What's The Deal With The Buffs?
...when you are even the most self-appointed buff of films, there are certain standards that other self-annointed's will privately judge you by. Sometimes, admitting that you "like this widely panned series" or saying that so-and-so's explode-a-thon's are your "guilty pleasure" will earn you the Raised Eyebrow Of Disdain award. Depending on one's own emotional makeup, this might either make one cringe in shame never to mention Cowboys & Aliens again or suddenly begin a new wave of ironic bad movie fandom that could potentially earn one Koresh-like powers in certain circles.
On the flipside, when engaged in a deep, meaningful conversation of the cinema with starving artist intellectual giants in skin tight Uncle Bob's Pancake Emporium ringer neck t-shirts, you best come correct with your A-list of cool movies that you worship. Again, weather dependent, a once cool director may now suck ass so be aware. Spike Jonze may or may not suck right now, depending on how "brilliant" Wes Anderson currently is at the time. In my past conversations and observances online, the Coen Brothers fall into the category of director(s) that you should automatically worship.
For my money, the Coen Brothers are hit or miss to extremely mediocre. Occasionally, their films are genius. No Country For Old Men is a modern classic that deserved all of the accolades that it received. A lesser heralded entry of theirs that completely unearthed my being was The Man Who Wasn't There. When it comes to a film of theirs that I would scream from the mountaintops that everyone should experience at least one time, that one would be it.
But then, there is True Grit, a remake of a film I never wanted to watch in the first place. I have made attempts to sit through a few John Wayne movies in the past and yeah...they aren't very good. In my estimation, John Wayne is perfect at playing himself, but had the range of someone with zero range. He had the emotional flexibility of a telephone pole. So, when it comes to the remake, I don't see the appeal. It was slow, tedious and not very Western-y. Many good westerns are slower to get going, but they payoff big in the end. Once Upon A Time In The West, Fistful Of Dynamite and Open Range all spring to mind.
Or (prepare the blasphemy helmets), everyone else's seemingly favorite Coen Brother's romp The Big Lebowski. I will grant that there were certain chemicals in that mixture that had major potential. John Turturro's character was genius and he barely made five minutes of screen time. John Goodman's character was noticeably interesting at times as well. But, for my money, The Dude ruins that movie for me. Easily one of the most annoying characters I have ever seen on film. People hold get togethers built around The Dude. I do not get it. So yes, I hate The Big Lebowski.
Which brings me to Fargo. I have somewhat avoided this film for a long time due to the hit-or-miss nature of the Coen Brother's films. For every Millers Crossing, there's a snorefest such as Burn After Reading (if you are asking yourself why I have seen so many of their movies, you are smart to ask a question that I do not have a good answer for). I was not certain what to expect with Fargo. It has been so precipitously hyped over the years that I felt certain that it would never reach the plateau.
After sitting through Fargo for the first time today, I am a bit unsure what to think. On one hand, there is some excellent cinematography in Fargo. Some perfectly simple shots that truly convey that depth of loneliness in many of the characters' souls. But the accents? Was that supposed to be a put on? The accents were so syrupy thick and cartoon-like that I found myself laughing at dialogue that was hardly funny. Someone would utter "Open the door." or "Ooo, is that Arby's?" and I felt as if I were watching Tom & Jerry. I have heard accusations of that accent permeating these regions, but are they truly THAT blatant?
Overall, I felt that Fargo fell right into the area of Coen Brother's films such as Barton Fink where I neither loved it or hated it. It had some great qualities mixed with some laughable ones. But then there are the fanboys that worship at the altar (I should know because I am fanboy to many things). I suppose my question then is this: seriously, what is the exact thing or things that make the Coen Brothers amongst the upper tier of American filmmaking? What puts them alongside Scorsese, Kubrick and even Spielberg?
On the flipside, when engaged in a deep, meaningful conversation of the cinema with starving artist intellectual giants in skin tight Uncle Bob's Pancake Emporium ringer neck t-shirts, you best come correct with your A-list of cool movies that you worship. Again, weather dependent, a once cool director may now suck ass so be aware. Spike Jonze may or may not suck right now, depending on how "brilliant" Wes Anderson currently is at the time. In my past conversations and observances online, the Coen Brothers fall into the category of director(s) that you should automatically worship.
But then, there is True Grit, a remake of a film I never wanted to watch in the first place. I have made attempts to sit through a few John Wayne movies in the past and yeah...they aren't very good. In my estimation, John Wayne is perfect at playing himself, but had the range of someone with zero range. He had the emotional flexibility of a telephone pole. So, when it comes to the remake, I don't see the appeal. It was slow, tedious and not very Western-y. Many good westerns are slower to get going, but they payoff big in the end. Once Upon A Time In The West, Fistful Of Dynamite and Open Range all spring to mind.
Or (prepare the blasphemy helmets), everyone else's seemingly favorite Coen Brother's romp The Big Lebowski. I will grant that there were certain chemicals in that mixture that had major potential. John Turturro's character was genius and he barely made five minutes of screen time. John Goodman's character was noticeably interesting at times as well. But, for my money, The Dude ruins that movie for me. Easily one of the most annoying characters I have ever seen on film. People hold get togethers built around The Dude. I do not get it. So yes, I hate The Big Lebowski.
After sitting through Fargo for the first time today, I am a bit unsure what to think. On one hand, there is some excellent cinematography in Fargo. Some perfectly simple shots that truly convey that depth of loneliness in many of the characters' souls. But the accents? Was that supposed to be a put on? The accents were so syrupy thick and cartoon-like that I found myself laughing at dialogue that was hardly funny. Someone would utter "Open the door." or "Ooo, is that Arby's?" and I felt as if I were watching Tom & Jerry. I have heard accusations of that accent permeating these regions, but are they truly THAT blatant?
Overall, I felt that Fargo fell right into the area of Coen Brother's films such as Barton Fink where I neither loved it or hated it. It had some great qualities mixed with some laughable ones. But then there are the fanboys that worship at the altar (I should know because I am fanboy to many things). I suppose my question then is this: seriously, what is the exact thing or things that make the Coen Brothers amongst the upper tier of American filmmaking? What puts them alongside Scorsese, Kubrick and even Spielberg?
Comments
Post a Comment