Doomsday
Administrator 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,295 
Likes: 6,760
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 1:33:13 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Apr 26, 2024 0:33:50 GMT -5
For my next filmography exercise I'll be visiting the movies of Joel and Ethan Coen. Personally, I consider the Coen Bros. to arguably be the best filmmakers working today. Some of their films sit on my all-time favorites list such as The Big Lebowski and No Country For Old Men, however I noticed that there were quite a few that I've never seen before such as Barton Fink, The Ladykillers and The Man Who Wasn't There. Others such as Raising Arizona and O Brother, Where Art Thou? are movies I've only seen once years ago and hardly remember. While I go through these and share my thoughts I'll indicate whether it's my first time or if it's a revisit. I'll also try to indicate recurring themes that I find and how they might rank in the canon of Coen. Blood Simple (1984)
View count: First time The first film by the team of Joel and Ethan Coen, Blood Simple doesn't just work as an effective crime thriller, it almost serves as an omen of things to come from the filmmakers. It's dark and twisted and has the little quirks that we've come to recognize in movies under their label. As far as debuts go, this one ranks in the upper tier. We're introduced to Ray (John Getz) and Abby (Frances McDormand of course) as they're driving to a remote motel. Abby is on the run from her husband, Julian (Dan Hedaya) who also happens to own the bar where Ray works. Julian hires a private investigator played by the great charactor actor M. Emmett Walsh, to kill the couple yet when greed gets involved and things go sour the collateral damage begins to pile up. Blood Simple is effective because it's, for lack of better words, simple. As the Coens would go onto revisit later, they focus on a very centralized, small town, small time happening and characters as we watch it implode from the inside. We focus on a handful of seemingly minor characters in everyday life whose decision-making leads to their downfall. One theme that the Coen Bros. incorporate into several of their films is greed; how it affects everyone involved and destroys everything it touches. It's a motive that's front and center in Blood Simple. The movie is also a study in how effectively a screenwriter can make events trickle down and flow each other without feeling forced or driven by plot devices. Again, the Coens are practiced in stories that take small, obscure events, like stealing a rug for example, and watching them spin wildly out of control. Like I said earlier, Blood Simple acts as a harbinger of what is to come from these filmmakers. Even though Blood Simple isn't the deepest or most thought provoking movie, it is a very solid debut from these filmmakers (Joel Coen is solely credited as director). While the Coens have a filmography that's probably more diverse than any other filmmaker, they're probably best known for their crime dramas. Blood Simple is certainly a good start. After 7 years of the Criterion blu ray being on my shelf, I finally gave Blood Simple a rewatch. There was a lot I didn't remember and it's a solid movie, it's also very clearly a first swing at the bat. Lots of cool lighting and shots but there are some other more jarring edits and camera moves that might be reconsidered by the Coens today. And Walsh's motive, the spark that ignites the rest of the film, is a little convoluted as it is. So you were hired to kill a couple for cash but then decided to fake killing the couple so you could really kill the guy who was going to pay you anyways and you accidentally left your lighter which could have belonged to anyone and needed to get it back and...okay fine. It's a fun movie and definitely has the Coen 'hair going up on the back of your neck' feel to it, I think it just sits in the good not great category. |
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,765
Likes: 8,645
Location:
Last Online Nov 21, 2024 17:53:27 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Apr 26, 2024 6:23:06 GMT -5
After 7 years of the Criterion blu ray being on my shelf, I finally gave Blood Simple a rewatch. Always late to the party. I can’t recall the last time I watched Blood Simple, but it was so long ago that I forgot Same Old Song by the Four Tops is basically the theme song. No disrespect towards Carter Burwell’s Twilight music and the Chris Nolan style ambient sounds. When Dan Hedaya dragged Frances McDormand out the door, I thought it would cut to Oppenheimer giving a speech about the atomic bombs successfully blowing up Japan. Some further thoughts for SnoBorderZero— Frances McDormand is kinda cute here. She’s generally in the Hilary Swank category of “maybe after a few beers” but I’d sober fuck her in this movie. Doomsday might call this an insensitive comment. It is 2023 after all. But the whole premise of this film revolves around two dudes willing to kill each other over a woman. Was Holly Hunter unavailable? — I’m amazed this movie is only 90 minutes since it moves slower than paint drying and it’s just the Coen’s and Barry Sonnenfeld jerking off over all the cool shots they came up with. — The acting is wooden as hell. Can’t believe this is three-time Academy Award winner Frances McDormand. The Daniel Day Lewis of actresses. How embarrassing. — Before Dracula and PG Cooper murder me, the screenplay is pretty good. It’s no Kevin Smith Clerks but what is? For a first time script, it’s engaging and has a nice twist to it. That combined with the overly excessive “cool shots” make this a fun watch. I actually just researched blood simple the other day myself, the wife had never seen it. The leads acting is certainly the reason you never see him after this one but it's a fun 90 minutes. And no chance you kicking a tight bodied mcdormand outta bed. No chance. The leads acting is certainly the reason you never see him after this one Sir, he’s in the Fly and the Fly II. I don’t know, man. In that swimsuit photo she got overshadowed by Dan Hedaya’s hairy body. Guy was competing with Robin Williams. Sir, he’s in the Fly and the Fly II. And Zodiac and The Social Network. And no chance you kicking a tight bodied mcdormand outta bed. No chance.  And Zodiac and The Social Network. Classic white guy just showing up getting work. Dudes trash. Classic white guy just showing up getting work. Dudes trash. Did John Getz steal your bicycle? Listed as a character actor for a reason. Keep him away from leading roles. |
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,295
Likes: 6,760
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 1:33:13 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Apr 26, 2024 9:01:39 GMT -5
Always late to the party. At least we all agree on the important stuff, that 1983 Frances McDormand is definitely not getting kicked out of bed. I can guarantee I'm about 1/1,000 as hairy as Dan Hedaya.
|
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,527
Likes: 3,130
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 0:32:12 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Apr 26, 2024 9:23:29 GMT -5
Honestly, I think Blood Simple is still one of my favorite Coen Bros. movies. Even for their debut feature, it's still atmospheric as hell and feels Hitchcockian in nature.
|
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,295
Likes: 6,760
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 1:33:13 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Jul 26, 2024 1:14:30 GMT -5
It's been many a moon since I've decided to delve into someone's filmography, mainly because life happens, we're all a little older, busier, it's hard to predict the day to day sometimes. One filmmaker I've toyed with diving into is someone I'm not terribly familiar with despite his reputation. He's also appealing for the simple fact that he only has a handful of movies. So I'm officially making it my next project: to go through the feature films of Andrei Tarkovsky. To date, I've only seen one of his features, Solaris, which I loved. He only has seven (I'll rewatch Solaris) so I think this is doable without getting derailed. I'll start with Ivan's Childhood in the next couple weeks and go from there working them in when I can. So yeah, here goes nothin.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,765
Likes: 8,645
Location:
Last Online Nov 21, 2024 17:53:27 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Jul 26, 2024 1:53:05 GMT -5
He's also appealing for the simple fact that he only has a handful of movies. Yeah, but half of them are like 6 hours long. |
|
SnoBorderZero
CS! Silver
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,621
Likes: 3,182
Location:
Last Online Nov 19, 2024 19:49:20 GMT -5
|
Post by SnoBorderZero on Jul 26, 2024 16:42:57 GMT -5
Sweet. Ivan's Childhood is fantastic and Tarkovsky at his most accessible. I hope you enjoy the ride.
|
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,295
Likes: 6,760
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 1:33:13 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Aug 5, 2024 19:17:22 GMT -5
Ivan's Childhood
As the guy says, why not begin at the beginning? Ivan's Childhood is Andrei Tarkovsky's first feature film and I knew as much about the movie as I did about Tarkovsky's background, life, themes, vision and anything else that might influence him as a filmmaker. My only real experience with his filmography is Solaris which I really enjoyed but haven't seen in years and years. As he has a pretty stellar reputation as a European filmmaker whose movies I've barely seen, I thought I should start at square one and move forward from there. That's it, that's about all of the thought and effort that went into my decision making. Having a blank slate is tough because you almost always have some preconceived notion of something, of anything really, before you immerse yourself in it. But to do that with an auteur whom you're mostly unfamiliar with? It's hard to know what to expect. Anyways, back to Ivan's Childhood.
Ivan's Childhood begins with a dream. A boy, Ivan, chases butterflies, flies through a field and meets his mother. We suddenly smash to young Ivan waking up alone in a dark, dirty windmill. We briefly follow him as he makes his way through a desolate landscape and swamp that he navigates on his own. He finds his way to a Russian army post where he starts giving orders to the man in charge, demanding that his presence be reported. The soldiers are just as confused as the audience at this point but we learn over the course of the film that Ivan does reconnaissance for the Russian Army. He's alone after his family was killed during the war, he has no desire to return to military school and his only way to focus his rage is being on the front line and serving the war effort. We briefly follow the stories of supporting characters until we go with Ivan and his commanding officer/unofficial guardian on another recon mission.
There's no super clear narrative in Ivan's Childhood and much of it is following certain characters at sometimes seemingly random points as they all navigate fighting on the bleak Russian battlefield. There isn't a linear point A to point B with a conflict and resolution, only a brief recap of what fates awaited the main characters. In that way the ending fit well tonally with the rest of the movie. It's also apparent that Tarkovsky has an eye for shot work. He makes great use of wides showing burned out villages or battlefields in some scenes, moves to high and low angle closeups in others and makes the interior sets look just as drab and cold as the exterior ones. If there's ever been a movie where the actual mood could be a character or element all on its own it's this.
From a technical standpoint there's a lot to take away from Ivan's Childhood. Narratively I can't say it captivated me from the first frame as you're following characters rather than a traditional narrative. Still, I admire what Tarkovsky was trying to do here and it certainly feels like it stands apart from the mainstream films that Hollywood was producing at the time. In all honesty it makes me wonder what kind of setup this debut is and what Ivan's Childhood displays that will be carried into Tarkovsky's other features. While I'm unsure when I'll revisit Ivan's Childhood again, there are some things about it that I definitely can appreciate.
B+ so says Doomsday
|
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,295
Likes: 6,760
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 1:33:13 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Sept 27, 2024 23:11:45 GMT -5
I finished Andrei Rublev for the first time a couple days ago. It's something else, that's for sure. I've been doing a little writeup but man this is a tough one to write about. More to come soon but in short if nothing else it definitely breaks the biopic mold.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,765
Likes: 8,645
Location:
Last Online Nov 21, 2024 17:53:27 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Sept 28, 2024 0:56:40 GMT -5
I finished Andrei Rublev for the first time a couple days ago. It's something else, that's for sure. I've been doing a little writeup but man this is a tough one to write about. More to come soon but in short if nothing else it definitely breaks the biopic mold.  |
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,295
Likes: 6,760
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 1:33:13 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Sept 30, 2024 13:32:33 GMT -5
Andrei Rublev
I think Andrei Rublev can easily be categorized as one of those movies that I appreciate more than I enjoyed. I appreciate the fact that this was Andrei Tarkovsky's second feature and man did he swing for the fences. I couldn't help but think 'how did people write and shoot this thinking that it's going to find an audience' as most of it seems almost experimental. In a time where period piece biopics were commonplace and winning major awards, Andrei Rublev features a character who isn't exactly a household name and portrays him in a movie that's focused on being more spiritual and philosophical than 'entertaining.' Most of the movie was spent with me wondering where it was taking me, asking who certain people were and how these chapters were linked. It left me with questions, it made me wonder what exactly I just watched but it did pose questions to you and felt like something that was meant to be absorbed rather than just 'viewed.'
Honestly, Andrei Rublev is unlike any movie I've seen before. It's described as a 'biopic' but it's not a biopic in any traditional sense. There's no 'setup' to who Rublev is, in fact I had to look him up myself to see exactly why I was watching a movie on the guy. He was a Russian artist in the 14th century who created famous Renaissance icons of Biblical figures. You would think that you might see some scenes, or just a single scene really, of Andrei actually crafting one of his works. Instead we witness Andrei over the period of several years, divided into chapters throughout the film, going through experiences or conversations that shape his faith and outlook in some way. Some of these I still have trouble wrapping my head around, especially the opening scene with a man in a makeshift hot air balloon as he takes off from the top of a castle, flies a distance and crashes presumably to his death. Naturally I was looking for a through line, something that might relate all of these chapters and tie them together creating this 'ah-ha!' moment at the end of the film. It doesn't quite get there, however it does conclude with a resolution for Andrei in a certain sense. While the road of Andrei Rublev is vague and mystifying it does have notable features that are clearly evident. The set pieces primarily are one of the highlights of the film especially as it moves into the second and third acts. The first hour or so of the movie takes place in tight monasteries or forest setups however we then see an entire sack of a Russian town by the Tartars. Not only is it a harrowing and equally captivating set, it's such a departure from the previous chapters in the film (this one is the fourth or fifth so about halfway through). In the previous segment we see a group of artists who refuse additional work from a local lord. As the artists travel through the forest they are ambushed and blinded by soldiers for their refusal. Again, these bleak encounters are not only hard to watch and process (a feat for an almost 60 year old movie) but they convey a theme that permeates through Andrei Rublev, one that also could be applied to my viewing of the movie at times, and that theme would be 'man's struggle.' Is that what Tarkovsky was going for? It's hard to say because I think there are many things you could glean from this movie. The entire film shows Andrei wrestling with his duty, other people and the decisions he's forced to make. It's not a feel good movie but it's not a depressing downer, it's about a man who's living a life as he navigates the circumstances life presents.
This could be considered as one of those movies that's 'open to interpretation' as there are a few lenses through which this could be viewed. Normally when I hear people apply the 'open to interpretation' verbiage I translate that as fans trying to find an excuse to give flaws a pass. With Andrei Rublev though I do think that there is much that could be looked at through different perspectives. Like I said, it's tough to find a connecting event or theme to tie this all together which is why this could be a difficult watch for some people especially on their first go but there's no denying that once you're aware of the structure, you can embrace all the bits that are filling it in. Like I said, there are still lingering thoughts that might be explained by someone who's seen this repeatedly. Some are more broad, some might be silly. Are the horses symbolic of something? The end of the opening segment with the hot air balloon features a horse and the film closes on out of focus horses near a stream. Does that mean anything? I'm not entirely sure. There's a lot that could be open to discussion but I suppose that's one of the hallmarks of a movie that could last. It's hard for me to gauge how much I enjoyed Andrei Rublev because I can't say I was enthralled over the entire 3 hour runtime but I can tell you it's one that I've thought about over the past few days since watching it. Will I watch it again anytime soon? I'm not so sure but when that day comes I think it will hit me in a few different ways, and for the better.
Next up, the only Tarkovsky movie I've seen previously, Solaris.
|
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,295
Likes: 6,760
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 1:33:13 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Nov 6, 2024 15:28:07 GMT -5
Solaris
In the span of three movies, we've gone from World War II drama to medieval historical biopic to science fiction rom-dram (I just made that term up, hopefully no one else thought of it first as I'm quite proud of it). Solaris is the only Andrei Tarkovsky movie that I had seen before setting upon my quest to catch all his films but after sitting down to watch it again it may as well have been my first watch as I quickly realized that I remembered next to nothing about it other than the final shot. I always paired it with 2001 in that they were released roughly around the same time (1968 vs. 1972) and are both highly regarded sci-fi films. I'm not the biggest sci-fi guy in the world but I do have an appreciation for 2001 and always held Solaris in high regard even though it's been a solid decade since I last watched it, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if it was closer to 15 years or so. Many of the themes that are common in sci-fi might escape me so I'm not sure if Solaris sits nicely with other stories in the genre or whether it's an outlier but it does work as a personal, focused drama that exists against the backdrop of space.
The film opens on Kris Kelvin, a scientist/psychologist living in a remote home with his father. It's revealed that his wife had passed away some years earlier which still sits with him. He receives a visit from a colleague who informs him that there has been some disturbing communications from the space station orbiting the ocean planet Solaris and Kris departs his home indefinitely to investigate. Upon arriving he realizes that the planet creates physical manifestations of the things that the people in the space station desire, and in Kris' case the manifestation turns into his deceased wife. What's interesting is that these manifestations aren't just hallucinations that would appear only to the subject; they are physical entities that appear and interact with everyone else. Earlier in the film Kris debates the morality in science and what could make knowledge and scientific study moral or immoral. Juxtapose that with his yearning to be with his 'wife' despite the fact that he's fully aware that she's a copy generated from his own memory. With Kris becoming more attached to his wife and disconnected from reality, he finds himself at a crossroads as to which reality he wants to be in.
Coming off Ivan's Childhood and Andrei Rublev, I was looking forward to settling into a movie with a more linear storyline. I remembered the general story of Solaris but when I really started to get into it I discovered how much of it I had completely forgotten. In a way that was good in that I was able to become reacquainted with the supporting characters and their motivations. A scene with Kris burning those items that tie him to his home, both his physical home and Earth more specifically, was a pretty on the nose bit of foreshadowing but gave a good indication as to Kris' state of mind. On the other hand I discovered how this movie falls in line with Tarkovsky's other films in that it's very detail oriented but that contributes to it being very slow at points. I think most of the first hour is spent reviewing and discussing a video showing a hearing on the happenings on Solaris. It's not long after we finally get to the space station that we're introduced to the other astronauts and the 'Visitors' that they manifested. We then meet Hari, Kris' 'Visitor' wife which is when the story really takes off. Seeing Kris initially put his wife into a shuttle and launch her from the space station seemed like the practical thing that a grieving man might do if he knew his new wife was an imposter but it speaks to Kris' actual character that he eventually and deliberately lets his guard down in order to embrace his second chance with his wife as disingenuous as it may be. It's a very interesting and personal look at grief and acceptance and although this sometimes makes 2001 look like Indepence Day in terms of pacing it's a very slow burn that can cut into you emotionally, especially at its final conclusion.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,765
Likes: 8,645
Location:
Last Online Nov 21, 2024 17:53:27 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Nov 14, 2024 17:52:06 GMT -5
|
|
