Coen Brothers

Frankly in NCFOM, was a "enna solla vareenga" film for me. It felt kinda laborious to come to 'Triumph and endurance of evil'. Largely because the killer was all very showy. And it felt, very early, that there was going to be no way for them to 'justify' the bizzareness of going on. And bizzareness goes down smoothly (only) when one is made to laugh at it.

Otherwise with Javier Bardem looking cold and distant, Tommy Lee Jones looking bored and tired, I kind of reacted the same way.

I mean...the sweating milk bottle...I can't wait for someone (Family Guy perhaps) to spoof such 'meditative' moments.

P_R

Did you see NCFOM in theatres?. Why does a director have to justify something in a movie?. Can't anybody tell a story for godsakes?. Tommy lee jones is tired because he is helpless in not controlling the crime in the area. Villain was showy eh. Avan pesaradhe 5-6 vaarthai dhan :lol:.

NCFOM is very straight there was no rocket science involved. Only a three way cat and mouse game.

Apply the same analogy of Javier Bardem to joker from the dark Knight. Is there any justification for what he does?. He just wants complete chaos and so is this guy here. He kills his people(He uses a coin toss on some innocent victims) and for some others he just kills them randomly to get going. Avvalo dhan.

I saw it in a flight.

They don't have to 'justify' in the traditional sense justifying his 'actions' with a flashback etc. But if they are not doing that they have to make the person engrossing and 'sell' the fact that he is meaninglessly brutal and that's what it is.

What I meant was, they should earn the interest of the audience. That didn't happen with me. I watched it when I didn't know what a Coens movie looked like. So I wasn't expecting an 'absurd comedy' or anything like that. I was quite open minded and eager without strong predispositions. And yet...

In Fargo, during the kidnap scene, Steve Buscemi's partner lets the chase go and goes to bathroom for antisceptic. Now something important happens there. But even without that it is quite 'interesting' to see him abandon the kidnapping and take a detour for antisceptic :lol: . At odds with what one would expect for a tough thug in the middle of an assignment. Funny but very very credible. Perhaps because it was an odd quirk within a familiar, believable framework,motivation.So if you are going to go without that, there is just more work to do.

When Bardem kills people with that contraption I couldn't help think of Donald Kaufman's question to Charlie in Adaptation

"I need a cool way to kill people" :lol2:


Not to poke too much fun. Just to say, I wouldn't be thinking of this if I could have bought into the movie sufficiently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajithfederer

Apply the same analogy of Javier Bardem to joker from the dark Knight. Is there any justification for what he does?. He just wants complete chaos and so is this guy here. He kills his people(He uses a coin toss on some innocent victims) and for some others he just kills them randomly to get going. Avvalo dhan.

---

True. I am not disputing that at all. See the post above.

The Joker was convincing and scary in his madness. That Nolan got us to believe that is what makes him so great. Plus, with due respect to Nolan, one has to grant that we knew the Joker before we watched the film. And the way Nolan made the Joker scary was by making him real by making it difficult to dismiss him as a freak. Again I am not saying this is the exact prescription - that we should relate to him on our terms to love/hate. But I should be interested enough to consider. Else it is watching cool for the sake of cool.

sake hands ? :P

I don't get what you mean.

If you are saying that you are not interested with the subject, that is fine i agree tastes differ.

If you had seen the movie he just uses the "captive bolt pistol" to open doors and the silencer gun to kill people. He uses both of em just to reduce the noise factor. Idhula enna cool-nnu enaku puriala. Anyways sake hands :wave:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P_R

When Bardem kills people with that contraption I couldn't help think of Donald Kaufman's question to Charlie in Adaptation

"I need a cool way to kill people" :lol2:

---

.

p underscore r,

coolname...any reason behind it?..or just for the sake of being cool?hehe

for me bardems role was really engrossing...even the "coin tossing" was intense...rather than being cool.

but then...why should there be a reason for being cool...

:rotfl: :lol2:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivasaayi

p underscore r,

coolname...any reason behind it?..or just for the sake of being cool?hehe

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajithfederer

I don't get what you mean.

If you are saying that you are not interested with the subject, that is fine i agree tastes differ.

---

Largely yes. And I am blaming it on the Coens for not making it interesting for me. :lol2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajithfederer

If you had seen the movie

---

nijamaa paarthEnga. sonnaa nambaNum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajithfederer

he just uses the "captive bolt pistol" to open doors and the silencer gun to kill people.

---

Isn't there one old guy in a car that he kills with the bolt pistol ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajithfederer

Idhula enna cool-nnu enaku puriala.

---

Ah come on. The captive bolt pistol is a cool new toy. Tossing a coin to bump off people. Quite a "stand apart" style. udanE andha padathula avar appidi paNNalaiyAnnu kEkkAdheenga.

Anyway....kaiyai kulikkiyAchchu.
Fargo essay .....in process :twisted:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivasaayi

p underscore r,

coolname...any reason behind it?..or just for the sake of being cool?hehe

---

:-)
Reason irukkunu sonnA nambavA pOreenga
anaal neenga cool-nu sonnadhai nambittEn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivasaayi

for me bardems role was really engrossing...even the "coin tossing" was intense...rather than being cool.

---

andha engross dhaan prachanai...ennaku sonnEn. I am trying to understand why I didn't like the film.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivasaayi

but then...why should there be a reason for being cool...

---

Not always. It works better that way usually. Kill Bill excepted :D

It's heavily based on the book with not enough subversion we'd come to expect from a normal Coens film. At the same time, they maintain they want to do something new and fresh, but they can't shake off their 'signature' and thematic similarities as perceived by their fans. :D

About NCFOM - Cattle gun was used in the book as well. And that's quite an unfashionable device. It's an effective weapon as it leaves no trace of bullets (when asked abut it in an interview, Coens cheekily put it as "It gets the job done."). But as Feddy noted, he also carries a silenced gun. And imagine the stupid haircut to a Pantomime-like figure, with a husky voice reserved for obscure musings. And the killings weren't "cool" either, it was quick, and dark. Chilling is the word. Kudos to Deakins cinematography, as it is in deed 'grim' as he wanted it to be. but the chase and the events (notably the setpieces) were done in an engrossing manner.

About the 'psycho', I read it a bit differently. His philosophy of killing people has more to it - while there is no verbose moments to present himself as Joker and Hannibal Lectur, Chigurh looks down at his victims. He thinks of himself as a superior being. He would only give them a chance of a toss to spare their lives. Humans use bolt gun to slaughter cattle, a lesser being. In a similar metaphorical way, Chigurh uses it on 'lesser' victims to relieve the pain of existence, which he deems insignificantly piffle.

Btw Coens are exact opposite of "I need a cool way to kill people". That's more up the alley of QT's "Natural born killers" personifications, especially Kill Bill, which by the way we all embrace and love. NCFOM is pretty uncool.

P_r, Not every filmmaker and not every film should cater to your idea of filmmaking. Well we've discussed this before.

Quote:

---

Fargo essay .....in process

---

Looking forward..

Meant to write, "In the movie". Sorry i should have worded it correctly. Thanks k_g for putting it better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P_R

nijamaa paarthEnga. sonnaa nambaNum.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-glove

P_r, Not every filmmaker and not every film should cater to your idea of filmmaking. Well we've discussed this before.

---

Of course.I too hope it is a phase...and I will eventually expand horizons etc. I see I am not getting any younger.

For now though, I have kind of given up on trying to appreciate things on the lines of: "Even though it did not impress me, I objectively see why this can be appreciated etc.". appuram consistentA ellAm irukka solvaanga :lol2:

I appreciate subjectivity, and enjoy reading your stance. But why is it you keep taking potshots at musing 'Meditative' films for example? It breaks my heart. :(

Thank You. Will try and rein in, may let slip now and then else it gets boring :-)

Hmmm...name change. So we call you PR as usual or P underscore R (copied your call on Bala's unsername :P )?

P_R : A rose by any other name called... :P

GM: adadada.... periya sEkspearu plAsaby pEsuraaru ading..

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by groucho070

Hmmm...name change. So we call you PR as usual or P underscore R (copied your call on Bala's unsername :P )?

---

oh yeah I wanted to ask about CR's id - adhukku enna artham - Bala bracket pOtta Karthik-A? ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P_R

Thank You. Will try and rein in, may let slip now and then else it gets boring :-)

---

Please do continue. This emoticon :P should have replaced :(

:D

A Serious Man - Releasing Oct 2nd. Looks interesting.

Intriguing, and can't wait any further. I guess they wanted to do this after NCFOM. This rings a bell like "Barton Fink", which was done when facing difficulties during making of "Miller's crossing", and ended up being a superior work. And I did see 'Burn after reading' as something written it in a zip, & as the title suggest, 'burn after reading'. :P

Question 35 : "No country for Old men" :clap:

Nice to see Magnolia being mentioned. Coens/PTA/QT - Trinity of new American cinema! :yessir:

TBL :clap: :clap: , but i rate Fargo & NCFOM higher than TBL :D

Did anybody see "A serious man"

I just saw it. Loads of hebrew, very very vague ending. I know the film on the whole has a profound meaning and is related to the Jewish Bible (just read from imdb) etc. but did not work for me. The humor was very dry too. There were a few interesting, very very Coen scenes though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nerd

Did anybody see "A serious man"

I just saw it. Loads of hebrew, very very vague ending. I know the film on the whole has a profound meaning and is related to the Jewish Bible (just read from imdb) etc. but did not work for me. The humor was very dry too. There were a few interesting, very very Coen scenes though.

---

I saw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-glove

I saw

---

Thanks kid :-) :P :smokesmile: :lol: :( :argh: :D

No country for old men gave me one of the most satisfying movie watching experiences among hollywood movies. I have not seen a such an engrossing thriller since Silence of the Lambs.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

One of the decade's best from HW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamizharasan

No country for old men gave me one of the most satisfying movie watching experiences among hollywood movies. I have not seen a such an engrossing thriller since Silence of the Lambs.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajithfederer

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

One of the decade's best from HW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamizharasan

No country for old men gave me one of the most satisfying movie watching experiences among hollywood movies. I have not seen a such an engrossing thriller since Silence of the Lambs.

---

---

Defintely one of the decade's best if not the best movie of the decade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamizharasan

No country for old men gave me one of the most satisfying movie watching experiences among hollywood movies. I have not seen a such an engrossing thriller since Silence of the Lambs.

---

:bow: My fav. too , watched it around 5 times.. especially the villain :bow:

I dont know nary a thing about them but this interview was hilarious:

Quote:

---

Playboy: What can you do with a baby that you can’t do with an animal?

Ethan: A million things.

Joel: The pit. You can’t do that with animals.

Ethan: Believe me, it is remarkable thing to see how animals are monitored. You cannot kill a mosquito on screen.

Joel: When you do a Screen Actors Guild movie that uses animals in any way you have to get the American Humane Society to sign off on it. We blew up a cow in O Brother, which meant we had to send the Humane Society work tapes while the film was being shot. When they saw the cow scene they didn’t believe it was computer generated, but I assure you it was.

Ethan: There is a rule that you can’t get a cow anywhere near a moving car.

Joel: It might cause the cow stress.

Ethan: You can’t upset the animals.

---

And this:

Quote:

---

Playboy: What’s a lizard crash pad?

Ethan: A lizard shoots off a rock in the movie, and we had to have a preapproved soft place for it to land.

Joel: Yeah. With babies, you don’t have to bother about all that stuff.

---

O Brother Where at Thou

Hmm...kinda bland.

anyone watched miller's crossing????

I saw. Don't remember the different plot points as it's somewhat convoluted with a whole lot of double crossing involved. But what struck me was the relationship between Byrne's character (what a nuanced performance) and Finney's character (who is brilliant in that action set-piece with Thomo submach & night gown :lol: ) . And both their relationships to the woman, Gay Harden's character..

A Serious Man - enna viLayAttu idhu :x

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avadi to America

anyone watched miller's crossing????

---

Watched and liked it..but don't remember much as usual... :oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-glove

I saw. Don't remember the different plot points as it's somewhat convoluted with a whole lot of double crossing involved. But what struck me was the relationship between Byrne's character (what a nuanced performance) and Finney's character (who is brilliant in that action set-piece with Thomo submach & night gown :lol: ) . And both their relationships to the woman, Gay Harden's character..

---

In fact, i've seen an interview where the Coens' say it (plot, convolusions) were difficult even for them...

B(K),
Yeah and they wrote Barton Fink (they had John Turturro in mind, who plays Gay Harden's brother, a pivotal character, in Miller's) when they suffered this lapse! Interestingly it's about a playwright who suffers from writer's block when confronted to write a script by Hollywood studio head. Lot more minimalistic and low budget, seemingly more personal. Yet, it's amazing how they manage to bring truth to different period pieces with such ease. Can't wait for True Grit in this regard ! Obviously, bigger the budget, the Period is more expansively detailed.

In this regard, as I said to Dagalti in twitter, I regard Zodiac as a meaningful departure (apart from other sign(s) of maturity) for Fincher from 7, Fight club, and in general, geographically nonspecific contemporary films.