My, My, My, Delilah?
Why, WHy, WHYYYYYYYYY, Delilah?
SO BEFORE YOU THEY COME TO BREAK DOWN THE DOOR
FORGIVE ME DELILAH I JUST COULDN’T TAKE ANY MORE
“Trying to parse it further based on perceived stylistic and thematic deviation from the mean is just splitting hairs on Harvey Weinstein’s back.”
what a horrible thought ;-)
“Reservoir Dogs was made outside the mainstream, perhaps, everything after, no.”
yeah, after the Canne buzz for Pulp, they knew they had something. the marketing budget was higher than the production budget. When that movie was released in Australia, it was almost marketed like a blockbuster.
hhaa. i don’t know about lol grammar.
“what a horrible thought ;-)”
Thanks—that’s what I was going for.
“yeah, after the Canne buzz for Pulp, they knew they had something. the marketing budget was higher than the production budget. When that movie was released in Australia, it was almost marketed like a blockbuster.”
Right, and by that time Miramax had been folded into Disney, to me the very definition of mainstream entertainment in America.
Oh Coen Bros, it seems like the only fans you have left are myself and a bunch of 4th graders…
The Coen brothers are antithetical to cinematic seriousness.
The always endeavor to put the viewer in a position of smug superiority to the events they dramatize. Their characters are fools — with the exception that proves the rule, Marge in “afgo.”
Nothing that goes on in a Coen brothers movie is ever in danger of impact a viewer. The films are about “them” — greedy stupid idiots — not “us” — smat guys who “know better.”
In short their films are morally bankrupt.
It’s morally bankrupt to show how greedy stupid idiots end up screwing themselves over?
“The Coen brothers are antithetical to cinematic seriousness.
“The always endeavor to put the viewer in a position of smug superiority to the events they dramatize. Their characters are fools — with the exception that proves the rule, Marge in “afgo.”
“Nothing that goes on in a Coen brothers movie is ever in danger of impact a viewer. The films are about “them” — greedy stupid idiots — not “us” — smat guys who “know better.”
“In short their films are morally bankrupt.”
Nah, that’s Todd Solondz.
:) I’m joking, mostly. When you take the Coen brothers’ work as a whole, they never really put some moralistic character to stand to the side wagging his finger saying, “See? See?” I can see what people are saying when they complain about the Coen brothers’ ‘smugness’ but I think they’re reading in a little too much to how much fun they have letting characters get too far ahead of themselves so that everything goes wrong. Their attitude, in my mind, is that their stories are about cosmic comedy.
In other words, if you didn’t laugh then it’s just not your sense of humor, not their moral bankruptedness.
I will take Solondz any day of the week
at least he has not declined to something like True Grit or Intolerable Cruelty
“Their characters are fools”
I mean, that’s what pretty much all comedy is, whether they are the loveable fool, or the selfish, greedy fool (dark comedies). Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any comedies where most of the characters aren’t fools. Same with TV. Simpsons, South Park, Louie, The Office, etc. All of the main characters, and usually the supporting characters, are fools.
The Coens primarily make comedies. Blood Simple, No Country, and probably A Serious Man are their only films that I would consider to be serious dramas (even though there is some humor in them, particularly ASM). Miller’s Crossing toes the line (great film, but often a little too cartoonish).
Oh Blood Simple has no less amount of foolishness than their other movies. Every ‘beat’ surrounds one character saying one thing, and the other character thinking it means something completely different.
“I’m not afraid of you Marty.”
Polaris said: “cosmic comedy”
Haha, I like that! Is that a Dib-ism?
Really though, take something like Big Lebowski. Even though the narrator’s words indicate he is “wagging his finger” at Lebowski and the others, you can tell that he is enjoying himself as much as anybody else. Reminds me of Walt Whitman.
“Blood Simple has no less amount of foolishness "
Oh, I definitely agree with you, all I meant was that the Coens should primarily be considered comedy filmmakers.
“Haha, I like that! Is that a Dib-ism?”
No it’s more like a malapropism. I cannot think of the term but I know there is one, for a comedy genre that takes on the viewpoint that human beings are essentially absurd and even their most well meaning of choices inevitably end in ironic tragedy.
Solondz and the Coens, for example, are practitioners of this subgenre.
Shall we say the same about, for example, Kaurismaki? those are simple characters, no foools, and the foolishness the Coen show it’s the real foolishness in this world, plus i can give examples of plenty of Coen characters which are not simple idiots.
The black humor of Burn after reading is just what people need.
At this point I’m just pulling genres out of my ass, but Kaurismaki is more proletariat comedy to the Coens’ and Solondz’s cosmic comedy… whereas I can understand how people would see the Coens as laughing at instead of laughing with (it’s sort of both, I think), Kaurismaki mostly really cares for his characters.
He cares about them, love them, but they are not very smart. I don’t believe Coen’s hate they’re characters, actually totally the opposite, they love every single character on Lebowski even if some of them are morons, ridiculous or ‘bad’.
What happens in Kaurismaki films is that the characters are limited in a sense to ‘their place in the world’ but within their place in the world they seek to fashion out their own little bit of mental and emotional real estate, build a nest.
What happens in the Coen brothers’ films is that somebody or some people make a very bad decision and everyone else who gets involved don’t have enough information to prevent making bad decisions themselves, and as a result it all snowballs and is fun and games until someone gets shoved in a wood chipper, at which point it’s hilarious.
…and what happens in Solondz films is that some of the most hidden, anxious, and scary parts of human nature are turned into entire characters, who are then sat next to each other so that they can wring their hands and squirm.
I totally agree on that. My only point was that Coen’s goal is not make the audience ‘feel superior’, i just don’t think so.
I don’t think so either. The ‘joke’ is “Look at human folly! What idiots we can be!” not, “Look at these idiots! Dance, idiots, dance!”
What happens in a Tyler Perry film?
I don’t know, I’ve never been buggered to watch one. From what I understand, a fat black Mammie dishes righteous Christian sass while a mostly loud and one-dimensional cast go all “Oh no you din’t!” on each other’s asses. But that may just be the reviews.
It’s a million dollar formula and he’s bleeding it dry!
I just like the South Park episode where they invent a comedic robot that calculates the best possible joke. Tyler Perry is featured in it and Token keeps laughing and giving him money. When the kids confront Token about it, Token says, “I don’t know! I don’t like it but I just keep laughing and giving him my money!” Throughout the episode Tyler Perry will say something and Token will gasp out his laughs and give him more money through a look of increasing pain and desperation.
I like filmmakers who make the same films over and over so I always seek out Perry, Coen’s have made much better movies (occasionally) of course but I am never compelled to see one.
Polaris, I sat through MADEA’S FAMILY REUNION (slow Saturday afternoon, nothing else to do, there it was on HBO) and can say that your description is just about right, but Madea gets far more violent than you’d imagine.