The Coen Brothers

The Embodiment of Evil - The Antagonist of the Coen's Work

One thing that seems to be constant throughout the works of the Coen brothers is the "evil en carnet" villain; the antagonist who seems unstoppable, immoral, and, in short, a scary bamf. In the three films we watched in class (Raising Arizona, Fargo, and No Country for Old Men), this character was not only one of (if not the) driving forces in the movie, but he was the character that most caught/catches the audience's attention and interest.

In the first movie of the Coen's we watched, Raising Arizona, we met a character dubbed "the Hog From Hell" Leonard Smalls (played by Randall "Tex" Cobb), who destroys everything in his path, as he appears to literally be the embodiment of H.I.'s (Nicholas Cage) guilt over the kidnapped baby. Later, in Fargo, the blond, silent kidnapper seems inhuman in his killing of the innocent and rather brutal means of disposing of the bodies (wood chipper? seriously?). Then in No Country, we meet Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), a hitman who has only one thing on his mind: the pursuit of the money found by Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) and the disposal of all those unfortunate to stand in his way.

In all three movies the main characters are confronted with this seemingly unstoppable evil, and it seems rare that they come out on top in the end, even if they end up being victorious.

And on a side note, the antagonists have rediculous names. Leanord Smalls for the bike rider from hell? and Chigurh (Sugar)? are you kidding?

Altman Blog Post

The Player
Analysis of the Opening Sequence

As we discussed in class, the opening credits of Altman's The Player are done in a way that introduces the chaos of the setting and cast that make up the film to the audience.



The best way to describe the sequence is that we are just passing through the studio as a casual observer, hearing and seeing what usually goes on behind the glamor and the lights of Hollywood. The Camera tracks into a Hollywood studio and focuses on many different characters going about their daily lives in the studio, hearing pitches, leading tour groups, sucking up to big name directors/actors, or just gossiping about the goings on behind the scenes. Most importantly, we learn that the main character, Griffin Mill (Tim Robbins) is suspected to be next on the chopping block, after which we as the audience are shown him hearing several different pitches for new movies from every sort of writer, and stories of all different qualities. Also, we see Mill receive a threatening postcard from what we can only assume is a disgruntled (to say the least) writer, whose pitch was turned down by Mill before the time of the movie. This use of anonymous communication is maintained throughout the film, creating the suspense of the plot.



In conclusion, the genius of Altman really comes out in this scene, as the audience is shown literally all but three or four of the main characters, which allows more time for the story to develop and less time telling the audience exactly who is who and who is doing what.

For a Few Dollars More

In "For A Few Dollars More, director Sergio Leone brings Clint Eastwood back as The Man With No Name to kick some serious ass in the second installment of the Dollars series. True to his directing style, Leone stars Clint Eastwood as the definite protagonist, even with his rather obvious character flaws (being a "bounty killer" isn't exactly honorable). As with "A Fistful of Dollars", Leone has the film set in the dry, rocky terrain of the American West (though both films were made in Europe), with the protagonists (Eastwood as The Man With No Name and Lee Van Cleef as Col. Douglas Mortimer) fighting against somewhat insurmountable odds to serve out justice where it is due....and collect several thousand dollars of reward money in the process.

What sets this film apart from the rest of the series is how Leone incorporates the past of the characters with the story line. The best example of this is when we are constantly shown flashbacks of Indo raping a woman, who turns out to be Col. Mortimer's sister. This rape, it turns out, is why the Colonel is so set on collecting Indo's head, bounty or no. It also expains the pocketwatch that Indo always has with him, and uses as a timer when dueling certain adversaries.

Also, this is the one of the first Leone movies to have multiple settings all across the landscape (as can also be seen in "the Good, The Bad, and The Ugly"), whereas in "A Fistful of Dollars", the whole stroy took place in a single town.

The pile of cow feces known as "Twilight"

Since I can remember, vampires have always been my favorite type of demon/monster (vs Frankenstein or zombies, etc), mainly due to the fact that they could kick some serious ass, be as big of douche bags as they wanted, kill all sorts of people, and still come out getting the girl and being bamf's. If you need to see an example of this, I welcome you to watch any of the Blade Trilogy or 30 Days of Night.


Then a bunch of teenage girls got their hands on the awesomely badass garlic-and-sunlight loathing legends and turned them into complete pussies. They called this piece of crap Twilight.

Just to give you a taste of the things wrong with this movie, I will list some of its worst offenses:
1. the vampires SPARKLE in the sun. need i say more?
2. the plot revolves around a high school love story. If there was anything about vampires that's true, its that they wouldn't waste their immortality going to freaking high school. Lets be honest, if we were eternally in the prime of our youth, I think we would be doing more than sitting through the same boring ass high school classes and all of its bullshit.
3. any words spoken are corny as hell. no smart ass remarks, no jokes, nothing. for god's sake, at least there could've been a little swearing or something.
I could go on but I want to get some other work done. And there's a Wild game on right now. Ill just leave you with what paint and about 3 min of work can do.

The Drama of the Action Movie

Something that I was talking about recently with some friends is how much better some movies are when you fast forward through the actual acting (all of the dramatic stuff) and skip right to good stuff-sex, blood, and violence. This applies to both movies that are world renowned for their superb acting and directing (Gladiator-2000, Directed by Ridley Scott) for example, and some less than stellar films (Troy-2004, Directed by Wolfgang Petersen). If you don't believe me, try it sometime, you will find yourself highly entertained and with up to an hour of unused time.
Maybe this is why some directors have opted to pretty much forgo any Academy Awards for acting and just head straight for the ass kicking. 300 (2006, Directed by Zack Snyder) is a perfect example of this. For any of you who have not seen the film, it is basically a bunch of extremely muscular guys go around impaling Persians on the end of their spears. Pretty kick ass. If you want any more examples, watch any Schwarzenegger movie from his prime (Terminator, Predator, Commando, and Terminator 2 for example)
Really what I'm getting at here is that Hollywood needs to learn when drama needs to take the back seat. Sometimes too much plot will destroy what could have been an awesome movie.

The WESTERN

Arguably the single most badass genre ever, the Western has captured the hearts and imaginations of audiences both in the US and abroad. This depiction of what is really a rather minor part in American history has influenced audiences to such an extent that the protagonist cowboys of the Western have come to somewhat represent the American image: strong willed, moral, independent, and fast with a word and a gun.
As with all major character types, the cowboy has been depicted by countless actors throughout time, and among the many, a few have become icons for all that is man: Clint Eastwood and John Wayne. While I am personally a bigger fan of Eastwood (both his classic Spaghetti Westerns and his revisionist Westerns such as Unforgiven kick all sorts of ass), Wayne is clearly the original bamf cowboy, so I have to give him some credit too.
What is truely amazing about the genre of the Western is that it seems to be truely timeless. It is rare that films form the 50's and 60's are just as entertaining as modern origionals and remakes, and the Western is one of the few to really be able to pull that off.

Required Post #1

So in class we have just finished watching 'the greatest movie ever' "Citizen Kane", and I have to say I am more than a little disappointed.

The way I see it, there are two possible reasons for this:

1. the massive hype over the film that had me expecting way too much out of it
2. the fact that I was neither "captured" by the performance of any of the cast, nor was I really all that impressed with the clever lighting and scene work that Welles put into the film as a whole.

Or, it could be the fact that I have never been a fan of movies that do nothing but pan public figures of the time.

While I watched as Welles criticized the lifestyle of William Randolph Hearst, I could not help but to be reminded of the collections of horse shit Michael Moore appears to be on a never ending quest to keep making. Even though Welles does a rather tasteful mockery of Hearst, I believe that during his time, Welles' film was the equivalent of Moore's contemporary embarrassments to the world of film.

That aside, just as a movie, "Citizen Kane" held very little appeal. Throughout the whole movie, nothing surprising ever really happened, and, while it was filled to the brim with excellent theatrical and cinematographic(?) work, there really was not anything that captured me as a viewer.

I'm not too sure why, but if I ever come across a movie with no action what-so-ever, I usually dislike it. Call me pig-headed, but that's just the way it is for me.