Tag Archive: Coen brothers


BORED AFTER VIEWING

The nasty man hit me!!

I can’t really say I was disappointed by ‘Burn After Reading’ because I didn’t expect it would be much good.

Strange to say this when the only previous Coen Brothers movie I have roundly disliked is their misguided remake of ‘The Ladykillers’. But when I saw the all star cast they’d assembled my heart sank.

On paper, the quirky plot linking the worlds of personal fitness, mid life crisis and the CIA is promising. But casting Hollywood heartthrobs Pitt and Clooney as nerds just doesn’t convince. It takes more than a goofy haircut (Pitt) or an unflattering beard (Clooney) to make us see these actors differently.

The most curious thing is that the script lacks the Coen’s usual sharpness. For example, Tilda Swinton plays a paediatrician who terrorises her child patients but we only see one scene near the end of the movie of her in this work situation. The comic potential is by then wholly lost. Similarly, John Malkovich is wasted – we know that he does anger very well but when practically every seen has him in rant mode it reduces the impact considerably.

The movie looks to me like it was put together as some light relief after the intensity of ‘No Country For Old Men’ and was undoubtedly more fun to make than it is to watch.

I sincerely hope that that is just a blip in the Coens illustrious catalogue and that they bounce back with a vehicle more worthy of their considerable talents next time around.

NOT THE BEES

wicker man burns

For my money, Nicolas Cage’s perfect role was as the intellectually challenged repeat offender in The Coen Brothers’ anarchic comedy ‘Raising Arizona’. He’s one of those male leads who never convinces me as a tough guy – the more macho he tries to be, the more ridiculous he looks.

A case in point is ‘The Wicker Man’ , a misguided remake of the 1973 cult classic Continue reading

A recent letter to The Guardian expresses disgust that the Coen Brothers’ ‘No Country For Old Men’ won so many Oscars.
The writer condemms the glorification of “tough guys slaughtering one another” and states melodrammatically:
“And then we wonder why our adolescents take pride in violence”.

My response to this kind of blinkered crticism is to say that the people who get off on the movie’s depiction of bloodshed or see it in any way as a model to emulate were fucked long they watched it.

The movie is not like other crude exploitation films in that what we see is not killing as entertainment but a study of one twisted individual as a symbol of something sinister at the heart of modern society.

The maniacal figure of Chirgugh represents a “living prophet of destruction” and one of the most terrifying fictional characters ever created. He may be an extreme case but you only have to open a newspaper or turn on TV to see his brand of heartless cruelty is a daily fact of life.

You can bury your head in the sand if you want to but that won’t make this harsh truth go away.

The corruption and cruelty depicted in Cormac McCarthy’s tale , and the Coen Brothers’ brilliant movie, is all the more chilling because it neither condones nor directly condemns this personfication of evil.

This is what makes the story so disconcerting for the moral majority who prefer the panacea of moral fables where good overcomes evil and noble actions are always rewarded.

SWEENEY TODD – FLYING BLOOD

In their Oscar acceptance speech, the Coen Brothers expressed thanks for being allowed to play in their corner of the sandpit. The other corner is surely reserved for Tim Burton who, like the Coens, has consistently made movies that follow a unique vision and which steadfastly refuse to pander to Hollywood conventions. Continue reading