"The spin the Coen Brothers give our expectation of, and need for, empathy amounts to an existential reversal given that empathy as a literary idea is commonly understood as a unifying agent... At their most original, they have exercised the darker, more difficult, impulse to unite the audience not in the warmth of common affirmation (which I would argue is the aim of most mainstream films), but the chill of common alienation."
-Devin Mckinney
I read this in a book today, and wondered what everyone would think of the theory. The article in general talks about the fact that everything - even the darkest moments - in their movies has a slight ironic, comic, twist to it (which I think is true), and therefore we never really feel emotionally attatched (not quite so certain on).
Having just read this I then watched Raising Arizona (which I hadn't seen in ages) and, to my surprise, actually found myself moved to tears by the ending... You know: when Nicholas Cage is describing the dream he has about the perfect family he wants to have when he's old and grey ("is this just all wishful thinking..."). I don't know if this was because I was emotionally attatched to the characters (I didn't feel like I was during the action, I was just laughing at them), or if I was actually emoting because of the feeling of shared "common alienation"...
What does anyone think?
All of their films move me except O Brother, which is probably why it's my least favorite, even though it's still a fairly good flick.
And the closing moments of Fargo are fucking beautiful.
Also, my penis hurts.
But then why do you think it is that you're moved? Because, when I think about it, I never feel particularly wrapped up in the characters' lives to any great extent... I think it has got something to do with this ironic detatchment that they give us: I was teary-eyed at the Nic Cage's character's cheesy, ironic longing for that family not because of how it related to his character (there's too much irony for that), but because of how the whole vision relates to me - sharing that common alienation...
I think I'm not making a great deal of actual sense - all I know is that I don't get emotionally moved by the characters in their movies, but I do get moved by the movies...
PS: I'm sorry for your penile pain.
Explain what you mean by common alienation. You mean being moved by the situation, and not the characters?
As for the penis problem, have you tried viagara?
Quote from: MrBurgerKingAs for the penis problem, have you tried viagara?
Wouldn't a croissandwich do the trick?
i think most of thier films are more plot driven than character driven. not to say they dont have amazing characters, rather the narrative seems to be driven by the characters actions and less by the characters' feelings. the tone usually seems to be a hieghtened reality -- which always seems to distance the audience -- similar to gilliam, but a little less extreme ( i cant say i've ever felt an ounce of feeling for a character in a gilliam film) a lot of their characters can be viewed as characatures . i think fargo is the least stylized from a character standpoint -- especially with macey's character: jerry lundegard -- this is also why i feel that fargo is their most successful film -- its much more tangible for the audience -- you don't feel like your watching a vaudville act like so many of thier other pictures. nevertheless i love all thier films.
I think the common alienation thing is completely accurate, but it's not a bad thing. The same could be said of many of Kubrick's and Hitchcock's movies.
Quote from: ShanghaiOrangeI think the common alienation thing is completely accurate, but it's not a bad thing. The same could be said of many of Kubrick's and Hitchcock's movies.
agreed. i dont think its a bad thing at all. i think it depends what stories you are telling. certain approaches will be more effective for certian stories.
I think Raising Arizona is definitely their most heartfelt movie; they show nothing but love for their characters. It is incredibly moving, and the fact that Roger Ebert maintains his one star review for it will forever be my biggest contention with him.
Fargo has a similar feel with the characters of Marge and her husband, especially when they're in bed at the end; but on the other hand, Jerry Lundegard and his family show the Coen's at their coldest.
Quote from: children with angelsBut then why do you think it is that you're moved? Because, when I think about it, I never feel particularly wrapped up in the character's lives to any great extent... I think it has got something to do with this ironic detatchment that they give us: I was teary-eyed at the Nic Cage's character's cheesy, ironic longing for that family not because of how it related to his character (there's too much irony for that), but because of how the whole vision relates to me - sharing that common alienation...
I think I'm not making a great deal of actual sense - all I know is that I don't get emotionally moved by the characters in their movies, but I do get moved by the movies...
PS: I'm sorry for your penile pain.
I think that watching TBLsky gave me the same estimulation than a cartoon with Will E. Coyote could give me, I'm allways convinced to see the main character saved after the next cut. So I don't have a reason to be worried about what happens in the present, I don't care what it is, two seconds later I'll be going on again from the beginning.
Quote from: GhostboyI think Raising Arizona is definitely their most heartfelt movie; they show nothing but love for their characters. It is incredibly moving, and the fact that Roger Ebert maintains his one star review for it will forever be my biggest contention with him.
in all fairness, Ebert wrote this review still high off the fumes of the brilliant Blood Simple. Every negative aspect he points out about Raising Arizona is something we all get used to during the rest of the Coen Brothers' work.
http://suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/1987/03/223180.html