mensachicken
Member
Registered: Oct 2000
Location:
Posts: 443 |
quote:
Originally posted by bkbk
No, no no Narnia -- you're right & your friends are wrong.
It's heresy to say, I know, but the sad truth is THE COHEN BROTHERS JUST NEVER ARRIVED.
In fact, let me list their "breakthroug film":
"Blood Simple"
...as one of the worst, too.
In fact, just stick ALL of their films on it. They SUCK. They're immature, self-centered and self-indulgent.
(But not in a witty way, like Woody Allen when he's "on." The Cohens have NEVER been on.)
I doubt they'll ever have a hit.
Sorry folks, calls 'em like I sees 'em.
(Let the flames begin.)
hate to disagree, but you have no idea what you're talking about. 
the coens, more often then not, are master storytellers. blood simple, miller's crossing, barton fink, and raising arizona are all masterpieces and among the best of their various genres.
without trying to sound presumptous or pretensious, i'll say you don't enjoy their films because you don't have a knowledge of film history or what makes drama work.
for instance, blood simple. you refer to this as their breakthrough film. well, it's their first film, so i don't know what you're suggesting they're breaking through.
regardless, there is something about this film that is not present in any other film i've ever seen. there is a concept in drama called "superior position". it's what the storyteller gives the audience but keeps from the protaganist. for instance, YOU know the bad guy is hiding in the closet. the hero does not. when he enters the room, you fear for him. the filmmaker has granted you superior position. we've seen this in thousands of movies, right?
however, watch blood simple again and pay attention to superior position. what is unique about it? well, it is made up entirely of superior position. the audience is, at all times, aware of everything that is going on while the characters are never aware of what is going on. to be able to pull this off requires a tremendous amount of skill. why? because each of the characters' realities (what each of them thinks is happening) makes sense from their point of view. you can see what they think is happening and why they think they're happening. and, from their pov, they are "correct". and each of the characters has a different interpretation of the events. but in "reality", none of them are correct. masterful.
miller's crossing is, in my opinion, the greatest gangster movie ever made. i've seen it easily 30 times and it keeps my interest with each viewing. the characters are complex; the plot is intricate. whenever someone tells me that this film is boring or that it sucked i always ask if they paid attention. they say yes. then i ask them to tell me the three characters who are involved in a love triangle and they say verna, tom, and leo. then i ask who the three characters involved in the other love triangle are. at which point they can't answer. cause they weren't paying attention.  usually they'll watch it again, realize what is happening in the plot, and love the film.
barton fink is a wonderful movie. in addition to having a tremendous amount to say about creativity, the film manages to communicate complex ideas with its subtle themes. layered textures about filmmaking/jews/the holocaust/art vs. commerce/responsibilities of the artist/etc... though i'll admit that this film is not for everyone, it definitely has an audience.
though i'll admit that the coens last two efforts left me hanging (o brother where art thou and the big lebowski), to say that the coens have never arrived is to seriously underestimate their achievements in film and what will no doubt be a lasting legacy in film history.
i find this thread kind of interesting not because people's subjectivity regarding "a good film" is so varied, but because the subjectivity of "good" is so varied. for me, for a film to be crap, it has to have potential. to call, for instance, a movie like battlefield earth or dungeons & dragons bad is stating the obvious. however, neither one of them dissapointed me cause i was expecting nothing from either and actually laughed a lot at both. however, a movie like traffic, for instance, which has, one could argue, some responsibilities, is a piece of crap because it fails on so many levels (particularly plot and character). i'd rather rewatch dungeons and dragons than traffic. however, if i have to rewatch, i'd go with miller's crossing or one of the coens' other films.
mc
Last edited by mensachicken on 06-10-2001 at 08:20 AM
|
06-10-2001 08:11 AM
)Yeah, that *was* bad. I still watched the whole thing though, because it was soooo bad, I couldn't help it. I liked the part when those airhead dudes were trying to explain "Spam" to the travelers. I mostly remember happy smiley faces everywhere. ~*shudder*~
Email This Page to Someone! |
Receive updates to this thread
]