Dave wrote:
> I could not disagree more. This was a fascinating
and rich story of
> two men's obsession to accumulate wealth and power
(one through oil,
> the other religion) and their eventual ruin. And
this movie actually
> has a satisfying (and shocking) ending, unlike the
fraudulant Oscar
> winner this past year, No Country for Old
Men.
A fraudulent Oscar winner? What does that mean? That the fix
was in?
Or that you just disagreed with the choice?
I dunno. Day-Lewis' milk shake scene left bite marks on every
piece of scenery in the film -- and possibly on the seats in
the front rows. BLOOD makes his performance in GANGS OF NEW
YORK look subtle. If he keeps it up, he can drink his
milkshakes in some other theater than the one I'm in.
His performance certainly had "Oscar" written all over it --
he did everything but wear a "For Your Consideration"
T-shirt.
There was much to like about Blood -- the off-kilter,
deliberately clanky score, the achingly bleak cinematography,
Day-Lewis' more subdued moments, but overall -- and despite
the fact most people didn't appreciate its cold water ending
-- I preferred NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. I watched BLOOD and
enjoyed it, and wanted to see what would happen to
them.
But I felt involved in NO COUNTRY. I just thought it was a
much more gripping and intense story. I actually cared about
the characters in it and what would happen to them. I had an
emotional investment in them I never felt for any of the
characters in BLOOD.
There were a lot of subtle, lived-in performances in NO
COUNTRY, and the acting drew me in. It didn't make me think
"Ooooh! Someone wants another Oscar!"
Brolin or Jones could just have easily been nominated for
their performances as Javier Bardem was, or even the woman
who played Brolin's wife. Jones' turn as the world weary
small town sheriff who's seen too much bodes very well for
his turn as James Lee Burke's Dave Robicheaux in the upcoming
IN THE ELECTRIC MIST.
In fact, NO COUNTRY recalled for me the Coen's very first
film, BLOOD SIMPLE, stylistically and thematically, one of
the more neglected crime films of the last thirty years or so
and one of my favourites. What with MILLER'S CROSSING, FARGO
and THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE, the Coens might just be the
most consistently rewarding crime filmmakers we've had in a
long time.
And as I've mentioned before, Ethan's collection of short
stories, GATES OF EDEN, is well worth reading for any pulp
fans here. His tongue-in-cheek approach to various crime pulp
and cinematic tropes (I hope I used that right) reveal both
his (and presumably his brother's) familiarity and affection
for them.
* * * *
Back to the fraudulent Oscars (presumably kept in the same
box as
"stolen elections" and "fictitious wars" ): I'm not sure if
NO COUNTRY "deserved" its Oscar either, although I'm glad the
Coens did win, I guess.
But I was disappointed that a few other worthy (and arguably
hard- boiled/noirish) crime films were a little light on
nominations. I thought both AMERICAN GANGSTER and GONE BABY
GONE in particular deserved a little more Oscar love than
they received.
It's okay, I guess, to discuss movies now? Or at least crime
movies?
Kevin Burton Smith www.thrillingdetective.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 28 May 2008 EDT