criterionforum.org

Jack Phillips wrote:

Spoiler

First, I quibble with your assessment of Llewyn's talent. He's not necessarily less skilled than Dylan--he just can't find acceptance. We are shown his performances and we--seeing them from the perspective of the 21st Century--can recognize how good he is. He's just arrived on the scene too early; if he'd come on the scene after Dylan rather than before he might have had a successful career.

Second, why do you thinks his "dues and arrears" are non-existent? If you are a member of a union, you have dues to pay, regardless of whether you work or not. If you don't pay them, then you are in arrears. The union doesn't let you get more work until your arrears are brought current. That's the way it works in every union I've ever heard of. Llewyn's problem is that after having paid his back dues he finds his paperwork has been thrown out, and there's a charge to get new papers, and since he's paid his dues, he doesn't have the money for the papers also. So, he can't get the papers; neither can he get his back dues returned (which he really owed).

Finally, your assessment of what Llewyn thinks happened to get him the gig at Pappi's squares with my take on the matter. However, we don't know that what Pappi said is true. It is only Llewyn's suspicion that it IS true that causes him to act the way he does, which is necessary for the plot. The objective truth in the case is unknown to us.

Thanks for the clarification on point #2; I felt like I missed something in his subsequent conversation about his license. As to point #1, I suspect there's not going to be consensus in this forum about how talented Llewyn actually is. However, I agree he does have colossally bad timing and worse, no business acumen. (Indeed, he disdains the latter.)

Spoiler

Finally, with your last point, I agree that Llewyn's suspicion and the consequences that follow are what the film is interested in, but confirmation of whether or not his suspicion is true would have interesting consequences for Jane's character and her relationship w/Llewyn.

jbeall wrote: I suspect there's not going to be consensus in this forum about how talented Llewyn actually is.

If the performances in the film are not dispositive, then what would be? If the performances on the CD are not dispositive, then what would be? If the performances in the live concert video are not dispositive, then what would be?

I don’t think there’s any question that Llewyn is talented. He can sing and accompany himself in front of an audience, staying on key vocally and keeping the rhythm musically. He’s talented. But in all arts, there’s a totally ineffable aspect that some performers have and some don’t, and that’s being able to communicate innately with an audience. I don’t mean talk to an audience, I mean that your great performers can just do what they do and without overtly trying to accomplish it, the audience is drawn to them and drawn to what they’re doing. Dylan is a good example: He’s immensely talented, but he lets the seams show in his playing and in his singing. But that’s part of his energy, part of the way he communicates, and each successful artist has that ability to communicate, albeit in a different way. Llewyn’s performances are professional, yet he doesn’t communicate with an audience somehow, as the scene with the promoter clearly shows. Llewyn plays very well, even movingly, but he’s inside himself and he doesn’t let the audience in (at least not enough that people are really drawn to him). It’s not that he won’t do this or hasn’t yet learned to do it, it’s just not part of his personality. No one’s been able to quantify exactly why one talented person has easy success while other talented people work hard and get nowhere. Llewyn is in the latter class (which is much larger than the former), which is what makes his life so repetitive and tragic.

Ishmael wrote:No one’s been able to quantify exactly why one talented person has easy success while other talented people work hard and get nowhere. Llewyn is in the latter class (which is much larger than the former), which is what makes his life so repetitive and tragic.

As the great sage Joan Rivers said 'Talent is just a small part of the equation'.

Heard an interview with Judy Collins on our local PBS station -- she loathes this film with intense passion. ;~}

I quite liked the film, but I'm just not feeling the fascination and need for deeper analysis that many are; granted, I'm generally not a Coens fan, with Lebowski and A Serious Man being the only two I hold dear. I'd say this is right behind those, but ultimately it feels like just another riff on the poor-schmuck-getting-fucked-by-the-universe story that all Coen films -- but especially this, TMWWT and A Serious Man -- revolve around. I'll take those films any day over their more screwball or comedic ventures (Barton Fink and Fargo included), because there is a somberness and even a seriousness to these films that gives them an emotional pull the others mostly miss (even Lebowski has a kind of sadness, or certainly a nostalgic resonance, to its title character). There were a bunch of great sequences in Llewyn -- I'm thinking mostly of the stretch with Goodman's character -- but I'm not sure that it left much of an impression on me besides a faintly evocative aftertaste of circling around the white/grey maze of NY in winter, while the cosmos plots your demise. The Coens can quote Hopper (c.f. the restaurant right out of Automat where Goodman nods out) but their world usually seems too pre-rigged and broadly or cartoonishly drawn to elicit much genuine pathos. Instead, it most often seems geared toward constant self-deprecatory mockery of any attempt to be a "serious man."

oh yeah wrote:I quite liked the film, but I'm just not feeling the fascination and need for deeper analysis that many are; granted, I'm generally not a Coens fan, with Lebowski and A Serious Man being the only two I hold dear. I'd say this is right behind those, but ultimately it feels like just another riff on the poor-schmuck-getting-fucked-by-the-universe story that all Coen films -- but especially this, TMWWT and A Serious Man -- revolve around.

Compared with other Coen Bros. films I thought there was a real shift in tone on this one. Their usual satirical approach is absent, which allows for a more "natural" (or perhaps naturalistic) mode of expression. There's a lot less sniping at the characters, who are presented without (or, at least, with much less of) the usual authorial commentary attached. To me, the film seems like the Coens' most mature work to date.

Beyond that, the way the music is used suggests something different than what you get in your standard Coens'. Except for the novelty song "Please, Mr. Kennedy," the music isn't held up to ridicule. The songs and performances are great and the filmmakers afford respect to both. Indeed, this may be the first time in any Coens' film where the notion of transcendence is treated non-ironically. Because that is what music is--an intimation of transcendence. Nothing adequately accounts for it: where it comes from, what it is, what it educes. The usual approach of the Coens is to mock such notions (Barton Fink), or to problematize them (A Serious Man). Not here though. The music is allowed to speak for itself, directly to the viewer.

Given the value placed on the music, the film demonstrates something that even O Brother, Where Art Thou? was incapable of doing. Llewyn himself is a loser, but his music is not, and we, the audience, who are witnesses to his art, know it. That art will last even once Llewyn is gone from the scene. This may be the significance of the passing-of-the-torch scene with Dylan. "The music" will inhabit Dylan and be expressed through him (for a time) and will in turn be passed on through others. Llewyn will not get the benefit of his own talent, but we will/do. The music, more important than the individual musicians who perform it, endures (separate from the film even--on CD and digital download). The Coens forego their usual trick of not letting anything escape from their hermetic universe.

I thought it was terrific. Basically I liked it's a big insight into what the guy is like. Oscar Isaac basically sells that kind of performance in spades. I liked the rather mellow, and kind of dreary mood and it's especially reflected in the cinematography. It had gotten to a point where it felt like I was there in the movie for a couple of moments.

The music, I didn't think I'd like it but hearing it; I kind of like folk music now. It has a great soundtrack.

Movie-Brat wrote:Basically I liked it's basically a big insight into what the guy is like. Oscar Isaac basically sells that kind of performance in spades.

So basically, it's a character study, basically.

I shot myself in the foot with the word, didn't I?

Movie-Brat wrote:I shot myself in the foot with the word, didn't I?

Basically.

Movie-Brat wrote:The music, I didn't think I'd like it but hearing it; I kind of like folk music now. It has a great soundtrack.

Lots of folk music out there (from all sorts of places), lots of it amazing. Checking it out should keep you busy for a few decades at least. ;-}

Interesting thing about the music, one dude next to me sang along with one of the songs. Well, obviously he was clearly older than me, I'd guess he was around his 50's but it fascinates me as he must have flashbacked to the decade it's set in.

Or he'd seen it already. Or purchased the soundtrack.

mfunk9786 wrote:Or he'd seen it already. Or purchased the soundtrack.

Well he must have purchased the soundtrack. Bear in mind, at the time; I didn't know much about the soundtrack.

Movie-Brat, I know you are young (possibly very very young), which is of course fine, but please consider what you are adding to discussions and curb casually ignorant and/or ageist remarks like those found in this thread if you want to continue your storied board career of one sentence non-contributory posts

NABOB OF NOWHERE wrote:

Ishmael wrote:No one’s been able to quantify exactly why one talented person has easy success while other talented people work hard and get nowhere. Llewyn is in the latter class (which is much larger than the former), which is what makes his life so repetitive and tragic.

As the great sage Joan Rivers said 'Talent is just a small part of the equation'.

Indeed, most of it is pure luck. Of course, if most of society viewed being an artist as a genuine career like anything else they may do for a living instead of merely a hobby, it might be a different story. Ironically, very, very few people can name the first CEO of, say, H&R Block, yet most people can identify the person who painted The Starry Night. What does that say about the longevity of art vs. commerce?

True, but noteriety/fame isn't a foolproof measure in the long-term, either, whether it's art, commerce, science, or any other influence on a large cultural scale, as the third episode of Cosmos pointed out with Edmond Halley or Jan Oort.

captveg wrote:True, but noteriety/fame isn't a foolproof measure in the long-term, either, whether it's art, commerce, science, or any other influence on a large cultural scale, as the third episode of Cosmos pointed out with Edmond Halley or Jan Oort.

Still, you can't deny the rather fucked-up reality of Van Gogh living a mostly miserable and penniless life despite his work still being celebrated 150 years later, while some interchangeable white collar employee will lead a cushy, luxurious life with up to a 7-figure income but will go largely forgotten when he's dead and gone.

Sucks for Van Gogh, is great for that white collar employee and his family.

So... you find nothing reprehensible about Van Gogh working just as hard (if not harder) at his career as the white collar stiff did but having nothing to show for it in his one and only lifetime? :-k

Life is unfair, what else is new

MoonlitKnight wrote:So... you find nothing reprehensible about Van Gogh working just as hard (if not harder) at his career as the white collar stiff did but having nothing to show for it in his one and only lifetime? :-k

Yet, potentially, Van Gogh could have led a very fulfilling life as a creative artist without the drudgery of conducting business deals on a daily basis! We understand that Van Gogh is the very definition of "tortured artist" where mental illness was probably responsible for his misery and early death, but if he was doing what he loved, and making enough to get by, then the unknowable subsequent success of some white collar stiff a century or two later would be of no consequence. It might be nice to imagine that humanity will remember you for centuries to come after your death, but what's important to the individual is some sense of self-actualization during that individual's lifetime, preferably not relative to someone else's take on self-actualization.

This is the tragedy of Llewyn Davis. He has talent, but expects that the world owes him a living. His own self-centered nature and contempt for others prevents him from finding happiness in his own gifts. And that's the only thing he can control, because...yep, life isn't fair and you won't necessarily be rewarded and praised just because you have talent.

Roger Ryan wrote: This is the tragedy of Llewyn Davis. He has talent, but expects that the world owes him a living. His own self-centered nature and contempt for others prevents him from finding happiness in his own gifts. And that's the only thing he can control, because...yep, life isn't fair and you won't necessarily be rewarded and praised just because you have talent.

Maybe the irony of Llewyn, rather than tragedy.

We only see him for a week, so we don't know what will ultimately become of him. He will be denied a music career and a place in history. But the music is real, he isn't faking it. Perhaps it will sustain him. And who knows, with repeated application, it might also actually begin to have a salutary effect on his personality.

It's also a self-fulfilling prophecy. He puts Jim and Jean down for being "careerist," aka wanting to actually succeed and make money with their musical talent. So he's getting exactly what he's bargained for, but he also can't support himself or relax because of it, and it's pretty obvious that behind that facade he's waiting for someone to stumble onto his incredible talent rather than having to put himself out there the way Jim does by, say, writing "Please, Mr. Kennedy."