1243 No Country for Old Men

[HerrSchreck]

This is the comment I was alluding to:

Problem with the Coens is they are their own biggest fans, and every setpiece of every one of their films since FARGO is written with the self-conscious intention of having what they believe people think is the thing called The Coen Touch... like an irritating comedian laughing after every single one of his own jokes.

I don't think "the Coens slavishly try and live up to a reputation as "quirky" or "offbeat" is a total misrepresentation of "written with the self-conscious intention of having what they believe people think is the thing called The Coen Touch", apart from your more colorful verbiage, but your setting the record straight is nonetheless appreciated.

Therefore I said nothing about "offbeat" or "quirky".. all I'm talking about is their obsession with themselves and their giving themselves too much credit-- that anything that comes from the Coen Imagination is out of a fucking sacred font. This has nothing to do with "oddball comedy" or "quirkiness". It's about a complete lack of humility as artists.. the sense of Eric Dolphy's maxim "The more you learn, the more there is to learn." The Coens seem to think they have perfected themselves, and almost discount the possibility of error. There's a sense of overestimation of the result in No Country, that feels like too much trusted impulse.

O Brother Where Art Thou? Ach...

[swo17]

I don't see the clear divide in their work that you do (early = great/ recent = truly, mind-numbingly awful), though I do think that Miller's Crossing is easily the apex of their career. Do others feel the same way (that is, have a violently more favorable opinion of their early work compared to their later work)?

I still love most of their work, but an interesting divide for me is that every film up through Fargo I instantly adored, and every one since (save NCFOM) has taken me some time to get used to, and I am still not one of the biggest fans of Lebowski, O Brother, etc. For me, it doesn't get any better than Fargo and Miller's Crossing (which I'm glad to see getting a lot of love on this board--I've always thought it was highly underappreciated), and No Country was a welcome return to form (I'd probably place it third), but my next four favorites of theirs would all be earlier stuff.

[HypnoHelioStaticStasis]

I've always been of the opinion that "Barton Fink" is the masterpiece of the Coen oeuvre. I don't want to write a dissertation on it, but I think it's one of the few extended metaphors (i.e., the film exists SOLELY as a metaphor) that works for me personally. Turturro, Goodman and Mahoney are nothing short of inspired, and the script feels like such a personal statement of welschmertz. Love it love it love it.

A lot of this is personal taste, and the self-reflexiveness of the Coen's works can be grating to people (I know a few), and I understand that the tone of many of their films, especially the later ones, can feel a bit... smart-alecky. I never caught the feeling that they were being smug, either by acting superior to their audience or the genre in which they're working in (and its my opinion that ALL their films are meant to be evocative of Hollywood tropes and cliches, albeit with emotional and motivational differences), but I can see how someone could catch that whiff. I think there are directors (Tarantino, Rodriguez, all in that pseudo-indie ilk) who do what you're accusing the Coens far more egregiously.

However, I do think there is a decline in their work after "The Man Who Wasn't There," a film of theirs I don't think gets much credit, and is far more sincere and heartfelt than any of their other works besides "Barton." All of their work post their fascination with Hollywood Noir feels forced and, here's where I agree with you Schreck, self-consciously quirky. A Lot of the charm of these films comes from the actors (in the case of "The Ladykillers," that's few and far between). The cinematography always seems to be the raison d'etre in this later period. "No Country" was entertaining and tense, but it did feel like a bid for prestige and austerity. A fine novel, though, and McCarthy's prose made the Coen film better than maybe it deserved to be.

In short: Smug, no. Precocious, maybe.

[HerrSchreck]

and, here's where I agree with you Schreck, self-consciously quirky..

A-gain with the "Quirky"
--
|
|
|
|
| ,<--------------------- me jumping
|
|

[Barmy]

The "Q&A" they did at the NYFF for NoCo was the smuggest thing I've ever witnessed. Of course, no "A" was delivered, just smug snorts. I wondered why they bothered showing up.

[HypnoHelioStaticStasis]

looking back at the posts, I realized I put words (or rather, a word) in your mouth. My mistake.

Can we at least agree we're essentially talking about the same thing (vis a vis their own self of greatness and superiority)?

[HerrSchreck]

Their own sense of their Perceived Greatness, and the potential it creates for overestimation of their results in filmmaking, and condescention in and to scripts/characters/audience.. yes.

In terms of style or humor, I don't see them as particularly quirky.. though Arizona was pretty screwy. But we're not talking anywhere near the reaches that strangeness in filmmaking can approach, either today or in the silent era. And the style, in and of itself, of their humor has nothing to do with what I mean. Millers Crossing-- when I saw it in the cinema when it came out I thought this was the greatest film about gangsters since The Godfather (comedy or no), I thought it was a masterpiece and in a sense I still do.. I love Fargo, like Arizona still quite a bit-- is sketched with much the same stylistic tone as their newer films, but they seem to have started giving themselves way too much latitude, and take their audience and critical mass entirely for granted. I don't get a sense of the work, the preparation, the sense of shaving down, paring, reworking, to produce a polished gem like Millers, which is sharp and tight and really well-wound. It's full of a classic "timeless" feel as though the film was eternal, existed before it was made, and will always go on existing.. that they just brought it into the viewable realm. This shit nowadays just feels farted out with a high chin.

It took a lot of disappointment to get me to this point guys. I loved these boys when they first came out, and thought they were going to be the longterm source of American Masterpieces for decades to come. For me, it just ended for the most embarassing of reasons, and was quite disappointing: lack of discipline, underestimation of the demands of the craft viz creating truly classic works, combined with an overestimation of self and relaxing of the process of preparation and preproduction.

Coke Ennyday, anyone?

[HypnoHelioStaticStasis]

y'know you bring up a really salient point about the 'timeless' quality of their films, something that I admittedly haven't thought about critically. Thinking about it now, I can see why films like "O Brother" and "Man Who Wasn't There" irked you so. I'm not a huge fan of "O Brother" either, it's probably more interesting in its metatext as being the supposed story of Preston Sturges' alter-ego in "Sullivan's Travels." Next time I watch one of their flicks, I'll be thinking about this.

I also firmly agree that they are no near the weirdness (define that as you will) that cinema can approach. Just look at the works of Ichikawa, Morrissey, Browning, and Richard Lester: the Coens got nuthin on em. Their humor is mainstream, just taken to certain extremes.

I just think where you and I (and other members here) diverge is whether or not we find their efforts entertaining; I find it for the most part fun to romp in their hermetically sealed universes, even if it can be exhausting and they leave no room to breathe. Their films, I think, are teeming with ideas, even if some of them emerge less than half-baked. However, the fact that they have ideas is encouraging. And again, I'm just plum entertained by their playfulness.

[exte]

To each his own I guess.

Exactly.

[Michael]

Rereading everything I wrote on this thread, I now feel like an idiot. It's rare of my nature to write so negatively especially of film, I'm never good at that or making arguments. Films I don't like, I just dimiss and move forward without saying a word. I apologize if I wasted your time.

[HerrSchreck]

When you're fed something you don't like, there's nothing wrong with sending it back to the chef or wanting your money back. Just try to be respectful of people who find that food delicious.

You shouldnt feel like an idiot at all, for the simple reason of expressing disappointment.

[HypnoHelioStaticStasis]

Your objections were completely valid and well-written; no need to apologize.

It's good to stir the pot sometimes.

[GringoTex]

Didn't know where else to put this, but I just watched The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada. I'm almost embarrased now by my tepid defense of No Country for Old Men. Tommy Lee Jones has spoken to the Texas/Mexico border with a crystal clear tone.

[Antoine Doinel]

Tommy Lee Jones sues Paramount for additional money he's owed from the film.

[adlh]

Therefore I said nothing about "offbeat" or "quirky".. all I'm talking about is their obsession with themselves and their giving themselves too much credit-- that anything that comes from the Coen Imagination is out of a fucking sacred font. This has nothing to do with "oddball comedy" or "quirkiness". It's about a complete lack of humility as artists.. the sense of Eric Dolphy's maxim "The more you learn, the more there is to learn." The Coens seem to think they have perfected themselves, and almost discount the possibility of error. There's a sense of overestimation of the result in No Country, that feels like too much trusted impulse.

Do you have actual evidence, or at least something that could pass off as substance, to justify any of these claims?

Because right now, it sounds exactly like the "Fellini is really one of the most indulgent directors" guy from Annie Hall.

[flyonthewall2983]

I ran across this just now at thedigitalbits and thought it might be of some interest

No Country for Old Men: Collector's Edition from Miramax on both DVD and Blu-ray on 4/7. The DVD will be 3-disc (SRP $32.98) while the Blu-ray is 2-disc (SRP $39.98). Both will include the 3 featurettes on the current DVD/Blu-ray editions (The Making of No Country for Old Men, Working with the Coens and The Diary of a Country Sheriff) along with substantial new material - 5 hours worth in all. You'll get Josh Brolin's Unauthorized Behind-the-Scenes, Q & A with Joel and Ethan Coen, Roger Deakins and the sound and production design teams, a Charlie Rose interview with the Coens, Brolin and Javier Bardem, EW.com's Just a Minute... with Javier Bardem, a Q & A from the Variety Screening series, footage of an in-store appearance with Bardem and Brolin, ABC's Popcorn video, a Channel 4 News appearance with the Coens, a Lunch with David Poland interview with Bardem and Brolin, a WNBC Reel Talk interview with Brolin, a WGA West Q & A panel and 6 additional interviews. Both versions will also include a Digital Copy of the film.

[Dr. Snaut]

Sounds like a waste of time and money. Listening to the Coen Brothers talk about themselves for 2 discs seems like torture...

[kaujot]

I was hoping for a Mortimer Young introduction.

[Reliakor]

I don't think I've ever seen a more formally exquisite film in my life. Everything in it is purposeful, the acting is impeccable, the cinematography outstanding, the screenplay fascinating. I've never seen a film ended on such a pitch of ironic sophistication, indeed I fell into fits of laughter for which I was cursed at by an angry theater patron. I dislike the antic quirkiness of the Coens (I hate The Big Lebowski), but McCarthy's source material as well as their heretofore unrealized austerity served them wonderfully.

[mfunk9786]

For the record, I would have cursed at you too

[swo17]

Textbook obnoxiously psychotic behavior.

[Reliakor]

Textbook obnoxiously psychotic behavior.

I take it my distaste for Melancholia is winning me no friends.

[mfunk9786]

Nah, it's more the "look at me, please!" top 10 lists and threadbump tour of all the movies you feel like writing a short paragraph about from the last 5 years

[Reliakor]

Nah, it's more the "look at me, please!" top 10 lists and threadbump tour of all the movies you feel like writing a short paragraph about from the last 5 years

What's the difference between "look at me, please!" and inserting one's two cents into a discussion? The merest hint of iconoclasm?

[mfunk9786]

It'd be one thing if you had something interesting to contribute, but there hasn't been a discussion going on in this thread since February of 2009 until you decided we should know that your misreading of the ending made you laugh a lot