There was a great series of articles in New York magazine a week ago about The Coen brothers, Wes Anderson, Sidney Lumet, Noah Baumbach (sp?), and Julian Schnabel (sp?). Here's one about the Coens and I'll post the ones about Anderson, Lumet, Baumbach, and Schnabel later.
Coen Heads
The mind-melded Coen brothers have made a brilliant fetish out of favoring form over content. But now, with No Country for Old Men, they may have discovered they donגt have to choose one over the other.
By David Edelstein
The first nine-tenths of Joel and Ethan Coenגs No Country for Old Menגthe centerpiece of this yearגs New York Film Festivalגis the best thing theyגve ever done, with the possible exception of The Big Lebowski as seen for the third time, stoned. (No Countryגs last tenth Iגm not so sure about, but weגll get to that.) The Coensג return to the festival is a glorious omen. The NYFF made the brothers indie darlings in 1984 with the screening of their first film, Blood Simple. Six years later, Millerגs Crossing gave the opening-night glitterati an unexpected barrage of rat-a-tat-tat and splatter. Now, seventeen years after that, No Country for Old Men throws into stark (wide-screen, deep-focus, emotionally devastating) relief their evolution from snotty art-film postmodern jokesters to snotty art-film postmodern jokesters ג¦ with soul. This one is Blood Subtle.
Before I continue: Writing about the Coensגand mining their oeuvre for Big Ideasגis a sure way of looking like an ass. When the Village Voiceגs J. Hoberman contended that the climax of Millerגs Crossing was a Holocaust allegory, the Coens didnגt know what the hell he was talking about. And when I interviewed them for American Film in 1986, on the occasion of their second film, Raising Arizona, they greeted my pointy-headed critical theories with the look of the Sundance Kid hearing a cockamamy new scheme: גYou just keep thinkinג, Butch. Thatגs what youגre good at.ג Their cinematographer at the time, Barry Sonnefeld, told me, גTopics are incredibly unimportant to themגitגs structure and style and words. If you ask them for their priorities, theyגll tell you script, editing, coverage, and lighting.ג Later, I pressed Joel for his thoughts on the movieגs ostensible subjectגprocreation, infertility, child-rearingגand he squirmed and smoked and finally said a babyגs face is גfodder,ג like a gunshot with blood running down someoneגs shirt: something you can play with in surprising (and perverse) ways. גFodderג sounds a little glib. Iגd prefer a more highbrow formulation: The Coens take found objects and arrange them for maximum disjunction.
At first, those found objects were movie conventions. The camera that travels smoothly along the bar in Blood Simple and ostentatiously rises and falls to avoid a slumped barfly was a cin
Coen Heads
Moderator: drizzle
-
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 2:41 pm
boo your anderson hate. boo all anderson haters. people are finding a flaw or two & arguing for total dismissal. instead as with most films, where people are like, is it worth watching? against an anderson film people generalize & find a flaw or two so as to dismiss the whole thing. this sort of top-down haterism is actually flattering to the films, though.Trademark wrote:great read, I love the Coens, in a sea of "what's/who's to come next" in film. ... it is great to know I'll get to see at least 10-15 more of their films before I'm forced to catch Royal Tenenbaums 15......
icesickle, thanks for revitalizing this forum it has been dead for a few days.
-
- Posts: 8819
- Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:50 pm
- Location: Humboldt
Man, you are one of the few people I've found who agrees with me about this. "Rushmore" is just a great movie head to toe, one of my all time favorites actually. Bill Murray is next level. It was filmed in Houston too.StormShadow wrote:Rushmore and royal tenenbaums are pretty fantastic imo
life aquatic and bottle rocket are kinda trash though
Tenenbaums is good fun as well, I'm actually waiting on the criterion to arrive at my house any day now.
"Life Aquatic" was okay, some good parts, but didn't blow me away at all.
"Bottle Rocket" on the other hand is an overrated piece of shit. It's one of those movies kids love to name drop cause it was early Anderson. Fuck that, its mostly thumbs down.
[i]Styles can be applied quickly to selected text.[/i]
-
- Awesome Vatican Assassin
- Posts: 55482
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 2:55 pm
- Location: where people throw ducks at balloons and nothing is as it seems
am i like the only person in the world who doesn't like rushmore?
http://www.steadybloggin.com - some of these are my thoughts yo
Bottle Rocket - 5/10 (Wacksauce and I think people overrate it for the reasons jamrage said)
Rushmore - 10/10 (Classic film. Nuf said.)
Royal Tenenbaums - 8/10 (Not nearly as good as Rushmore and has some filler, but still packed with classic moments...particularly those involving the interchanges between Hackman and Glover and Hackman and Stiller.)
Life Aquatic - 7.5/10 (A great film that's underrated by the Anderson haters. Not classic by any means, but it has some great moments (when Murray gives a tour of the whole boat, the ending, the boat party).
Rushmore - 10/10 (Classic film. Nuf said.)
Royal Tenenbaums - 8/10 (Not nearly as good as Rushmore and has some filler, but still packed with classic moments...particularly those involving the interchanges between Hackman and Glover and Hackman and Stiller.)
Life Aquatic - 7.5/10 (A great film that's underrated by the Anderson haters. Not classic by any means, but it has some great moments (when Murray gives a tour of the whole boat, the ending, the boat party).