On the Subject of The Coen Brothers

[angelophile]

So, I watched No Country For Old Men a couple of weeks ago. It's a curious movie, which touches on many of the themes prevalent in the Coen brothers' work, but in many ways it's an unsatisfying movie. Brilliantly performed, brilliantly directed, brilliantly written, just... empty.

Tonight I finished watching Fargo, which I haven't seen in a couple of years or more and it's interesting to compare the two movies.

At first glance they seem to have a lot in common. Crimes are committed, a desire for money drives two men (Jerry Lundegaard in Fargo and Llewellyn Moss in No Country for Old Men) to desperate measures, involving them with stoic and coldblooded killers (Gaear Grimsrud in Fargo and Anton Chigurh), leaving a bloody trail in their wake as things escalate, leading to the law (in the shape of heavily pregnant sherrif Marge Gunderson and grizzled old timer sheriff Ed Tom Bell) in steady pursuit.

But Fargo has a lot of what's missing in No Country for Old Men - heart. Although Tommy Lee Jones as Bell plays his role with heart and compassion, he is ill equipped to cope with the lengths and depths people will go to for money. Although at the end of Fargo Marge laments what has been done "for a little bit of money", there's still hope that human nature isn't utterly contemptible. Tommy Lee Jones gets a similar speech, but he's perplexed and horrified by the bloody trail he follows and his failure to comprehend the evil of modern life is devoid of the stability and hope that Marge presents.

In truth, watching No Country for Old Man is a depressing experience. There's no moral, no happy endings and Bell, a man baffled by a world that seems to have lost all regard for decency and compassion, is absent for long stretches of the story, weakening his status as the moral balance to Chigurh's chilling acts.

The film has all the vital ingredients for a movie and it is perhaps especially brave in its adaptation, following the book closely and not giving the audience simple answers, but it's hard to watch. Fargo has that little extra sympathy for its characters - William H. Macy as Jerry Lundegaard is on the edge, but provokes sympathy, Steve Buscemi is sublime as the ferrety loudmouth who makes us laugh, Frances McDormand quirky but never too quirky, warm without being sugary. Ultimately it is simply more satisfying for an audience.

But the one thing the Coen Brothers nearly always prove - they know how to make interesting movies, if not satisfying ones.

Comments

[fullmetal-cute.livejournal.com]

*pounces and clings to* Oh thank all the gods, I'm not alone!

[uncanny-rman.livejournal.com]

Fargo is a pretty awesome movie indeed.

I saw Burn After Reading a little while ago, but found it rather disappointing. As a matter of fact, the bit I only really liked was Brad Pitt's dancing.

[angelophile.livejournal.com]

Well, to be fair, the total lack of any real satisfying resolution is one of No Country for Old Men's strengths. It's very real in that regard and it's a bold move to stick to the letter of the book in that way.

On the other hand, for the audience it's tough watching. It's meant to be that way, but the emptiness makes the movie hard to enjoy as much as Fargo, which gives you that greater range of emotions, including hope.

[angelophile.livejournal.com]

I saw it a few months back (http://angelophile.livejournal.com/606022.html) and agree it was disappointing. JK Simmons was the one great thing about the movie for me and he was in it for about five minutes. Otherwise it fell kinda flat. Not bad, just not that great.