Hello John (et al),
I just joined the group a few weeks ago, and have been
savoring the unusually substantial comments posted here. I
didn't want to jump in until I had something of substance to
add, and your comment on the the new Coen brothers film has
given me the chance.
I have watched all of the Coen's films, and have had the
opportunity to comment on three of those films at some length
in a podcast series I co-host with Richard Edwards, entitled
"Out of the Past: Investigating Film Noir." I think you put
your finger on one of the most important qualities of all the
Coens' films, which is their tendency to go in unexpected
directions. Yet it seems to me that the elements that refuse
to conform to our expectations are always especially
significant. In the case of this film, I think the sudden
death of the protagonist Llewelyn Moss (played brilliantly by
Josh Brolin) is just such a poignant surprise. It reminds us
that in real life, even the most capable men can die very
suddenly, seemingly at the whim of Fate
(and the Coens' refusal to give Moss any sort of traditional
parting shot was brilliant. No heroic departure, but a
high-angle, medium-long shot down at his bloody torso, chin
tipped towards the camera so he's barely recognizable). And
the workings of Fate may be precisely what the film is about.
The Coens seem to love characters who border on mythological
figures (such as Goodman's portrayal of the Devil in BARTON
FINK), or embodiments of allegory. That's how I read Javier
Bardem's character of Anton Chigurh, as an emodiment of
Fate--or perhaps Death itself. And he turns in one of my all
time favorite performances here.
The question of how well this film adapts the book (and how
unusually hard-boiled the book is, for a western) merits
further discussion. But I did want to weigh in on the film,
and introduce myself.
Can't wait to read tomorrow's rara-avis digest. You folks are
the best sort of hard-core fans--the type willing to take
umbrage over the finer points of hard-boiled and noir. Who
could ask for anything more?
Shannon Clute Co-host, "Behind the Black Mask: Mystery
Writers Revealed" and "Out of the Past: Investigating Film
Noir" www.noircast.net
I think the movie disappoints some because the
first 2 acts work so well as a
thriller that the audience is expecting it to
resolve itself the way a
conventional movie thriller does. but then it
disavows that intent and becomes its
rumination on whatever, and it's clear that being
a thriller was never the
intent of the storyteller. I know I was surprised
when the movie took this
turn, not having read the book. but the film
didn't end at that point so I went
with where it was going. and the film has stuck
with me
John Lau
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 02 Dec 2007 EST