The Man Who Wasn't There

Rating:
Summary: Don't be afraid, O jaded Coen Brothers fans
Review: I was really not sure what to expect with this movie, but given the previews and the good press, I really wanted to see it. If I was a little bit apprehensive, it might only be because I didn't know what to think of O Brother Where Art Thou. O Brother was good, but it was so different than the Coen Brothers movies I love, Blood Simple and Fargo.

Billy Bob Thornton and Frances McDormand put in amazing performances. The cinematography is gorgeous, black and white tinged with color and the dramatic effect of slow-motion play to great effect. The references to late 40's, early 50's were right on, as was the humor. The story pays homage to noir, although if you took a film noir plot and handed it to a bunch of real people, this is probably closer to how it would turn out.

The best film I've seen in months.

Rating:
Summary: A review of reviews of The Man Who Wasn't There.
Review: This is my favorite movie (tied with "Barton Fink") ever made. It's depressing, to me, that film reviewers (even-- especially-- professionals) seem to prefer reviewing everything but the content of the film (is it because it's really pointless, or even impossible, to do so?), focusing on who made it or whether or not it is exactly enough like a classic film noir or not (one review claims its fault might be it is too visually beautiful since film noirs are usually not as noticeably beautiful. What does that matter? It's a beautifully filmed movie, very much so. Even if it borrows noir themes, who cares? Why do the filmmakers have to succumb to filming it to be exactly like one of those films down to the last detail? It's THEIR movie, and they can use what they want and ignore what they want and do it their way if they want to. And why do people have to complain about somebody making a beautiful movie in this commonly computer-drenched age in the first place?).

I love this movie, and I don't think it's slow or boring. Roger Ebert, a famous film critic, dedicates most of his review to saying he "almost forgives" this movie for "its slow pace." But then he also says he likes it. I watched it (twice, so far) and never once thought it was slow. I was never once doing anything but laughing or paying attention or thinking about the characters and how much I liked them. I don't think I would like a movie if I thought it was slow. And I don't think Mr. Ebert truly likes it if he thinks as much. If at any time during the film he was bored while watching it, there must have been an aspect of it that didn't entertain him. He must not have liked the jokes here, or his mind must have started to wander during a piece of dialogue. Perhaps he was not able to relate to the plight of the characters during all parts of the film, or he got confused while he was trying to associate Ed Crane's quiet detachment from his life with another movie character he's seen that he's sure the filmmakers were trying to emulate. And then, he writes, even his colleagues (at the Cannes film festival?) found the film "dull." Some snobby French guy (whose name I can't recall) said, after a screening of a movie, something to effect of, "They made an 1 1/2 movie into a two hour one" (meaning, "That movie was 1 1/2, but it felt 2 hours long!"). Who is this guy? Why does he have the job of telling other people what is good or not? Who comes out of a movie, like that, and, with all the things that could be said about its very heartfelt and interesting insights, only says it feels too long? I hope that person hates the film. I hope he says he thinks everything about it stinks, because if he comes away saying something like, "This movie was nothing but dull, but I will forgive the Coen Brothers since they made Fargo and everybody liked it-- even though I thought it was boring too and didn't like it because I don't think I could ever appreciate it because I care nothing about movies and only desire to look interesting while talking about them-- so I think they are geniuses." I hope he doesn't blab pointlessly like Ebert does, like a phony, making excuses for something he doesn't like but will pretend to because he thinks he should.

Another review I have a beef with comes from The Detroit Free Press, I think. The reviewer gave it three stars, but he says, in description of the film and character (I'm paraphrasing), "Ed Crane is a barber who wants to be a dry cleaner and is married to a wife he doesn't love..." I'm not necessarily mad at this guy, but I think it is a poor representation of the character of Ed Crane to say he doesn't love his wife. He is a disenchanted character, but I think that assessment if far from the truth. The two love each other; they appreciate immensely the silence they give each other. (This is best exhibited in the flashback scene where Doris gets rid of the driveway salesman and then sits in the living room with Ed. He tries to comfort her, him probably wanting to but not feeling he adequately can, and she just asks him not to talk. And they both love it, as it is their nature, even though they may wish there are words they could say the things they feel to each other with.) And at the end, which I won't give away, all Ed is thinking about is seeing Doris and their finally understanding one another. (Sorry.) Anyway, he does love her, and, despite what she does in the film, she loves him. They are both caught in a sort of classic existential despair. That's what I love about this movie. It doesn't just feature characters in that sort of despair. It is about it. That is the plot of the movie that isn't exactly on the surface. (That is also probably why it might be such a hard thing to review.)

I realize I'm also guilty of discussing other things while reviewing this film, but I'm not interested in doing that exactly. This IS a review of reviewers, more or less, and, even though that's what I've done, I feel I've said more about the movie than any of them have anyway.

Rating:
Summary: Love the Coens, not sure what to make of this one...
Review: Despite the Coen brothers behind the camera and Frances McDormand in front of it, I was a bit disappointed with this movie. While I think they are striving for something great, I feel that something greater is missing. The film is visually amazing--the depth of the black-and-white images, the period-dialogue and meticulous attention to detail can lead you to momentarily forget that you're looking for what lies beneath it all (or that what is below the surface matters at all). Billy Bob Thornton's character Ed Crane is a pathetic soul, and the Coens whip up an absolutely mezmerizing context in which to display it; how it all relates and what it all means gets a bit lost, however.

Rating:
Summary: Boring exercise
Review: I love the Cohen Bros, but this is their most sterile effort yet--a beautiful technical recreation of film noir, whose story is simply not captivating.

Rating:
Summary: The Coen brothers have done it again...
Review: Great cinematography, soundtrack, characters, everything! The story-telling is amazing, with hilarious moments despite the generally bleak tone of the film. A great use of noir style, making some occurences in a man's life that may seem insignificant to a modern audience (who is used to fast action and Independence Day-size occurences), seem important and entertaining.

Rating:
Summary: Was he there or wasn't he?
Review: Sometimes no matter how hard you try to win, you end up losing. That's probably the best way to put it for Ed Crane (Billy Bob Thorton), the lead character in The Man Who Wasn't There. It's 1949 and Crane is the second-in-command barber at his brother-in-law's barber shop in small town California. The monotone nature of Thorton's voice fits the character well, as everything about the character is monotone. Crane is your classic dull guy. "I don't talk much," Crane tells us in the beginning of the movie. "I just cut the hair." Little does Crane realize that he's about to enter a life that's filled with adultery, embezzlement, murder, prison time, and stories of alien abduction. Those who are intrigued should continue reading.
One day a man named Creighton Tolliver (Jon Polito) stops by for a haircut and mentions that he's got a can't-lose investment opportunity: the dry cleaning business. He just needs a partner to take care of the financial part of the business. Although Crane may be initially intrigued by such an idea, he mentions nothing of it to Tolliver. He just cuts the hair. When Crane discovers that his wife Doris (Frances McDormand) is having an affair with her boss, Big Dave (James Gandolfini), Crane sees opportunity: he can blackmail Big Dave and go into business with Tolliver. Crane writes an anonymous note to Big Dave reading something along the lines of: "I know about your affair with Doris Crane and so will everyone else unless you pay me $10,000." Will Big Dave pay up and will Crane go into the dry cleaning business? We get the impression that throughout this movie, Crane wants desperately to be somebody. A barber just cuts hair and listens to people talk. Would such a novel idea as dry cleaning make him somebody important?

This is a rather difficult movie to review without spoiling it in that there are so many subplots that one feels obligated to address. For example, Doris is later involved in a murder case that requires "the best attorney money can afford." Crane and his brother-in-law (Michael Badalucco) strike a deal with the bank in that they'll use their barber shop in order to buy "the best attorney." The best turns out to be Tony Riedenschneider (Tony Shalhoub). Will Riedenschneider get Doris off the hook? Another example of a subplot is the story of Birdy (Scarlett Johansson), a 16-year-old girl who Crane feels has musical talent. He has so much faith in her that he takes her to a music expert, hoping to jumpstart her career as a pianist and his career as her manager. Like I said earlier, he wants to do something he feels will make him important.

It might take a little while to realize, but Crane is all of us. Although sometimes we feel like what we're doing is important, it can so quickly turn routine. Many of us accept the routine and carry on with it. Others try to alter it in some way, make it even a little bit different. Still others quit and try something totally different. Will Crane be a dry-cleaner? Will he be Birdy's manager? This movie, which is a little longer than two hours, asks all of these questions and more. Unlike many movies, however, it also answers every single one it poses. Rating: 4 / 4.

SMITH TALKS: The Future of Movie Reviews ...

Rating:
Summary: There isn't enough there.....there
Review: The Coen Brothers have made a career of being slightly off center, to say the least, beginning with the crazy-as-hell, hold onto your pants before they fall off "Raising Arizona." Thus far into their career, "Fargo" stands as their most celebrated film especially the performances of Frances MC Dormand and William Macy. Personally, I favor "O Brother where art Thou?"even though all of their films have something to delight and surprise us, even the much maligned, "The Big Lebowski."
In the Coens latest film, "The Man who wasn't There" we are introduced to a film drained of all color: both literally and figuratively. Billy Bob Thornton plays Eddie Crane, a man who doesn't say much, "the man who wasn't there" of the title. What he does do... is smoke a hell of a lot.
Many people have called this a film noir but I think not. Film noir has active protaganists up against "the system," "the boss," "the wife or husband," "time," things beyond control that he/she is trying to get under control. Think Lana Turner and John Garfield in "The Postman always Rings Twice" or Edmund O'Brien in "D.O.A." These characters are in motion, acting, reacting. Eddie Crane is more acted upon than acting; always behind a haze of smoke...watching.
There are a couple of murders in this film. The wrong person is accused of both. But in the end someone is found guilty of murder even though it is not the one he or she committed. I'm being purposely vague here so as not to give away what little tension and excitement this film has.
There is an homage to David Lynch in a scene between Eddie and Ann Nirdlinger (Katherine Borowitz who spends the entire film in a constant state of surprise: eyes popped open) in which Ann describes a camping trip with her husband, Big Dave (James Gandolfini) in which Big Dave is abducted by Aliens that is hilarious because it is played so seriously. By the way, this scene is probably the most beautifully shot scene in the entire film: a night scene, a slight breeze fluttering the leaves about, both Eddie and Ann interestingly light from the side.
All of the acting is first rate even the controlled, muted performance of Billy Bob Thornton but especially Jon Polito as an opportunist/crook looking for seed money for a Dry Cleaning establisment and Tony Shalhoub as "the best lawyer in Northern California." But James Gandolfini seems to only have three notes in his repetoire: mad, madder still and then violent. Big Dave is basically Tony Soprano in late 40's clothing. Hollywood History Buffs will note that the restaurant scenes were shot in the 82 year old Musso Franks Grill on Hollywood Blvd.
Every Coen Brothers film is a must-see and "The Man who wasn't There" is not an exception. But the Coens have built a world and inhabited it with characters on which we cannot hang our emotional coats,hats and scarves. Not a world I would want to visit again I'm sorry to say.

Rating:
Summary: What a treat!!!
Review: The Coen brothers did it again! They constantly amaze me with their ability to draw the audience in and you can't get away! Billy Bob Thornton and Frances McDormand are top notch in this intriguing black and white "who did it". The big city attorney (I think he played the taxi driver on the TV show, "Wings") is excellent. If you want a good story that is like reading a book you can't put down, go see this movie.

Rating:
Summary: A dissenting opinion
Review: The acting in this film is flawless. Thornton, McDormand, Gandolfini, Polito, and the entire cast do a terrific job. The attention to detail--in the sets, the costumes, the props, the entire mise-en-scene--is absolutely meticulous, and wonderful.

And the capturing of the era is equally impressive; the early 50s (or so it struck me) was a time in American cultural history characterized by the surface appearance of simplicity and straightforwardness which could easily mask greed, jealousy, bigotry (see the film Focus for a great portrayal of this), and corruption. This feeling envelops the film--even drenches it.

This immersion in the 50s is an exact match with Thornton's character, Ed Crane, a cipher of a man whose constant frown and ever-present cigarette stuck in mouth brand him as a permanently bewildered onlooker. His normally taciturn nature is complemented by a voice that is so droning and monotonous, you wonder how he could get involved in anything at all.

But he does--blackmail and murder ooze out of him. One might think that this contrast, this juxtaposition of opposites would lend the film the requisite fascination an audience would hope for. In many cases, judging by numerous reviews, that seems to have occurred.

But not for me. This film is without question a companion piece to the earlier Coen brothers film, Miller's Crossing. Both films are slow, deliberate, methodical. Both boast excellent actors working at their peak. Both involve criminal activity (as do most Coen brothers films). Both films were extremely well made and well produced. And the pacing of both films left me with a great appreciation for the actors, but, as well, a strong sense of uninvolvement--if I can say that.

One does not need to be frantic to generate excitement or even interest. But the obvious lack of involvement of the main character seems to be a virus that spreads throughout the film, infecting almost everything it sees. Doubtless this is the point of the film, and if so, it does a great job with that. For this viewer, it had the effect of alienating me from the entire filmgoing experience.

The three stars are for the acting and the production. A Coen brothers film is always of interest, because they almost always do things that very few other filmmakers do. I was definitely not enthralled with this film, yet still recognize its unique feeling.

Rating:
Summary: Those Coens did it again...
Review: Wow...I just got home from seeing this movie, and I'm speechless. This movie was fantastic. It was well written, the cinematography was great, the lighting was exquisite. The movie was done in black and white which was a nice touch.

I didn't go into the theater thinking this movie would be as good as it was. Granted, every Coen Brothers movie I've seen as of this date has been fantastic, but...Billy Bob Thorton? I thought it was an odd choice. Now, after seeing the movie, I see how wrong I was in thinking that. I don't think there's anyone who could have played the part of Ed Crane better or more convincing than Thorton. It was one of those performances that just sucks you into the movie, and you leave the theater not thinking of him as Billy Bob Thorton, but Ed Crane, the guy with the miserable marriage, the guy who just doesn't seem to fit into the world.

The plot of the movie is very dark and deep. There are a lot of twists and turns (in true Coen style), but not so many that you're confused during the course of the movie. Every performance in this movie was great. First and foremost, Billy Bob Thorton. Second, Tony Shalhoub--it's hard to think of him as the taxi driver from the TV show "Wings" after seeing him in this role. He is an excellent actor and played the part of the self-important-lawyer flawlessly. I particularly enjoyed the scenes in the jail room where he's talking to Ed and Doris about what they're going to tell the jury. The lighting of those scenes was also incredible.

I plan on buying this on DVD whenever it becomes available, and I think it could easily replace The Big Lebowski as my favorite Coen Brothers movie.