criterionforum.org

Very much in agreement. All the trailers suggest a very faithful adaptation as every line is pretty much spoken in the book, I know exactly what sequence is what and so on. With that last trailer I'm pretty confident this will be a damn good movie. As long as they don't change the ending (which I'm sure they won't.)

sevenarts wrote:The trailer makes it look like a very faithful adaptation indeed. And it's a damn fine book, so that should be a good thing. It makes a very good fit for the Coens actually, because although it's quite a bit darker than their usual fare, it still has a kind of wry, subtle sense of humor lurking within that darkness, and I can imagine them fully embracing that aspect of it. I'm excited for this.

I fear just the opposite. The Cohens' trade brand smartass/cutiepie humor has no place in this material, and I hope they suppress it. The trailer does look promising.

GringoTex wrote:

sevenarts wrote:The trailer makes it look like a very faithful adaptation indeed. And it's a damn fine book, so that should be a good thing.

I fear just the opposite. The Cohens' trade brand smartass/cutiepie humor has no place in this material, and I hope they suppress it. The trailer does look promising.

I don't know, I think The Man Who Wasn't There showed they have what it takes to tackle a darker, more subtle form of humor -- and McCarthy's book does have a lot of humor, particularly in the sharp-tongued dialogue. I think it'll be a good fit, and the trailer certainly makes it look like they were extremely respectful of the material.

GringoTex wrote:

sevenarts wrote:The trailer makes it look like a very faithful adaptation indeed. And it's a damn fine book, so that should be a good thing.

I fear just the opposite. The Cohens' trade brand smartass/cutiepie humor has no place in this material, and I hope they suppress it. The trailer does look promising.

Have you seen Miller's Crossing?

jbeall wrote:Have you seen Miller's Crossing?

Have you seen The Glass Key?

Hai2u wrote:

jbeall wrote:Have you seen Miller's Crossing?

Have you seen The Glass Key?

Have you seen A Fistful of Dollars?

All kidding aside, Miller's Crossing still has that very ironic and over the top humor the rest of their films have. No Country doesn't seem to have it, which is not a bad thing, and I trust the Coens to not screw it up.

jbeall wrote:

GringoTex wrote:I fear just the opposite. The Cohens' trade brand smartass/cutiepie humor has no place in this material, and I hope they suppress it. The trailer does look promising.

Have you seen Miller's Crossing?

Yes, it was one long genre gag. But I agree with sevenarts that The Man Who Wasn't There demonstrates they can pull this off.

GringoTex wrote:

jbeall wrote:Have you seen Miller's Crossing?

Yes, it was one long genre gag. But I agree with sevenarts that The Man Who Wasn't There demonstrates they can pull this off.

Kill Bill was one long genre gag, Miller's Crossing is far from it. It is possible to acknowledge the artifice in a genre without that being its sole purpose.

GringoTex wrote:

jbeall wrote:

GringoTex wrote:I fear just the opposite. The Cohens' trade brand smartass/cutiepie humor has no place in this material, and I hope they suppress it. The trailer does look promising.

Have you seen Miller's Crossing?

Yes, it was one long genre gag. But I agree with sevenarts that The Man Who Wasn't There demonstrates they can pull this off.

Having attended a screening at TIFF I can say with certainty that the Coens tone their brand of humor way down for this one. It's still definitely present, but it's mostly limited to small choices by their actors in delivering their lines. There is only one brief moment of overt comedy that I can recall involving

Spoiler

a Mexican bandito band's (I don't know how else to describe them) reaction to Llewelyn exposing his injuries.

In fact, if you're willing to give the Coens a break and approach it without bias, this is actually a very faithful adaptation of McCarthy's novel. Then again, I do think that McCarthy's novel has flashes of humor interspersed with all that brooding.

Titus wrote:

GringoTex wrote:

jbeall wrote:Have you seen Miller's Crossing?

Yes, it was one long genre gag. But I agree with sevenarts that The Man Who Wasn't There demonstrates they can pull this off.

Kill Bill was one long genre gag, Miller's Crossing is far from it. It is possible to acknowledge the artifice in a genre without that being its sole purpose.

You said it better than I could--thanks, Titus.

I think the Coen's best work is able to avoid being overly cutsie-pie, and in fact becomes quite gripping at moments; I have in mind Miller's Crossing and Barton Fink (although the pelican falling into the ocean at the end of the latter film kind of annoyed me, I loved the scenes with John Goodman towards the end of the movie).

is Fargo "cutsie-pie"?

miless wrote:is Fargo "cutsie-pie"?

Yah, aye!

miless wrote:is Fargo "cutsie-pie"?

At times, too much so for my taste, but it has its moments. Not my fave Coen Bros., though.

Titus wrote:Kill Bill was one long genre gag, Miller's Crossing is far from it. It is possible to acknowledge the artifice in a genre without that being its sole purpose.

This is something Fuller, Godard, and Fassbinder do. I see very little difference in the approach of Kill Bill and Miller's Crossing.

GringoTex wrote:

Titus wrote:Kill Bill was one long genre gag, Miller's Crossing is far from it. It is possible to acknowledge the artifice in a genre without that being its sole purpose.

This is something Fuller, Godard, and Fassbinder do. I see very little difference in the approach of Kill Bill and Miller's Crossing.

Well, I like Fuller and Fassbinder to the degree that while they acknowledge the artifice of the genre, their films don't become one long "gag," although maybe that means I just haven't seen the right (or wrong?) Fuller and Fassbinder films.

As for Godard, when it becomes too much of a gag, that where he loses me. It's the reason why, frankly, I don't like Breathless, although I suppose it's less irritating the first time he did it.

GringoTex wrote:This is something Fuller, Godard, and Fassbinder do. I see very little difference in the approach of Kill Bill and Miller's Crossing.

Then you're not looking hard enough, in my opinion. The artifice is a major texture of the film, but it's not there for simple parody, but a much more thoughtful exploration of genre -- the Coens ripping the top off the classic noirs/and gangster films (and, to a lesser extent, the hard-boiled literature of Dasheill Hammett) and peering into the guts of them. They construct this hyperbolic, archetypal genre universe and then periodically poke holes into it.

This is probably best seen via the use of dialogue throughout the movie. The film's characters are split between the brains and the muscle – the latter of which, with the exception of The Dane, are more or less buffoons. The Coens draw a parallel here between the brutishness of the foot soldiers and the words of the white collars (primarily Tom). They're suggesting a symmetry between Tom's bullying of others through dialogue and the more traditional imposition through physicality (which could be why there's such a recurrence of Tom getting his ass kicked throughout the picture). They're also making a comment about the use of words to deflect people's awareness of their inner thoughts and feelings, a way of shielding themselves (which is reflected in the prominence of the hat motif), which is certainly commensurate with Tom's (and many noir characters') loner status. This is why the Coens will pull the camera in a little closer and observe brief moments in which the verbal safeguard is lowered, such as his response to Verna's suggestion that the two of them “might just be rotten enough to deserve each otherâ€

Titus wrote:The artifice is a major texture of the film, but it's not there for simple parody, but a much more thoughtful exploration of genre

Nice post and I agree that it's a well-done exploration of genre (my initial post sounded too dismissive), but I still argue that genre exploration is about the only thing interesting happening in the film, and that this would not work for NCFOM.

The Man Who Wasn't There goes beyond this in that I think it's the Cohens' first honest attempt at melodrama.

A conversation between Cormac McCarthy and the Coens.

This is indeed a return to form for the Coens and, while at times McCarthy's literary pretensions get in the way, it's about as good an adaptation as one could expect. Bardem is really quite terrifying but the real surprise is Josh Brolin, who seems to finally be coming into his own as an actor. I can't quite say from one viewing whether this is on par with my favorite Coens - Miller's Crossing, Fargo and The Big Lebowski - but it is very good indeed.

Antoine Doinel wrote:A conversation between Cormac McCarthy and the Coens.

Interesting, especially that they all mention Malick!

Everyone today is mentioning Malick. It's kinda the hip thing to do.

Right, because such mentioning only really takes place on internet forums. All else is hipsterness...

Saw it last night. They've come full circle as this is a bigger, shinier Blood Simple -- ie. people we don't care about doing increasingly more stupid things for money they don't have a chance in hell of getting. Never read Cormac McCarthy and if this film bears any resemblance to his writings don't plan to. Comes off as an artier, more precious Jim Thompson. At least Thompson knew he was writing pulp. Not such what these characters think they're doing. Should be an "art house" hit abroad but won't be of much interest locally. Much prefer late period Peckinpah (eg. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia)

Out side of Fargo I've never really cared for the Coens. There's a kind of chilly, curdled smart-ass-ed-ness to them that I just don't like.

Tommy Lee Jones is pleasant. Javier Barden is The Terminator. Babs Brolin's stepson is just OK in a thankless role as the Lead Schmuck . Woody Harrelson comes in towards the top of the third act and gives the thing a little artificial respiration. But it's Cinema du Zombie anyway you slice it. And don't save a slice for me, thank you. I'm on a diet.

All tech credits pro.

I must stand up for Cormac McCarthy and many literary critics consider him to be among our greatest living authors. I intend to see the movie and make up my own mind, but, since I respect your opinion, I will proceed on the basis that you are correct in your analysis of the movie.
McCarthy has been the subject of only one other big screen adaptation; "All the Pretty Horses" from a few years ago, directed by Billy Bob Thornton. After viewing his own movie, Thornton had the courtesy to call McCarthy and say "I think I just made a mess of your book". Most of us subsequently agreed that he did just that.

But, don't blame the author, especially this author. He can deal with themes of violence and brutality with scenes that are graphic, poetic, and breathtaking in their power. I've never read anything like it. Give this guy a try and start with "Blood Meridian".

Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and any number of other great authors never translated well to the screen and it is probably a tribute to their LITERARY merit that they don't. And, don't tell me that "For Whom the Bell Tolls" was a good movie. I only watched it to see that gal from "Casablanca" in color.

Our greatest living authors are Gore Vidal, Samuel R. Delany, Thomas Pynchon and Dennis Cooper.