paul
Posts 247
|
12/7/2007 10:45 AM
posted awhile ago
The Coen Brothers argument
 It didn't make it in to FilmCouch #48, but I think Kevin and I came to some sort of resolution over the disgreement with No Country for Old Men. Many people think this movie is among the best work the Coens have ever done. Nobody disputes that it is one of the more finely crafted movies in theaters this year or that it's compelling to watch. It was asserted that the signature "quirky" aesthetic of the brothers gets in the way of a movie that otherwise may have lived up to Peter Travers of Rolling Stone's praise that it's a "masterpiece."
The conclusion Kevin and I landed on is that the Coens made a movie of archetypes (Javier Bardem is more Evil than a person, Tommy Lee Jones more a generation than a sheriff), yet those characters are as idiosynchratic as the ones in Raising Arizona. So, there is a conflict that--I think--diminishes the movie as I feel I'm supposed to laugh like with Raising Arizona, but also treat these characters with the gravity that an archetype brings. I think the Coens experimented with mixing quirky and archetype together, and the experiment didn't pay off this time.
|
|
estefanos
Posts 11
|
12/8/2007 9:19 PM
posted awhile ago
Re:The Coen Brothers argument
I have loved Coen bros films ever since seeing Blood Simple for the first time. However, despite my love for the intelligence and tehnique of their films, I have always had a near revulsion for the senseless brutality that appears suddenly in most of their films. I realise that our culture has largely become either ironic or desensitized vis a vis human on human violence, but this is my personal problem. Given that, I also feel that these random acts of violence are a big factor in the Coen's "edge", and their pics would be less awesome, or whole, without them. So I am torn between my moral/physical retch over heedless mayhem and a feeling that I should lighten up a bit, you know, for the sake of Art. I haven't yet seen No Country, but am supposing that the juxtaposition of gravity and cartoonishness that you hint at is a familiar Coen Brothers trope. I feel kind of like a little kid watching a scary movie through his fingers, bracing for an expected shock when I watch a new Coen's flick, yet I wouldn't miss one. They are a kind of sacred cow to film lovers, so it is refreshing to have a respectfully critical conversation about their work.
|
|
estefanos
Posts 11
|
12/12/2007 2:58 PM
posted awhile ago
Re:The Coen Brothers argument
I just listened to the Coen Bros section of #48 again. It's worth mentioning that the "nihilistic" philosophy which seems to be the ground from which the Coen"s art springs is probably the key element in my conflicted feelings about their films. I tend to be more of a shiny-happy optimist, which may be reflected in my fondness for many movie musicals. But again the need for some darkness and/or pop culture relevance to round out or make "whole" the filmic experience draws me more to modern representatives of the genre such as All That Jazz and Moulin Rouge. Across the Universe was a disappointment with it's tenuous stretching of story to fit lyrics and vice versa, though there were some great visuals and some musical sequences, especially the "i've Just Seen a Face" number in the bowling alley, that worked. The other standout was Eddie Izzard's performance-he cracks me up! Allow me to digress a little further and say who else is foaming at the mouth to see the Tim Burton/Jonny Depp Sweeny Todd? The initial reviews are heartening. Never saw the original live, but I loved the film of the B'way play with Angela Lansbury and George Hearn.
|
|