Hello all my geeky friends. Harry here and I want to talk a brief bit about the purpose of a Coen Brothers film. Any of their films. It's not about following in themes. It's not about playing to the same audience and vibe of the previous success or their biggest success. It was this same mentality that critics had with THE BIG LEBOWSKI that caused so many of these... shortsighted folks to simply look at the DUDE and think... Huh... that's not FARGO. Yeah... well no shit. BLOOD SIMPLE is not RAISING ARIZONA which isn't BARTON FINK which isn't FARGO which isn't HUDSUCKER'S PROXY which isn't BIG LEBOWSKI which isn't MILLER'S CROSSING... and none of these films will be O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU.... which in turn will not be THE BARBER UNTITLED PROJECT or TO THE WHITE SEA. The genre they work in is to make COEN BROTHERS FILMS.... and so long as they stay in that Genre... I'll be a happy boy. Now Froggy here seemed to dig the film, but don't try to take to many preconceptions into the theater with ya... it's not that film in your head or mine for that matter... it's a movie in the minds of the COENS... and that's why I dig em so. Watch out for moderate spoilers... here ya go...
Bonjour again big guy
Even though the day isn't over I know that there are a lot of Coen Bros. fans out there like myself eager to get the scoop on O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? which had its first screenings today in Cannes.
And the news is...........well........... good but ultimately not great. This is definitely a film for fans of the gruesome Coen twosome, but I don't think the film is going to cross over in the way that Fargo did. I should qualify that this was the first of the Coens' films that I read the script for in advance, and that may have removed some of the "surprise" moments which are always so much fun to discover, but I still felt a teensy bit disappointed by the end product. It will be one that might only be fully appreciated in hindsight.
O sing me in, then, on the story so far... The film's title comes from a Preston Sturgess movie called SULLIVANS TRAVELS, which I have to confess that I've not seen. Apparently O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? is the name of the film that the lead character in that movie desperately wants to make. I don't think it would have been anything like this movie though!
Anyway, the film is set around the 1930's and we follow the journey of three escaped chaingang convicts, played by George Clooney, John Turturro and Tim Blake Nelson. Clooney is the self-appointed leader of the trio, a dapper kinda dude who fancies himself as a kind of Errol Flynn wannabe - a fast talker with a healthy dose of self-adoration - and he's out, with the help of the two other guys he was chained to, to reclaim the $1.2million in loot that he supposedly buried in a robbery before being caught & locked up.
The film is essentially a road movie as these fellows encounter a variety of odd situations and people on their way to recover the money - a young Negro guitarist who's just sold his soul in return for musical prowess; a trio of seductive sirens in the middle of a lake; a middle of nowhere country music radio station that pays musicians for songs to broadcast; a manic depressive bank robber; a local politician struggling to get re-elected; a charming bible salesman with a nasty right hook, a local chapter of the KKK... not to mention Clooney's ex wife.
It's difficult to nail exactly why the film doesn't grab you by the throat. It's very much a sit-back-and-enjoy-the-lazy-ride kinda movie. I'm also beginning to think that FARGO is the exception to the Coen's work in that you actually cared so much about the characters. This movie is a bit like LEBOWSKI in that it seems to be all about surfaces - despite everyone doing everything that they're supposed to well, you just don't really love any of them as people. George Clooney continues to prove that he's an actor that will take risks, and so much of his performance here seems to be mocking his heartthrob status. Everett McGill is actually a pretty smarmy guy, but you just can't help liking him because of Clooney's effortless charm.
While the film never sags, there's one component of the film that helps keep the mood bouyant, and that's the superb soundtrack, which I think was put together by T Bone Burnett. The sequences with the SOGGY BOTTOM BOYS (you'll just have to see the movie to understand) are the absolute highlights, and I adored Turturro's backup routines. Here's an actor never afraid to look like an idiot, and whilst he hasn't outdone his appearance as Jesus in Lebowski, which I still think is a career highlight, he's a very endearing component to this movie.
As always, the film has some great visuals. The sequence with the Klan is a real corker. I think the organisers of the Sydney Olympic opening ceremony may even pick up a few tips!!
All the supporting cast are fine, including Charles Durning, the guy who plays Jimmy in THE PRACTICE, etc.. but Holly Hunter and John Goodman don't have much to work with in their tiny appearances. I should also mention that this is the most I've seen the Coens play around with post-production colour effects (actually I take that back - just remembered HUDSUCKER); a lot of the film seems to have been treated to different washes and filters to achieve the whole Depression vibe.
All in all this looks like a movie that everyone had a ball making, but I can't help feeling that the Coens weren't stretching themselves... Perhaps I always expect too much from their films - compared to vast majority of U.S filmmakers even their so-so efforts stand out from the rest. I had fun with this movie but would urge everyone to lower their expectations and then you might be pleasantly suprised by this enjoyable but largely inconsequential movie. FYI the reaction from the crowd seemed to be mostly polite and respectful applause, but not anywhere near as effusive as it was yesterday with NURSE BETTY. I don't think the reviews will be raves.
I also saw two other movies that screened at Sundance earlier in the year, CHUCK AND BUCK and GIRLFIGHT. The former is a really creepy little tale of obsession about a guy who decides to rekindle his "friendship" with his best friend from when he was about 10. The difference here is that while he's essentially still a child emotionally, his feelings are linked with sexuality. Not an easy film to categorise, but an adventurous film nonethless. GIRLFIGHT I went into aware of the mega buzz that was generated out of Sundance and whilst it is a sensational first feature, I must admit I don't see the breakout potential that others seemed to. It reminded me of that film HURRICANE (STREETS) that had people enraptured at festivals but no one in the general public seemed to care. I think Sony Pictures Classics have this one in the States, and whilst it's very marketable in a female-empowerment kinda way, it ain't no FLASHDANCE. Look out for the lead actress though, (I think her name was Michelle Rodriguez) because she is definitely one to watch.
Oh well, that's it for now. Tommorrow I will have news on the new Merchant Ivory film THE GOLDEN BOWL and footage from the new Michael Winterbottom film with Wes Bentley and Sarah Polley.
Croakin' off for now...
Froggy
