condescending part. But Bogart has done a fine job in this thread of articulating the Coens' prowess (which, jesus, shouldn't need all that much pointing out), so I feel little need to embellish a defense that honestly doesn't even need to exist.

This thread might as well be titled, "Fuck you if you don't like Hamburger Helper, you smug, pretentious ass."

Joe Dizzy

Bogart wrote:

I seriously don't think that the enjoyment someone gets out of the film buff aspect of things comes cloes to the enjoyment gained by an intelligent person watching and investing fully in the movie. If the movies relied that heavily on their audience being ultra familiar with, say screwball comedies and the minutiae of film noir they just wouldn't work as well as they do.

I think we're in agreement here for the most part. Although I do feel that one of the most common criticism of Coen films (that they are somehow "cold"), is closely related to this film buff aspect. The movies feel cold, because the subversion of tropes and the ironies in the way things are set up, built upon and paid off, can leave some audiences a little lost.

And I agree that the unexpectedness of their stories and characters can be very enjoyable, but it can also become so byzanthine at times that some audiences are lost. And I'm not convinced this has only to do with a lack of intelligence on the side of the audience. I'm reminded of jazz music, which can also feel somewhat cold and random. Not only because the audience isn't as well-versed in musical theory and history as the musicians, but also because it is possibly to be too off.

It always seemed to me the most plausible explanation why some Coen films connect with some people perfectly, while others seem utterly impenetrable and confusing.

kedinik

Atomic Ross wrote:

kedinik wrote:

That aside, you're being pretty condescending and smug Ross.

I'll give you the condescending part. But Bogart has done a fine job in this thread of articulating the Coens' prowess (which, jesus, shouldn't need all that much pointing out), so I feel little need to embellish a defense that honestly doesn't even need to exist.

This thread might as well be titled, "Fuck you if you don't like Hamburger Helper, you smug, pretentious ass."

I think you're taking this way, way too personally and reading into things that aren't there.

He has said more times than I care to count, "I'm not saying they're actually bad or disagreeing if you like them, I just want help understanding something that I'm not able to understand on my own."

Modern Man

I don't dislike Coen Brothers movies. They're fine, I guess. But I can't get over the level of quirkiness they instill in most of their characters. Their characters border on being parodies, and I can't really get into them.

Someone upthread mentioned the Sheriff in Fargo saying how it's a beautiful day in the middle of blizzard. That's one bit of dialogue that left me scratching my head, and I get a lot of that in Coen brothers movies.

I think the Coen brothers are a phenomenon driven by film critics. But there's a difference between a technically proficient movie, and a watchable one. And I think Coen brothers movies focus too much on the craft of filmmaking but don't care whether their movies are particularly enjoyable.

Eat it You Nasty Pig.

I guess my main criticism of the Coen comedies is that they seem pretty much heedless of the idea that maybe the audience should care about the characters. Like, in A Serious Man, I get to the end with the sense that I'm supposed to care about the fate of the Stuhlburg character, but I haven't really been given any reason to, so the whole thing feels sort of empty.

Lebowski has the same problem (that and the last 20 or so minutes of the movie are just like, what), but Bridges and Goodman are magnetic and their dialogue is so funny that people don't seem to notice as much.

Both of those movies are very well done as far as craftsmanship and performance are concerned and as a result are pretty enjoyable experiences, but as stories I don't buy that there's necessarily much there that we should find interesting.

Modern Man

Eat it, You Nasty Pig. wrote:

I guess my main criticism of the Coen comedies is that they seem pretty much heedless of the idea that maybe the audience should care about the characters. Like, in A Serious Man, I get to the end with the sense that I'm supposed to care about the fate of the Stuhlburg character, but I haven't really been given any reason to, so the whole thing feels sort of empty.

This is a very good point. It's tough to get attached to the characters in a lot of their movies. If I don't have a character to hitch my wagon to during a movie, it's tough to bring myself to care.

Bogart

Joe Dizzy wrote:

I think we're in agreement here for the most part. Although I do feel that one of the most common criticism of Coen films (that they are somehow "cold"), is closely related to this film buff aspect. The movies feel cold, because the subversion of tropes and the ironies in the way things are set up, built upon and paid off, can leave some audiences a little lost.

And I agree that the unexpectedness of their stories and characters can be very enjoyable, but it can also become so byzanthine at times that some audiences are lost. And I'm not convinced this has only to do with a lack of intelligence on the side of the audience. I'm reminded of jazz music, which can also feel somewhat cold and random. Not only because the audience isn't as well-versed in musical theory and history as the musicians, but also because it is possibly to be too off.

It always seemed to me the most plausible explanation why some Coen films connect with some people perfectly, while others seem utterly impenetrable and confusing.

Well, several of their movies are kind of impenetrable and confusing, not just for the casual viewer but for pretty much everyone. Sometimes art will stump you, and if you want to get to the bottom of it you'll need to come back to it later and rethink things.

The criticism of their movies being cold is something I've heard before but not one I agree with. It was touched on by Jacob, I think, a little earlier, and I think it's down to the characters myself. We've been taught by movies to empathise with characters that don't stray too far from certain templates. If someone has a kid they'll be a cute moppet with a line in sarcastic put downs. They'll roll their eyes and the audience will giggle at their knowing looks as the adults misbehave around them. Only the bully, due for his comeuppence at the end of the movie, will be mean. These kids are easy to watch and warm to, but they are wildly different from my experience with real kids. The kids in the Coen brothers movies seem very much like real kids. They can be funny and cute, but they can also be dumb, insolent, selfish, unsympathetic and unappealing. Same with the adults. They can be cowardly, dense, unfeeling and none-too bright as well as heroic, smart and funny. Our usual responses are stopped in their tracks as we're asked to think a little more about who we're watching.

They don't really have David Lynch's ability to marry the terrifying and the unsettling with the familiar and the touching and make them both work to an unprecedented degree. Lynch can show you the most hackneyed teenage love and have it work (James and Donna burying the necklace in Twin Peaks is just two crazy kids falling in love like you've seen a hundred times before). Instead, the Coens present you with a cast of well-rounded characters who usually eschew easy sympathy and empathy on the part of the audience. I don't think they're cold. I think we've become innoculated over time against original and/or realistic characters on screen.

I dunno, man. I've been watching films for over thirty years, so maybe my eyes are just too jaded to see their movies like a casual viewer. To me, they're an antidote to the increasingly boring and samey output of the film industry. I'm alienated and left cold by characters that are barely more than a sketch, scripts that seem to have been written by a robot and plots created by a committee.

Long post.

Joe Dizzy

Bogart wrote:

The criticism of their movies being cold is something I've heard before but not one I agree with.

I think it's a comment on an actual and legitimate aspect of their films, even if "cold" might be a misleading term. I think that Coen films tell stories in a different mode than most movies. There is a conscious distance to the proceedings, not unlike a novel, where you are not supposed to be inside a character's head or emotional landscape (Barton Fink being the obvious exception, but even there they do deliberately play with the distance towards the main character).

It's a currently somewhat uncommon way of telling a story in a movie; in that you are an uninvolved observer as opposed to a quiet passenger inside the head of the protagonist. You are of course free to sympathise or empathise with one character or another, but - unlike common storytelling modes these days - you are not required to. The film's structure works regardless of whether you root for one character or another. This distance to the proceedings is something that people label as "cold". (Among other things, but I don't want to get sidetracked here.) I think that the complaint is legitimate, but ultimately irrelevant.

Bogart wrote:

I dunno, man. I've been watching films for over thirty years, so maybe my eyes are just too jaded to see their movies like a casual viewer. To me, they're an antidote to the increasingly boring and samey output of the film industry. I'm alienated and left cold by characters that are barely more than a sketch, scripts that seem to have been written by a robot and plots created by a committee.

I can see such movies appealing to a certain jadedness in film audiences. When the Coens make a movie, it is definitely something unique.

Bogart

I'm not sure that's the only reason people say the Coen films are cold, but I reckon the frequent absence of someone to 'root for' is probably high on the list. To which one might say "so what?". Apocalypse Now doesn't really have anybody I'd feel comfortable hitching my wagon to. Nor does the Godfather, other than maybe Kay and Michael in the first half of the movie. Popeye Doyle is basically kind of a jerk in The French Connection. The whole cast of King of New York are awful gangsters and corrupt cops.

If a character is meant to be warm sympathetic but isn't, then it's a problem. But I don't think there's a need to like without qualification the main characters in a movie. I just have to become involved with them for two hours.

EDIT: I was writing this post without having read yours, so it's not an answer to it.

ElJeffe

Modern Man wrote:

It's tough to get attached to the characters in a lot of their movies. If I don't have a character to hitch my wagon to during a movie, it's tough to bring myself to care.

I guess this can apply to some of their films - A Serious Man, or Burn After Reading - but most of their films have very definite good guys who are very human and root-for-able. Frances McDormand in Fargo, Sheriff Bell in No Country, Clooney and his crew in Oh Brother, Nicholas Cage in Raising Arizona, the little girl in True Grit... Seems the vast majority of their movies have some very obviously sympathetic characters. And even in the others, I generally latch onto at least a character or two because while they're flawed, that just makes them human.

Real people are flawed. I think most movies either ignore this fact, or make the protagonist's flaws something you can easily look past. Oh, this cop is driven too far by his desire for truth and justice. This guy will do anything to save his daughter. This person just cares too much. A lot characters read like the responses to some employer's "What's your biggest weakness?" question. And when this isn't the case, we generally know that the single flaw an otherwise wonderful character has is going to be resolved by the film's end, because the single flaw ties into the film's plot. Oh, you're too promiscuous? Well, you'll be monogamous by film's end. You're a loveable slacker? You'll get a stable job pretty soon, I guess.

Coen characters are generally flawed. They are often flawed in ways that have little to do with the plot and don't get resolved in the final act. Because sometimes people are just kind of dicks. Sometimes they're kind of dumb. Sometimes they have really annoying quirks. If you demanded the same sort of perfection in real people that you do of movie characters (general "you", here) you would have no friends. Coen characters often feel like the sort of people you'd know in real life and would probably like just fine, even if sometimes you bitched about their flaws when they weren't around. And I dig that.

Joe Dizzy

No, it's definitely not the only reason why their films are labelled as cold sometimes. There's also the lack of an authorial voice dishing out something like justice or even retribution. (Although arguably the ending of No Country... comes closest). This indifference towards the fate of the characters might also seem off-putting and "cold".

And it's not even that people need a character to be sympathetic. I think most people can deal with a protagonist that is a jerk, if they have some other laudable quality such as determination, a righteous cause, etc. And ultimately a lot of the Coen films don't even provide the audience with these things. (Which again is unexpected, unusual and can be refreshing.)

Bogart

ElJeffe wrote:

A bunch of stuff.

Pretty much this as well.

emnmnme

Eat it, You Nasty Pig. wrote:

Like, in A Serious Man, I get to the end with the sense that I'm supposed to care about the fate of the Stuhlburg character

I noticed that, too. I wanted to see if Stuhlburg got a revelation or good advice more than I wanted to see how he ended up. What the secret of life? They're stringing me along ... they're stringing me along ... Dammit! The credits are rolling.

Maybe good advice doesn't exist and everyone in authority is pretending they know the answers?

Bogart

Joe Dizzy wrote:

No, it's definitely not the only reason why their films are labelled as cold sometimes. There's also the lack of an authorial voice dishing out something like justice or even retribution. (Although arguably the ending of No Country... comes closest). This indifference towards the fate of the characters might also seem off-putting and "cold".

And it's not even that people need a character to be sympathetic. I think most people can deal with a protagonist that is a jerk, if they have some other laudable quality such as determination, a righteous cause, etc. And ultimately a lot of the Coen films don't even provide the audience with these things. (Which again is unexpected, unusual and can be refreshing.)

For the first point, I think that's a flaw in the audience, not the movies. They don't like the movie because the good guys didn't get an unambiguous victory? The hell with them. Is film such a debased art that it should be prevented from showing realistic outcomes (or a realistic lack of them)?

For the second, I dunno. I can find a lot to admire and like about many of their main characters. I honestly can't think of many that don't have something to sympathise with.

Bogart

emnmnme wrote:

Maybe good advice doesn't exist and everyone in authority is pretending they know the answers?

I loved that the ultimate authority in the movie

just quoted some Jefferson Airplane lyrics as advice. Which may seem like a cop out, but it felt like the end of Bill and Ted, where Lincoln tells the audience to be excellent to one another and it's sincerely meant. Sure, the advice is glib and unoriginal and kinda obvious. What were they expecting? Just be excellent to one another.

Eddy

Joe Dizzy wrote: »

No, it's definitely not the only reason why their films are labelled as cold sometimes. There's also the lack of an authorial voice dishing out something like justice or even retribution. (Although arguably the ending of No Country... comes closest). This indifference towards the fate of the characters might also seem off-putting and "cold".

I can understand the need for some sort of closure and wrap-up as is so common in story-telling, but I think part of their appeal to some people is this precise lack of it.



God, that girl in True Grit was so unlikable though.

Eat it You Nasty Pig.

I guess I notice it more in the films where it seems like the character is supposed to be sympathetic. In No Country they kind of play with your sympathies and the overall message is that people are jerks, so the fact that none of the characters are particularly sympathetic or relatable doesn't detract much from the force of the story.

Bogart

Personally, I loved the girl in True Grit. Determination, self-reliance, courage, smarts, a hankering for justice and a keen perception when it came to the character of others. What's not to like?

Drez

I didn't like The Big Lebowski despite seemingly every other person in the world liking it. I guess a part of that is that I find Jeff Bridges irritating when he's acting normal/sober and The Big Lebowski is Jeff Bridges acting stoned which, to me, is an even more annoying Jeff Bridges than usual.

That doesn't mean I think it's a bad film. It's probably an expertly made, exceedingly creative flim etc. etc. etc. For years I wondered why I didn't like it when everyone else does. I've watched it like three times, I guess. I just don't like it and maybe it's my personal biases or personality or whatever filtering into that but at some point I just have to give up.

Fargo I enjoyed on a more artistic level, but I did ask myself the same "why does everyone go ga-ga for this film?" question while watching it. It's a total downer of a film, too. I did think it was a good film, though. I mean I "enjoyed" it as much as you can apply the word "enjoy" to something so desolate.

edit: I find it funny that even the people calling into question the Coen Brothers' talent as filmmakers seem to love The Big Lebowski despite that. I am truly alone.

SanderJK

I think the girl in True Grit may be a valid example of 'too cold.' She shows no real emotion and only a single motivation in the entire movie. You could see it as part of the setting, with the Wild West being cold and uncaring, but just as I praised the general work for having 'weird but believable characters,' for me she crosses the line a bit into one-dimensionality, especially for the lead character.

I will agree that in general, the fact that you truely don't know what's going to happen is what makes the movies interesting. The only guarantee is that things are going to get messed up, but for instance in Barton Fink I had no idea where the plot was heading. That's a rare treat in a land where formulas dominate (which is actually a theme in that movie). What was it again, 74 out of the 100 top 10 films of each year in 2000-2009 are adaptions of existing IP and/or sequels? And the remaining 26 have a number of animated movies in them (a few of which are quite good though).

Eddy

Bogart wrote: »

Personally, I loved the girl in True Grit. Determination, self-reliance, courage, smarts, a hankering for justice and a keen perception when it came to the character of others. What's not to like?

Some minor and major spoilers for True Grit in here:

See, to me, these characteristics were played to an extreme I felt uncomfortable with. Determination to the point of stubbornness, independence / courage to the point of sheer stupidity (I'll go ahead and accompany these strangers into the untamed wild to chase a dangerous gang! woohoo!). She did best that shopkeep, but she came off as extremely unlikable to me even in that situation, mostly by being extremely dickish to someone who didn't want to pay for something that wasn't his / part with stuff that he had obtained. I thought her perception of others was actually pretty off, as she misjudged LaBeef completely and threw her trust into someone (Cogburn) who by all logic should never have been trusted, as an alcoholic, loner, exceedingly trigger-happy lawman, former criminal, etc.

I did like that the Coen Bros didn't just give her a typical ending, and that she did lose something for what I perceived as her massive hubris.

Eddy

Strangely enough, I did find Lucky Ned or whoever to be much more likable. He was a gentleman, and also Barry Pepper so dreamy

Joe Dizzy

Bogart wrote:

For the first point, I think that's a flaw in the audience, not the movies. They don't like the movie because the good guys didn't get an unambiguous victory? The hell with them. Is film such a debased art that it should be prevented from showing realistic outcomes (or a realistic lack of them)?

That's taking it a bit far, I think. I'm reminded of Stranger Than Fiction where one of the questions posed is the responsibility an author has towards his characters. Or put differently, if you're in a position that is essentially god-like... why not be a kind and merciful one?

It's not about the good guys getting an unambigious victory. It's about art as a form of escapism. Watching a story unfold, that works the way we'd like life to work and not the way it actually does. And I think that's as legitimate an approach as art as a form of speaking the truth about the "human condition". Most of all I don't think one is inherently more worthwhile than the other.

Bogart wrote:

For the second, I dunno. I can find a lot to admire and like about many of their main characters. I honestly can't think of many that don't have something to sympathise with.

To be honest, I've felt they were all tools. Some more than others and most of them in a different way, but still tools. That doesn't mean I couldn't sympathise with them, but it did mean I couldn't really take them very seriously.