April 23, 2024
BYOB
Triple Option on: BYO Oscar
Sideshow Bill on: BYO Oscar
Stella's Boy on: BYO Oscar
Pete B on: BYO Oscar
movieman on: BYO Oscar
movieman on: BYO Oscar
Stella's Boy on: BYO Oscar
Hcat on: BYO Oscar
brack on: BYO Oscar
iothereturned on: BYO Oscar
BYOB: 235 Years Of Relative independence
BYOB Weekend: Hop, An April Fool’s Gag?
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
Have a serious question on which I’d love DP’s take:
Was reading this article in Variety about Blu-Ray sales/rentals doing better than expected in ’10 (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118029765) and am curious just how much you think the extra 2-3 year delay for Blu-Ray penetration caused by Toshiba/Microsoft/Universal/Warren Lieberfarb’s decision to cockblock Sony and back the ill-fated HD-DVD format has wound up costing the industry as a whole in terms of lost home-video revenues? To me, the infighting and dithering was akin to Nero fiddling while Rome was burning all around him and opened the door for the genie of internet streaming to escape the bottle early and destroy the studios’ business models as they once knew it. Would love your thoughts.
DP, have you ever met Ignatiy Vishnevetsky?
I screened Peter Bogdanovich’s Targets for a film class just yesterday — it was the first time I watched the film in several years, maybe decades — and I was struck by how this movie, Bogdanovich’s first feature, is so very different from the rest of his work. It’s been described by many as Hawksian, but it’s actually more Hitchcockian — and not in the flashy, self-conscious way of a Brian De Palma homage. I couldn’t help thinking: If this had been his first big hit, and not The Last Picture Show, would his career have taken a very different direction?
Interesting question, Joe…but I don’t think so. Bogdanovich’s ego and his reaction to success is what killed his career.
Here’s my question…
Which rom com, with the exact same plot is going to do better business….No Strings Attached or Friends With Benefits?
One has a January opening, which never bodes well..but stars Natlie Portman.
Other has a July opening but is burdened with Justin Timberlake.
I read the original Friends With Benefits script…which was just awful…kind of like a minor sitcom episode..but I’ve heard its been overhauled by the director.
Is it like volcano movies where the first one out, wins?
Saw advance screening of The Green Hornet, last night – what a blast! Is it pretty ridiculous? Of course, but the whole cast is game, the effects are fun, and the tone is just right – who would have thought Rogen and Goldberg could write the most purely entertaining superhero (sort of, but seriously Kato is kind of one) movie since Iron Man?
Michel Gondry just comes off as some one who is playing with all of the toys in his toybox – the movie never takes itself seriously, but constantly entertains.
Christoph Waltz is fun to watch, but I would have thought he would have a slightly different accent or voice from IB, but no matter – he has a very clever opening scene opposite James Franco, kick to watch.
The action scenes make sense, for the most part, and the 3D is pretty effective – check it out!
Actually, I thought Timberlake was pretty dang good in The Social Network — and Black Snake Moan.
Yes. Exactly. Supporting roles. Character actor. Have you ever loved him as a lead?
Well, I thought he was impressive as the co-star of The Open Road. Where, not incidentally, Jeff Bridges did a warm-up of his Crazy Heart performance. No kidding.
Isn’t Timberlake’s only lead (excluding Open Road) his crappy first movie which had an all-star cast but still barely got distribution? Title started with an E. I remember seeing and thinking it wasn’t all that bad, but my expectations were dirt low and Timberlake was way out of his depth.
But I’ve liked him in just about everything since (including Alpha Dog).
BTW, what happened with Open Road, how did that not get a theatrical release, right after Bridges won his Oscar, no less? Or did it come out before?
Shillfor – consulting company Oliver and Ohlbaum released some of their metrics for media trends in December. Out of 2976 people surveyed, *no-one* was intending to buy a blu-ray in the next 6 months. That’s a fairly big cockblock.
http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-oo-medias-recovery-is-an-indian-summer-before-the-winter/
I don’t want to start an ‘anti True Grit’ argument. I liked the movie. I thought little ms. steinfeld was amazing. But i thought Bridges played one note which he strummed endlessly and loudly. Damon felt out of place.
I enjoyed it, but if this movie opened in the more traditional October Coen Bros. slot, would it be receiving all this Oscar talk?
True Grit for me is like The Town, a movie i enjoyed seeing but am a little surprised by all the award consideration it’s getting.
Good movie, sure. Exceptional movie? I don’t think so.
Did the Christmas week release combined with the lack of a clear award front runner leave an opening for True Grit to drive the lane?
a_loco, isn’t the movie called Edison Force? Or maybe it was just changed to Edison?
I would guess that Friends With Benefits will be the better movie. It doesn’t star Ashton Kutcher and Easy A seems to have been pretty universally beloved. Ivan Reitman hasn’t directed a really good movie since Dave in 1993 so I’m not too optimistic about No Strings Attached. However, NSA has much less competition than FWB and will probably do better box office.
A_Loco: Open Road opened in late August 2009 in just a handful of markets — I reviewed it for Variety out of Houston — and for all I know, it was already available at Redbox kiosks by the time Crazy Heart began to roll out theatrically. A shame: Bridges was excellent in the film.
Things I liked about True Grit:
-Use of landscape: ok, the locations weren’t exactly Oklahoma, but I’m a sucker for any movie that shows a credible story taking place in honest to god American nature and not on a soundstage or some greenscreened digital disneyland.
-Mattie Ross.
-Delightful language.
-Dense but lucid dialogs that unfold like chess matches, testing the intelligence and will of the participants.
-The moral interrogation of Mattie’s willful project to not only track down Tom Chaney but have him tried and hung in Arkansas, against the classic western backdrop of moral chaos in the geographic spread of a society.
-The credible sense of that society as an unfolding, dynamic system of economic, social, legal relations comprising well-dressed, educated lawyers, complacent businessmen, innkeepers, convicts, asian grocers, drunken marshals, native american merchants, outlaws, etc.
-Mattie is a “problem” and LaBoeuf and Cogburn have to figure out how to deal with her. To my taste Bridges was about 10% too cartoonish as the gruff gunslinger, but the understated way in which he comes to respect and care for her is beautiful and moving.
-Matt Damon as a classic Coen’s character that is both hilarious in his Walter Sobchak-like verbal obsessions but at the same time a three dimensional person.
-The funny parochial rivalry between Cogburn and LaBoeuf.
-An epic quest narrative that doesn’t hit us over the head with its thousands faces plot points.
-Rock solid storytelling with tons of memorable moments, from Mattie ambushing Cogburn in the outhouse to Cogburn’s deadpan evaluation of his attack on the gang, to Cogburn’s drunkenly self-pitying but amusing “I bow out, I bow out,” to Mattie’s clever but desperate exploitation of the differing interests of Chaney and Ned Pepper, to LaBoeuf holding his breath for a rifle shot and so on.
-Just top shelf film making from all involved. Terrific locations, sets, costumes, acting, editing, everything.
Things I didn’t like:
-Dumb snake scene at the end
-Somewhat limited color palate.
So that’s my view. How dare you compare it to The Town. Check Scott Mendelson on The Town to see how I feel about that movie.
Pretty sure its working title was Edison until it went straight to DVD as Edison Force, despite also having Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey.
A quick check reveals The Open Road hits select theaters August 28, 2009, and hit DVD November 17, 2009.
FWB has Richard Jenkins, Patricia Clarkson, Woody Harrelson and Rashida Jones in the supporting cast. NSA has Greta Gerwig, Kevin Kline, Mindy Kaling and Lake Bell. I can’t say I have faith in either movie being good – I hate the premise – but just think, if either movie had been made ten years ago, it would have starred Freddie Prinze Jr.
Joe I agree with you. The movie practically begs for more Bridges.He was excellent.
But it’s hard to get energized about a feature film that positions Timberlake in a leading role. What do you think ?
Torpid …what a detailed description. Now I have to watch the movie again from your prospective.
I don’t get the Timberlake animosity here and elsewhere. I’m beginning to think he’s one of those actors — like Rob Lowe in his superstar days, or even Alec Baldwin not so very long ago — who simply inspires instinctive dislike in some circles. OK, he ain’t Olivier. But as I said in my Open Road review: “Timberlake appealingly conveys the right measures of open-faced sincerity, long-simmering resentment and tongue-tied yearning…” Could another actor have played the role better? Probably. But Timberlake rose to the occasion. And I even believed him as a baseball player.
Good post torpid. Well stated. However, one of your points made no sense.
Mattie was a problem and they had to deal with her.
Well duh. thats not exactly the best example of the coens exceptional skill. Thats the basic plot of the movie. A teenage girl riding with lawmen to fimd her fathers killer.
That would be akin to raving about black swan because nina has a fragile psyche.
I guess I’m saying I liked the way that the “problem” is handled in the story, with LaBoeuf’s desire to treat her like a misbehaving child and Cogburn reluctantly treating her as an equal.
Unfortunately I haven’t seen The Social Network but I think Timberlake (whose music I could not care less about) is a very talented actor. He’s quite good in Alpha Dog and Black Snake Moan. Those are supporting roles though. Haven’t seen Open Road so not sure if he’s got leading man chops.
Torpid, gotcha. That makes sense
No Strings Attached YEP YEP.
Portman shows her feet on the poster. HOT.
Too bad she’s on her way to Hotness Jail for being pregnant.
I don’t think of Timberlake as an actor but a media hog. I guess I can’t forgive him for pimpin’ Mickey D’s not too long ago.
If you held being a media hog against a performer/entertainer, who would be left to like?
Jeff Bridges does a million car commercial voiceovers.
Guess christian can’t forgive him either.
I think lex got his schtick stolen from redlettermedia. Mr plinkett, thy name be lex…
What does that mean? I don’t get it, what’s Red Letter Media? Just googled it and can’t make heads or tails.
RedLettermedia.com, the guy who does those two hour reviews of star wars movies. Youve never seen those?
Damon is the underestimated performance of the year. Seriously. See it again. Or just let it sit with you for a while.
As for the snakes, a specific reference to Ezekiel and the dry bones.
Joe are you suggesting that there were people outside of Aquanet slathered females who actually liked Rob Lowe in the eighties? I always thought he was universally dispised until he got to the less demanding confines of television (where he is less of a problem since he mainly takes supporting roles and stays out of the way).
Now for Baldwin, I always thought it was the opposite, that no one could really explain why someone so good looking and charismatic could not find their footing in features (and someone could solve the same mystery about Andy Garcia while their at it). Baldwin seems to have landed well with Wilford Brimley sized roles in features, 30 Rock, and his annual SNL pilgramige, but man in 1990 it seemed like he was going to straight to the top (of course that would have been right alongside Costner and Eddie Murphy but Baldwin crapped out much earlier)
Damon only seems comfortable playing understated roles. I think that’s the reason that he doesn’t get enough credit for his acting ability. His performance in the Informant was nothing short of comic brilliance but was so subtle I don’t think it was appreciated.
RE: the snakes, I’m just saying that 1) Snakes don’t slither up to people and bite them in the hand. This myth empowers yokels to go around shooting/beheading snakes 2) It’s the winter, snakes are cold-blooded and they would be, you know, torpid.
Not a big deal obviously.
I don’t know the hibernation patterns for rattlesnakes but they did mention earlier in the movie that it was too cold to worry about snakes. And they were huddled together in the corpse until she disturbed them, so its not like they were out and about.
I think if Mattie fell directly on the snakes, like falling or getting somehow wedged on top of the corpse, yeah, she might get bitten. But I don’t buy the snake slithering over and daintily putting its fangs in her hand.
Not to get too technical.
c’mon, what would a movie website be if we didn’t go back and forth over minutia.
I don’t think they slithered over, I am pretty sure she accidently pulled them on top of her reaching for the knife. Damn, now I am just going to have to go see it again just to be sure.
When the snakes started spilling out of the corpse, it felt like something out of “Indiana Jones,” and then I remembered: Spielberg has an executive producer’s credit on “True Grit,” which maybe means he gets to make a suggestion for the ending that makes it into the movie (a la “Paranormal Activity”).
And you left out 3) Little girls never hire grizzly cowboys for revenge in the Old West.
Why not?
She’s 14, not 7.
Plus he’s not a cowboy. He’s a poorly paid lawman in tenuous society.
And everyone keeps saying revenge. She wants justice not revenge. She doesn’t just want him dead, she wants him to hang, specifically for her father’s murder. She wants the order promised to her by God and man, when something is removed from one side of the ledger something must be added to the other side. Mattie is just demanding the accounts be balanced.
It would be more accurate if the posters read: Restitution.
If george lucas had a producer credit, hed have cgi prarie dogs as pets
the snakes incident is in the book, pretty much directly used in the movie …. Mattie awakens the snakes, and the snake sleepslithers over to her hand, thinks it’s a lab rat and takes a nibble
And Christian, Little girls only ever hire grizzled cowboys in the Old West. They can never pay the whole Randolph Scott fare, Lee Marvin comes so much cheaper. 20% off if the facial hair has more than a weeks growth (another 5 if its stained with tobaccy juice).
I wish a 17-year-old girl would hire me to take her on an adventure.
HEYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Mattie does want revenge. In the book there is a conversation where they discuss what a true Christian would do. It’s not what Mattie chooses to do and she pays a price for it.
And Mattie had to pay an extra 5% if the cowboy is seen in stained longjohns.
I love when people get irritated at literary source material as an issue in an adaptation. You take it out, people flip. You leave it in, it’s an issue. Blah.
The only thing I didn’t like about the snakes in TRUE GRIT was how CGI they looked. Other than that, they’re the perfect end-cap to a movie that is brutally honest about how life just ain’t fair. The limited color palate also ties into this; no black, no white. Just opaque reality.
Also…is anyone going to Palm Springs International Film Fest this weeknd? I’ll be there from Sunday-Wednesday covering for Film Threat. Looks like a pretty cool lineup with some awesome special events! Honors for Affleck, Portman, O. Russell, Boyle and others and a Monte Helman section as well!
And….
Here’s the trailer for our documentary WORST IN SHOW:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiTS1EdBbbI
We just got accepted to the Oxford (MS) film fest and the San Francisco Indie Fest as well. Hopefully more to come.
Redlettermedia can take a freakin Stefano off a cliff and i will applaud. I just love that they lack the ability to use blip and thus make jackall from their thunderous applause from their adoring yokels.
That aside; why on earth do people have a hate on for the Town? Don Draper and the man in black leading an fbi taskforce is enough but you add Renner and you have one awesome film.
Holy shit, was that a Stefano DiMera/Days of Our Lives reference?
IO’s arcane cultural completism knows no bounds.
JOHN BLACK POWER.
Lex, that right there is why I would give you a birthday gift card!
I liked the town. I just didn’t think this was award caliber stuff. I liked true grit but I think it’s being overhyped. Good film, yes. Great film, not so much
After some reflection, I don’t think there is a best picture this year…first time I’ve ever felt that. There are some fine and even good movies…but not one that I think deserves the award. (The closest for me would be Inception…but I think I’m in the minority). Perhaps they should just leave it at 10 nominations and lets hold out hope for a better 2011
MACHETE.
Never read the book, so I didn’t know the snakes were verbatim. The mood, though, of that scene? Strangely Spielberg-ian and, if only for a second, quite unlike the Coens (IMO).
any new DP/30’s coming ?
Somebody’s jonesin’.
YOU SAY PARTY ‘Lonely’s Lunch – music video
a bunch of guys in weird masks chasing down a girl
in India
nice directing and some good acting .. so why haven’t
they become huge stars yet ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X6yuW40iw0
Sanj keeps going this far afield, I’m bringing back the all-caps vag rants! Anybody miss them?
LexG – did you see the music video ? the girl is doing some good acting.
in my continued mental review of True Grit and some of the issue i had with it that people seem to gloss over.
Josh Brolin. How long was he in the movie for? What did we really learn about Tom Cheney? Now quick, someone tell me he wasn’t developed very well in the book either. Though we did get to watch him die and fall off a cliff Wile E. Coyote style.
And while i liked the ending, i wondered why the film opened with the lament over the death of her father and ended with the lament over Rooster Cogburn, a man she knew for a few weeks.
The snakes thing may be something from the book, but it takes away and sense of weight from the execution of Tom Cheney. There is no moment to mull. Did it have any affect on her? As an audience, did we get a payoff.
The same general argument can be made of No Country For Old Men. People questioned Moss’ character being killed off camera. The whole time he’s surviving these encounters and when the end comes the audience only sees the aftermath. I can reconcile why that worked for that particular story. But having the vile villain of the piece be so inconsequential to the resolution felt like a disservice. I’ll give credit to Barry Pepper who felt more like a proper villain.
And maybe Tom Cheney wasn’t supposed to be a proper villain. Maybe he was an Ike Clanton. The bottom feeder. But his death meant nothing in the movie. Like NCFOM, it felt like an afterthought.
Tom Cheney didn’t matter. And i can see the alternate side to the argument. “Tom Cheney didn’t matter.” He was the device to get the story moving. He was the blind obsession of Mattie.
As a character, as a villain, as the catharsis, Tom Cheney felt inconsequential to me.
While overall I love True Grit (for me The Town is easily the most overrated movie of the year; well-directed but the writing is weak and most of it feels extremely familiar), I agree that Tom Cheney feels a little too inconsequential in the end. He’s barely in the movie and I didn’t feel much when he is disposed of. Maybe that’s beside the point though. Pepper is great and in some ways he does feel more like the proper villain.
Anghus I see what you’re saying and I do think the climax is a bit flawed in that regard. What I like about the Chaney thing though is the abrupt way Mattie confronts him and how he’s not some criminal monster but a lost a broken man with only a bit of bravado left. I thought Brolin was really good in that scene, where Mattie is forced to shoot not “her father’s murderer” but this living, breathing man. But maybe the movie could have been a few minutes longer to develop Chaney a bit more.
There are things I don’t like about No Country, but I tend to like it when the story takes a detour around the expected climax. In this case the narrative moved from a material to spiritual plain befitting the apocalyptic intent of the story. Moss, like Mattie, wanted this showdown with Shigur, wanted this commando confrontation, and he gets clipped by the mexicans like a bit of human refuse, just another drug war gang bang.
lol…. Lex, Christine and torpid. Can’t tell you how much I am enjoying ur 17yr old girl gng on adventure discussion… Keep the good humor going.
The Chaney “capture” and more importantly, confrontation fits into the overall theme of the film- the same thing as NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. Shit happens. It happens when you expect it to or when you elast expect it. It’s not fair, it’s random.
In the entire landscape of TRUE GRIT they chase Chaney, just missing him. Then completely by accident and happenstance he’s found.
I think this is a matter of expectations. Would anybody be bitching about Chaney’s screen time if he’d been played by one of the anonymous, glorious weirdos the Coens tend to cast in tiny bit parts? The complaints are probably because it’s Brolin and he’s on the poster and other advertising materials.
SDP: Exactly. In the original, he’s played by Jeff Corey, who was billed much further down in the cast list; Corey was a beloved character actor (and teacher), but certainly not a star.
Youre actually justifying a haphazzard third act with “shit happens”.
That is your defense? “its random”
Wow.
Not only am I defending it, I’m astounded you don’t get that. The Coen’s have long been knee deep in the nihilist/randomness camp. Guess you don’t pay much attention, huh?
I saw Josh Brolin speak after a screening of NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN where he talked about people griping about how his characters death was shown off-screen. He relayed a story about how he was speaking to his mom on her cell phone when she crashed and died. He obviously didn’t see it or expect it. Shit happens.
“Shit Happens” is the theme of a film, not an excuse to cap narrative or character. And since the Coens already did that well enough in NCFOM, why do it again?
I think people get it Don, it’s just that not everyone thinks it works in True Grit. I get it, and those defending it make valid points, but for me it works better in NCFOM. True Grit is a very different film, even if it contains certain elements associated with the Coen Brothers.
Good pont, Paul. I think it works better in BIG LEBOWSKI as well. But TRUE GRIT is pretty true to the book and the original movie but apparently those aren’t valid points either so, what can you do. Shit happens.
I do agree with the thought that if it wasn’t Josh Brolin, (in TG) people wouldn’t have really noticed or cared.
You might be right regarding Brolin. Seems very possible. I don’t fault them for wanting to stay true to the book. I just think it’s a minor flaw in a movie I otherwise love.
interesting that the BAFTA list has hailee in the lead actress category
wasn’t ‘shit happens’ also the point of A Serious Man?
I mean, i understand when used effectively like NCFOM, but doesn’t this kind of expose a major flaw in the Coens as Directors if you can just gloss over every poor development with SHIT HAPPENS? Or if you can point out a half dozen Coen films with random happenstance as opposed to well written and directed development?
And isn’t it an insult to the Coens if you can break down their entire career to SHIT HAPPENS?
What is sounds like isweak grandstanding from people overlooking flaws and glossing over weak filmmaking because ‘it’s the Coen Brothers’. Everything must have a purpose. You know, sometimes poor character development and a convenient wrap up can just be mistakes.
Shit Happens….
the more i say it, the more ridiculous it seems as a legitimate argument in an intelligent film discussion.
You brought a real weak argument to the table Don.
But hey, shit happens, right?
At their best it’s a more refined pessimism than “shit happens” obviously.
torpid, I get it. I think im just feeling slightly irked at reducing a complex argument to “shit happens” as a defense. Then feeling irked at having complex discusions reduced to a bumper sticker.
If you want to call shyamalan “mr twist”, I get it. I think the Coen Brothers are a little more nuanced.
i haven’t seen the grit yet so i can’t comment on the nature of that movie, but i see don’s point that the random, both cruel & kind nature of existence is a major recurring theme in just about every coen story, having been written (adapted or original) and directed with that distinct sensibility as inherent to the bros’ film-making style. they delicately stage the theatre of the absurd in a variety of contexts, and it may ‘work’ for people to varying degrees, but i believe this particular predilection is intentional rather than a way to mask flaws in their work such as poor character development, or simply for convenience.
one reason i say this is the simple fact that the bros are so adept at character and meticulous detail, so much so that that i tend to believe if a character is portrayed a particular way or has an abrupt demise, it’s not because of an inability to develop or impart with meaning but rather an unwillingness to do so, for whatever reason as per their grand staging of the random universe. i can certainly see how this might annoy people and goodness knows it’s astonished/annoyed the living crap out of me at times, but if you go into a coen movie believing or expecting ‘everything must have a purpose’, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.
perhaps this style is a strange bedfellow for what sounds like a more formal, traditional coen adaptation of ‘true grit’, but however cheney is portrayed i’m having a hard time believing it was because the bros couldn’t be bothered with character development or needed a convenient wrap-up, that it’s anything less than intentional. that a person doesn’t care for they way it’s handled is certainly fair enough, but because one doesn’t care for a film-making choice doesn’t mean it was a ‘mistake’ on the part of the film-makers.
(and why is it ‘everything must have a purpose?’ much of what happens in life has no intrinsic purpose or meaning, it’s just what we make of it that matters in our short time here. this existential approach is one of the aspects of the coen’s style i find so unique and delightful and weird, i hope they never change in that regard)
First off leah, I love the coens, they make for great discussions.
However…
Tom Chaney had purpose, at least to Mattie. His cruel act set Mattie out on this mission of personal sacrifice. And yet in the film his death is meaningless. To the audience his portrayal is brief and unimportant. To Mattie it ends up being so brief and unimportant that she is never able to reflect upon taking a life.
Not everything has to have purpose. But I think there is so little time between Chaneys introduction and cartoonish demise that there is almost no point for him being there. She could have shot him dead when she runs into him at the creek.
if Tom Chaneys execution doesnt matter to Mattie, or if the filmmakers dont give her ample time to show the impact, and if the audience has no investment in Chaney, nothing to go on other than the off camera murder of Matties father and a bumbling persona, then its like it didnt even happen. It has no ressonance to character or audience.
Thats a conscious choice?
To what point does that choice serve. To the story or to the audience?
I’m with Anghus, but I think you can find a through-line from the densely interwoven of Miller’s/Arizona, to Fargo/O’Brother/Lebowski where each felt as if the Coen’s boomerang was coming in the third and never arrived, to Man Who Wasn’t There/NCFOM, which felt like attempts to deconstruct their earlier work, especially No Country, which is the antithesis of Miller’s Crossing on every level.
I like the latter material, but nothing for me has topped the first time I saw Miller’s. I think they’re keenly aware a portion of their audience is expecting/wanting a throwback to the early days, so they’re intentionally fucking with those preconceptions.
“And yet in the film his death is meaningless. To the audience his portrayal is brief and unimportant…”
to the audence? but anghus, the problem with this statement is that to YOU his death is meaningless and his portrayal may feel brief and unimportant, but you can’t speak for ‘the audience’, comprised of a vast number of diverse individuals, each with their own interior mindscape that they bring to the interpretation of a film. you can only speak for you, not ‘the audience’.
i’ve read a bit here and there, reactions to the film (including people’s thoughts here on the blog) and my impression is that not everybody thinks chaney is brief and unimportant to the story (tho obviously some do, stella’s boy for one seems to be on the same page), i’ve definitely read positive things about the depiction of the cheney character in the context of the film, that he serves his purpose well. i completely understand that his role brings down the film in your esteem, i can totally relate to this feeling, but you can’t speak for ‘the audience’, just yourself. what is a flaw, even a glaring one, to one person is not necessarly so for the next.
leah.
True Grit is roughly 1 hour and 50 minutes long.
Here’s a timeline from the academy screener.
1 hour 19 minutes: Tom Chaney shows up on screen.
1 hour 29 minutes: Tom Chaney hit by the butt of a gun and knocked unconsciouss.
1 hour 32 minutes: Tom hits LeBouff (Matt Damon) in the head with a rock. Mattie shoots him about 30 seconds after that.
So the murderer of Mattie’s father, the reason for the hunt. The motivation behind this journey is given about 11 minutes of screen time. And the last minute he does nothing other than hit a guy with a rock and get shot before falling off the cliff like Wile E Coyote.
10 minutes.
“i’ve read a bit here and there, reactions to the film (including people’s thoughts here on the blog) and my impression is that not everybody thinks chaney is brief and unimportant to the story.”
10 minutes. He’s brief. Unimportant to the story can be debated. 10 minutes out of an hour and 50 minutes is brief.
I don’t think that part can be argued.
I saw True Grit and yet I’m cringing at the lack of Spoilers Warnings. I’d say turn away but by now the fun has probably already been taken away. **At Your Own Risk**
A couple of things regarding the snakes…I thought it was one snake that slithered on her and another one that struck her hand that made it seem a bit more “realistic.” Next, because the snakes were mentioned more than once, I knew at some point we’d see snakes. That seemed obvious. Good catch, David, about dry bones/snakes of Ezekiel. I remember her mentioning Ez. early on and got the seeming futility she was undertaking, much like the “son of man” had to do in speaking to the dry bones. When I first heard it, I thought it was a bit odd of a choice to reference out of the Bible as I would always relate Ezekiel to “restoration,” and not the film’s theme of “justice.”
There did seem to be sort of an object shift. Bridges character doing this noble act almost out of need for redemption that I won’t say didn’t fit, especially if being part of the source, but compared to what had been played out in the film it seemed a bit out of balance.
I had no problem w/whatshisface’s screen time or contribution for the weightiness delivered. I’d say the river confrontation between him and the girl was as big a moment as you could get. The what would you do if you saw him that she really wasn’t prepared to answer. Wouldn’t it be the equivalent of the character of Oz in Wizard of Oz? I’m sorry, I kinda forget what was being argued but that kinda sprung to mind.
I can’t speak for the “audience” but Chaney, while a great bit by Brolin and played unexpectedly, ends up a stockish villain by the end; his quick entry and exit made the climax feel…truncated. That could be the point, but the movie plays it maybe too close to the vest.
Go see the King’s Speech. That’s one hell of a movie!
yikes anghus, i think i made it pretty clear i hadn’t seen the movie yet because i said “i haven’t seen the grit yet”, so you could have just said, “he’s on screen for 10 mins so i don’t think brief can be argued’ and fair enuf, but a rather detailed blow-by-blow spoiler of chaney’s moments on screen was a bit uncalled for. thankfully i’ve read the book and remember it fairly well so your spoilers aren’t a complete fuckarow for me but i hope nobody else who hasn’t seen it just read your post.
and i get it, you don’t think chaney’s part was big enough as the ‘motivator’ of the story. others agree and disagree. i’m not arguing it one way or another because i haven’t seen it, my point was merely that don’s summation of ‘shit happens’ as the coen’s sensibility isn’t completely off base for me, and that you can’t say ‘the audience’ thought something because you personally had a certain reaction. past that, i got nothing to debate.
To those screaming about spoilers…
it’s a movie based on a 40+ year old book
which also had a movie made about it 40+ years ago
which has now been made into a movie that’s been out for a couple of weeks
which is a major award contender
which is being discussed on a film blog
which is known for in depth discussions on award caliber films
SHOCKED! You say…..
sigh.
I actually agree with what you said earlier Anghus, about the Coens’ philosophy being a sticking point throughout their career. But, it’s there and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. There’s alot more to it than “shit happens,” that was my bad for just tossing that out like that.
This whole conversation has reminded me to get this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Coen-Brothers-Popular-Culture/dp/081312526X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1294519909&sr=1-1
“…which has now been made into a movie that’s been out for a couple of weeks…”
well no, anghus, not here actually, or many other places in the world for that matter, and i think it’s fair to say americans are not the exclusive commenters – or readers – of this blog. and even a film that’s been out for ‘a couple of weeks’ is still extremely new and can most certainly be spoiled, not everybody is able to see a film immediately in the first days of release.
nobody is “screaming”; this isn’t a ‘true grit’ thread, it’s a byob and you’ve posted minutia such as who hits whom with a gun and a rock to unconsciousness and who kills whom and how, and you think you haven’t gone a bit overboard with unnecessary spoilers? not everybody has read ‘true grit’, and just because one may have seen hathaway’s grit doesn’t mean the coen’s grit is unspoilable, there are undoubtedly differences in the details of the adaptation. so perhaps a bit of consideration for those reading a byob who haven’t seen a very new movie – in this case ‘true grit’ – would be appreciated.