Coen Brothers Retrospective #1: O Brother, Where Art Thou? Early Impressions and Critical Musings

Released in 2000, O Brother, Where Art Thou? is a comedy-historical-drama starring Geroge Clooney, John Turturro and Tim Blake Nelson. The story follows three escaped convicts traversing the Deep South during the Great Depression in search of a hidden treasure. Along the way, they encounter a number of strange characters and episodes before revealing that the treasure was a hoax created by the ‘leader’ Ulysses Everett McGill to get back to his wife, who is soon to be remarried. Jonathan Romney of The Guardian described O Brother, Where Art Thou on three levels: "a tale of three desperadoes on the lam in rural Mississippi; a blues and country musical; and, allegedly at least, a rewrite of Homer's Odyssey".[1] On the other hand, Nick Rynerson on The Gospel Coalition blog described the film as “a portrait of Christian salvation … [and] the human longing for redemption” (Though he notes that the former maybe unintentional and vice-versa for the latter).[2] The film works as it presents a number of different levels of reading depending on one’s own faith and their reactions to the influences of different figures.       

    

O Brother could be read as a cry out for faith in modern society, as represented by the ending which sees the trio saved by a “miracle” after Everett (George Clooney) prays to God to be saved from being executed by the lawmen that have been chasing them. Indeed, these elements play a great part in O Brother but I would argue an analysis can go beyond a Christian allegory and more into a crisis of faith, questioning its part in modern society. I argue that O Brother presents a balanced look at its role both in old values of America (as represented by Pete (John Turturro), Delmar (Tim Blake Nelson) and the Deep South setting against the modern ways of Everett (George Clooney), further personified by his love for hairwax, a mass-consumerist item indicative of the modern age. For Pete and Delmar, religion offers a chance to redeem themselves for their past-crimes. Just as Pete and Delmar are influenced by religion, Everett is influenced by calls of the modern consumer world (something the other two appear to have no interest in). Whether the ending of O Brother, Where Art Thou can be read as a Christian allegory for redemption, what is clear is the Coen’s desire to represent the Deep South in the 1930s as a place where progress is slow. In fact, the Coen show the polar opposite end of religious faith through their depiction of the Ku Klux Klan, performing an almost ritualistic murder of Tommy Johnson. Religious faith is represented as both as a unifying force in this setting that can also have ultimately destructive force. With the character of Everett, the Coens seek to question religious faith in modern society.

This look at ‘faith’ can also be extended to the politics of the period, where the candidates for election come across as snake-oil merchants (make of the modern-day allegory as you will). The candidates search for any kind of manipulative stance to ‘sell’ themselves to the masses. In fact, the ‘band’ (The Soggy Bottom Boys) the boys inadvertently put together takes on a form higher than their initial intentions. They are able to, unintentionally, influence the mass of the Deep South, helping to inspire and change discourse on their own politics. A scene in which Delmar thinks Pete has been transformed into a toad highlights that superstitions still hold weight in this setting. Finally, Everett is motivated by his faith in his wife. The whole drive of the story revolves around him trying to reach back to his wife and restore her faith in him. The film ultimately highlights that human-beings fundamentally need to believe in something – religion, politics, monetary gain, artistic pursuits, romantic pursuits etc. The film highlights people can influence the thoughts and lifestyles of an entire community, whether through lies, manipulation or in faith. 

Overall, with some of these notions in mind, O Brother is a seemingly light film for the Coens. It moves in an episodic fashion as the boys trip up from one scenario to the next. However, I think there is greater depth here than some people give it credit for. It remains a seemingly underrated film in the Coen canon that helps to highlight their incredible skills as technicians and also at dealing with characters and settings. The use of digital colour grading is a stroke of genius. As an example of technology used in an intelligent way to enhance the story-telling, it helps to give the film a dusty, sepia-toned look which of course helps to establish this desolate, often threatening, but also nostalgic landscape. Through subtle comedy and character interaction, O Brother is an offbeat comedy which seeks to explore (but not answer) notions of faith, religion and the influence of authority figures. 

Rating: 8/10

---

[1] Jonathan Romney, ‘Double vision’, http://www.theguardian.com/film/2000/may/19/culture.features

[2] Nick Rynerson, ‘Metanarrative and Redemption in Film: O Brother Where Art Thou?’

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2012/07/05/metanarrative-and-redemption-in-film-o-brother-where-art-thou/

Annoucing: The Coen Brothers Retrospective!

As a film fanatic, there are a number of a keys film and directors that I have not sampled. Heck, I had never seen a Stanley Kubrick film until three years ago and an Ingmar Bergman one until this summer. I take it upon myself to fill out these gaps. The Coens in particular need my attention more. I have seen No Country For Old Men, Fargo, The Ladykillers, The Big Lebowski and True Grit before starting my marathon. In fact, No Country and Lebowski are probably amongst my all time-favourite films. So, really, there is no excuse for me not to try out more of their films. So now the time has come to fill the crucial gaps from some of America's greatest directors. So I am going to present short blogs (500-800 words) on each of the films I watch by them, presenting my initial impressions and thoughts on the film and any re-occurring themes I notice, speaking as something of an outsider to the brothers' works. First up, is O Brother, Where Art Thou?, followed by Barton Fink. I will probably re-watch the ones I have mentioned above and try to see them as part of the larger body of work. Doing this in a slightly odd way by watching/reviewing these films out of order, but it should keep you guys guessing on what I'm going to do next!

The World’s End

Short Verdict: The mint-green finale of Wright-Pegg-Frost’s Cornetto Trilogy sees the trio bow out in spectacular fashion. Confidentially balancing bizarre tonal/genre shifts and dark, twisted humour, The World’s End lacks the broad appeal of the previous Cornetto films but is all the more memorable for it.

 

                In 2004, writer-director Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost burst onto the film screen, following the cult success of the TV show Spaced, with Shaun of the Dead. Balancing a romantic comedy with a zombie apocalypse plot, the trio were clear in undermining and experimenting with comedy and genre. The second film in the trilogy, 2007’s Hot Fuzz, followed a big-city city policeman moving to a small village which concluded with a Bad Boys-esque action scene in a Safeway supermarket. Again, the trio were clear in undermining genre films to supply the humour. The World’s End takes undermining genre and comedy to its ultimate extreme. Simon Pegg plays Gary King, one of the most despicable protagonists in British cinema (and all the better for it), who wants to return to the small village where he grew up, Newton Haven, to complete the Golden Mile, an epic pub crawl through the village’s 12 pubs, which went uncompleted in his youth. He recruits his former friends through lies and deception, who have all moved on, got careers and families and thoroughly hate Gary (Gary is still stuck in the 1990s). The gang includes Andrew (Nick Frost, in a role that is the polar opposite of his previous Cornetto characters), Steven (Paddy Considine), Oliver (Martin Freeman) and Peter (Eddie Marsan). The gang soon uncover a more insidious side to the village as they discover the locals have been replaced by robots by an insidious alien race. However, hook-or-by-crook, Gary will complete the Golden Mile and reach The World’s End pub. Bowing out of the trilogy is an excellent ensemble cast. Made up of the crop of British TV and film stars, the film takes its time in establishing each character and their relation to each other. In fact, this is where we spend most of the first act of the film. Best of all there are cameos from many unexpected faces which I won’t dare spoil here.  

                One of the strongest aspects of the film comes from its confident shifts in tone and humour. Without giving away the last act, the film shifts between silly slapstick, witty one-liners, clever wordplay and black comedy encased in a film that begins as “let’s-get-the-gang-back-together” light hearted plot but evolves into a serious look at the consequences of growing up, along with a sci-fi invasion narrative. Wright completely throws the rule book out of the window and presents a story that is strong to shift between these quite frankly bizarre different threads. It’s a miracle the whole thing holds up the way it does. Normally, at the centre of a Cornetto film, the madness and silliness is anchored by the central duo, Pegg and Frost. The camaraderie and friendship between the two guides the audience along in this sea of madness. However, this time that is not the case. In The World’s End, the two had a bitter falling out (which I won’t spoil the reasons why) that led to a great degree of alienation – these former “thick-as-thieves” friends are now distant from each other. This element of the story makes up a great deal of the serious and darker side of the film. All Gary wants to do is reclaim his youth but the others, especially Andrew, have clearly moved on. Since Gary is such an unlikeable (but, oddly, likeable) character and that central friendship isn’t there as in previous Cornetto films, some audiences may struggle to latch onto the film’s central themes and ideas. However, it is this more radical approach that makes The World’s End such an interesting film, especially in the context of the trilogy. A deeper analysis of the trilogy, that would give away elements of The World’s End, maybe required revealing more depth to this film’s themes. This more brave and radical approach to the story makes The World’s End a different beast to Shaun and Hot Fuzz but arguably is more commendable for doing so. 

                Outside of this central idea, the film offers excellent action scenes, brilliant humour, strange tonal shifts and a wealth of quotable line. The twists the story takes will surprise, maybe even delight, maybe even infuriate, audiences leading to a brilliant conclusion which I won’t spoil here. As always, Wright’s kinetic energy style of filmmaking is kicked into full-gear but knows when to slow down for the darker and more emotional scenes. While not to everyone’s taste, and certainly not what a lot of audiences are expecting, The World’s End will probably become the dark horse of the trilogy. Repeated viewings reveal further depth and nuisance to the story and characters, which thus makes it all the more funny. Destined to become a cult classic, The World’s End offers an extremely entertaining, and unexpected, journey back to a youthful past, supported by brilliant characters, excellent script and schizophrenic tonal shifts. With this final film in the trilogy, Wright, Pegg and Frost have created cornerstones of 21^st century British cinema – look forward to re-watching all of them as one viewing and the endless repeats on ITV 2! Highly recommended. 

Long Verdict: With this final film in the Cornetto trilogy, Wright, Pegg and Frost undermine many of the themes from the previous, employing strange tonal shifts, a wide variety of comedy (many much darker than previous films in the trilogy) and a thoroughly unlikeable central hero. These are all positives. Destined to become a cult classic, The World’s End may not be to everyone’s taste, or what viewers were expecting, but it is this more radical approach that mass audiences need. Endlessly funny and entertaining, this comes highly recommended.

Score: 9/10                 

Monsters University

Short Verdict: Better than expected prequel to the much loved 2001 film, Monsters University packs in wit, charm, laughs and heart, making up for the studio’s recent duds.

 

Introduction

                Monsters, Inc., released in 2001, was the film that really cemented Pixar within the world of animation and cinema in general. Toy Story 1 and 2 are modern classics that would end up dealing with the crisis of growing up and finding one’s place in the world, while A Bug’s Life was a fun, if sleight, pastiche to Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai. Monsters, Inc., however, proved that there was more depth to the imagination and skills of Pixar than just stories about talking toys. The story, for those who need reminding, followed Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal) and James P. “Sulley” Sullivan (John Goodman) who work as “scarers” for the titular factory. In a fully realised world, monsters power their city harnessing childrens’ screams (becoming the feared “monster-in-the-closet”). However, it is revealed they are terribly afraid of them, thinking they are toxic. Disaster occurs when one child, “Boo”, manages to get into the monster world wreaking havoc. So it’s up to Mike and Sulley to get the girl home and uncover the true nature of their work. By the end of the film, the villains are defeated and the monsters find that humour, as opposed to scares, is actually more powerful. Famous for its moving relationship between the main characters and Boo, the film resonated with audiences becoming a Pixar film that has stuck with the children who saw it on original release. Now those children are around university/college age meaning Monsters University is almost as timely as Toy Story 3 (Toy Story was the first film I saw in the cinema and 3 was the last film I saw before I left for university!). 

                This brings us to the present however some context needs to be given to the critical stance of Pixar at the moment. From Finding Nemo onwards, Pixar achieved incredible heights of artistic and commercial success, with modern classics such as The Incredibles, Ratatouille, WALL.E and Up. Combining incredible animation with heart-felt, thought-provoking and surprisingly deep stories, Pixar could do no wrong. However, a misfire appeared in the form of Cars which would go onto become Pixar’s (and Disney’s) most successful product.  In the five years since Cars’ release, the merchandising had generated an incredible $10 billion.[1] Thus, many criticised Pixar of a cynical move to produce Cars 2, even though it was the last film on anyone’s mind for a sequel (given the lukewarm reception and average box-office of the original). The studio’s next film, Brave, was seen as a return to the artistic Pixar in the build-up to its release. However, the result was an undercooked film, with moments of brilliance, but marred by a small and unambitious story, largely the result of the product overhaul halfway through the production. News crept in soon after of a sequel to Monsters Inc. and, given the close ended of the original’s story, many were concerned. Were Pixar losing their touch? Were they beginning to rely on brand recognition? Then one remembers that these guys made two of the best film sequels of all-time, while Monsters, Inc.’s sequel evolved into a prequel, a tantalising concept. 

The Review

                I am happy to report that Monsters University is a near return top form for Pixar. While it doesn’t touch the heights of previous achievements, the film highlights Pixar’s charm, wit, humour and heart. The film follows Mike’s and Sulley’s university days, trying to pass a university course in ‘scaring’. Mike is a bookworm and a lover of scaring but doesn’t amount to much on the practical side, while Sulley is a jock who manages to get by on his good family name. The two don’t mix. But after a series of events, the two are kicked off the program and are forced to work together, along with a nerdy and awkward fraternity, to win back their places through an event called the Scare Games. While the story isn’t anything special, what makes the film great is its humour, in particular coming from the central relationship between Mike and Sulley. Outside of the duo, the new characters in Monsters University are a lot of fun. Whether it’s the menacing Dean Abigail Hardscrabble (Helen Mirren) or the weird and wonderful of Oozma Kappa fraternity or the smug college jock Johnny J. Worthington III (Nathan Fillon) or the imaginatively designed background characters, Monsters University excels in presenting university life and the strange characters that can fill it. And they, of course, work wonderfully well within the film’s comedy spectrum. A particular piece of gold comes from exploring Randall's past, the villain of the original film, as we discover how the character became so despicable. The creativity and broad designs of the characters should be complemented and celebrated for their imagination.Best of all, the film is allowed to be its own world but also links very nicely into the original (which I won't spoil here).

                One slight issue with the film appears in the form of the original film’s story. Of course, as we discover at the conclusion of the original, humour is a more powerful source than scaring which undermines the whole company’s ethos and goals. This is what is being taught at the university. Some may have more trouble than others with this issue and it is a little odd at first. However, the film’s good-natured comedy and focus on friendship more than makes up for this issue. While the film does fall into the clichéd story of working together and friendship, the central relationship of Mike and Sulley more than holds it all together. The best thing that can be said for Monsters University is that it doesn’t not rely on the original for key iconography and instead focuses on creating its own little world (though there are a few nodding winks to the original film here and there). Whether shifting from the dorm rooms to the house party to the hallowed halls of the Scare Academy the film, like the original, succeeds in creating its own world. Essentially, all these elements hold up the film’s great sense of humour. The only thing that doesn’t elevate it to the heights of previous Pixar is the emotional core. Being a prequel, we know these characters are going to end up find regardless of the prequel’s plot. There aren’t moments such as the “Ellie sequence” in Up or silent film opening of WALL.E or Jessie’s Song in Toy Story 2. But this is being unfair on the film, as Monsters University’s aim is to present a fun, free-wheeling exploration of the beginnings of Mike and Sulley’s friendship. Keeping that in mind, the film completely succeeds. 

                Monsters University continues to follow Pixar’s stunning animation and witty scripts. While we have come to expect more from the studio, who arguably have had one of the most impressive track records of any studio in recent film history, the film is a colourful blast of fun, armed with great jokes and characters. While it doesn’t hit the heights of the studio’s past, Monsters University is great entertainment for all audiences. Children in particular will be treated to a wonderful world of strange and funny monsters in a high-energy and constantly entertaining story powered by strong characters. And if Pixar can continue giving children high-quality entertainment in a sea of mediocre products, then there’s some right in the world of cinema. 

Long Verdict: A vibrant and fun return to the world of Monsters, Inc. helped by great comedy, character design and animation. Some may bemoan for a return to the studio’s artistic past but everyone else can enjoy this colourful blast of entertainment. Mike and Sulley’s growing friendship completely holds the film up, along with great new characters. A pleasant surprise, definitely! 

Score: 7/10

---

[1]Merchandise sales drive Pixar's 'Cars' franchise http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/21/business/la-fi-ct-cars2-20110621

Pacific Rim

Short Verdict: More for what it stands for, Pacific Rim succeeds in taking Hollywood blockbusters back to their roots – fun, colourful, self-contained and entertaining as hell.

Hollywood has truly become a cynical, cash-in hungry industry. Not that is always hasn’t been, it’s just in the past 10 years it has moved to producing brands and products and NOT films and stories. The odd blips against this trend (The Matrix, The Dark Knight, The Avengers) have had their iconic images and ideas reaped and stripped for the benefit of lesser products. Desperate to keep up with other mediums, Hollywood has resorted to abandoning original ideas in favour of reboots, sequels and re-branding. The ‘Nolan’ aesthetic, which favours dark and moody tone/cinematography, has been manipulated and altered from its original intentions in order to please mass audiences (and backfired on one of his own projects, the controversial Man of Steel). Any old product is now being revived simply for the hope that an audience may recognise the name (e.g. The Lone Ranger). Films cost a lot, so safety and conformity is being favoured for monetary/marketing/monetary purposes as opposed to actually entertaining an audience. So when news arrived to me that one of the great modern cult filmmakers Guillermo Del Toro was making a Transformers-esque blockbuster, I was naturally concerned for his artist integrity. After all, this is the man who created the Spanish Civil War fantasy films Pan’s Labyrinth and The Devil’s Backbone, the highly underrated Hellboy films and attempted to create a very personal and alternative vision of Middle-Earth. His commitment to traditional filmmaking techniques must also be commended.  So, an over-the-top, $100 million plus, seemingly CGI heavy robot film had me worried. But it took an outsider to remind audiences that mass entertainment can have a good story, characters, pacing and lack of cynicism. 

Pacific Rim succeeds because it successfully tells a complete story free from Hollywood branding. The opening prologue is clear and concise in the information it provides. A rift from another dimension opens in the middle of the Pacific, unleashing giant monsters known as kaiju unto the world. As they begin to rampage cities, the military counteracts by building giant robots known as jaegers. The jaegers are controlled by two pilots, one for the left hemisphere and the other for the right (meaning they must share a deep bond – becoming the crux of the drama). For a time they are successful to defeating the kaiju but soon find that the creatures are adapting. As the looming apocalypse approaches and hope fades, it is up to the last remnants of the jaeger program to find a permanent end to the kaiju problem. That last sentence basically makes up the next 2 hours of the film. We follow the hot-headed Raleigh Becket (Charlie Hunnam), the mysterious Mako Mori (Rinko Kikucho), commanding officer Stacker Pentecost (Idris Elba), bumbling and neurotic scientists Dr. Newton Geiszler (Charlie Day) and Dr. Hermann Gottlieb (Burn Gorman) as they fight to reclaim earth. Filling out the cast is Ron Perlman as a kaiju black-market dealer, a character who appears to have walked out of a manga strip. The best thing that can be said about the cast and plot of Pacific Rim is its transnational nature. America is not the focus of the disaster (as in many other post-9/11 apocalypse films) and looks to create a trans-global network of terror. Other jaeger pilots hail from China and Russia and the big action set-piece takes place in Hong Kong. Del Toro presents a believable, lived-in world that is collapsing under the pressure of the kaiju attacks. A particular highlight is the world that Chau, the Ron Perlman character, opens: cults worshipping the bones of kaiju, obsessive fanboys, dodgy organ dealing etc. This almost harks back to the fantasy market sequences of the much under-appreciated Hellboy II. In all, the characters form, arguably intentional, stereotypes performing tropes from the various films Pacific Rim is influenced by. Taken as a whole, the cast manage to pull together the inherently silly concept.

Outside of the well-rounded cast and world building, the main attraction of Pacific Rim is the jaeger vs. kaiju fights. Unlike the Transformers films, where the robots are thrown around like weightless constructs, you feel the weight and scale of these battles. In particular, the battle for Hong Kong is an absolute testament to pacing and audacious filmmaking. Shot in bright neon lit colour against the backdrop of torrential rain, the battle plays out like the imagination of a young boy playing with his toys, mixed in with a Blade Runner/Neon Genesis Evangelion aesthetic. The site gags in particular are excellent. The build-up to the fights feels well-earned, for a good hour of the film is spent establishing the world and characters. When that first punch is thrown, the film tumbles down into a spiral of dizzying set-pieces, character revelations, and a trip to space and back down again to the Earth’s lowest depths. In a sense, Del Toro has mastered the art of satisfying a mass audience after years spent making atmospheric art house films. In terms of the special effects, it is surprising how under-used the CGI is (now bad thing, of course). Now there is plenty of it used, mostly in the battle scenes, but not to the extent many other blockbusters do. Del Toro clearly still believes in traditional effects (sets, prosthetics, animatronics) and doesn’t let the CGI steal the show. It is a combination of all these elements, from traditional to ground-breaking filmmaking that makes Pacific Rim feel like it has stepped out of another time; a time when special effects helped to tell a story and not the other way round. 

Above all, Pacific Rim stands for something. In a world of branding, audience-recognition and remakes/sequels/reboots/prequels, the film stands for original ideas. Like Stars Wars or Indiana Jones, Pacific Rim takes influence from older source material (anime, Godzilla, Independence Day) and does something brand new with them. Just as the jaegers feel out outnumbered and out-gunned against a sea of giant, threatening and destructive monsters, Pacific Rim stands against the tide of modern Hollywood. While Hollywood continues to saturate whatever an audience may recognise and search for the latest trend, Del Toro and company have crafted a film that stands proud and tall in a sea of lumbering monsters.  Ignoring trends, Del Toro takes the audience back to a time when Hollywood entertained its audience, through sight, sound, colour and spectacle. As a blurring effect continues to haunt Hollywood, Pacific Rim has already developed something of a cult following. Sites such as http://www.pacificrim-movie.net/  or http://pacificrim.wikia.com/wiki/Pacific_Rim_Wiki) that seek to document every aspect of the films’ production and world have begun to appear. It renews hope that those with a unique vision can find a place to present their ideas on the grandest scale possible. 

…Short review: it has giant robots beating the crap out of giant monster aliens. ‘Nuff said. 

Long Verdict: From art-house to the multiplex, Del Toro has successfully delivered his first major blockbuster, using a combination of old-school story-telling and ground-breaking effects to present a film with a clear love for its influences. Essentially, a dumb B-movie has been made exciting, engrossing, satisfying and memorable by a team of intelligent filmmakers. Standing proud and tall against the mass that is Hollywood.

SCORE: 8/10