Digg this
| 
Post to del.icio.us
| 
E-mail to a friend
So how silly is it gasbagging about a movie you haven't seen based on a book you haven't read? Since that's approximately where I'm at vis-a-vis Joel and Ethan Coen's No Country for Old Men, adapted from a Cormac McCarthy novel of no particular distinction, at least if you trust what the literary rags tell you. But already we've been inundated from all sides as the national release date approaches (11/9), and preliminary impressions have been formed. Not least from the track records of all the parties concerned—the two sibling filmmakers, the novelist—which, for me anyway, sets anticipations galloping in contradictory directions.
Not because "one's good, the other isn't," but mostly for the mismatched sensibilities and tones. Since why would the Coens, generally irreverent, scattershot types, ever be drawn to the work of someone so resolutely hermetic and austere? "For the characters"—or maybe caricatures, depending on your point of view—is how some critics see it ... except McCarthy doesn't traffic in characters: typically he has oracles, avatars of violence, prophetic mouthpieces raining down perdition. Nothing wrong in that, and within the straitened, minimalist context he almost invariably adopts (in Blood Meridian, The Road, the Border trilogy, etc—every pared-down syllable a discrete "plish" in the silent narrative pool) it manages to work just fine.
But the Coens aren't minimalists (yes, there's the highway stripe in Fargo, but still ...), so what's the "creative" connection? Apparently there is one—or so the brothers' "conversation" with the author in Time (10/18) would lead you to think, though the exact reasons for it seem pretty obscure. Some sample musings:
Cormac McCarthy Days of Heaven is an awfully good movie.
Joel Coen Yeah. Well, he is great, Terry Malick. Really interesting.
CM It's so strange; I never knew what happened to him. I saw Richard Gere in New Orleans one time, and I said, "What ever happened to Terry Malick?" And he said, "Everybody asks me that." He said, "I have no idea." But later on I met Terry. And he just--he just decided that he didn't want to live that life ...
JC One of the great American moviemakers.
CM But Miller's Crossing is in that category. I don't want to embarrass you, but that's just a very, very fine movie.
JC Eh, it's just a damn rip-off.
Miller's Crossing? Richard Gere? Some of the things folks tell you you'd rather not know ...
Ditto. Squared. Cubed, even.
I'm sorry the humor thing throws you, Pat. Maybe you should see the movie? Or read the book? And not use asterisks as some weird, self-important punctuation?
As far as having all the luck, I think you're cursed to write this way, Mr. Graham. I don't think it's lucky to have to write in a vacuum where (usually) only the webmaster tries to engage you in converation because you're so pretentious and obtuse that the rest of us (usually) throw up our hands except for the occasional rant.
By all means rant away, but it bugs me when people don't do their research.
Perhaps a good point. To whet (sic):
If I COULD research articles by author (the search doesn't work - I search for "pat graham" and it turns up 2 articles that aren't written by pat graham), I might be able to do some research, Mr. WEBMASTER. Your search engine sucks, so don't jump on my ass for not being able to do research!
I guess the inbreeding of Reader staffers responding to each other's post unfortunately clouded my views. Look at Pat G's recent post - a "public discussion" between two reader film critics. I get turned on just reading this circle jerk!
Oy. I'll admit I haven't done my "research," (mainly because your blog software doesn't measure up to, oh, say, a wordpress release from 5 years ago), but I hazard to guess that you responding to even TWO of Pat G's post puts you in the top responders.
So, Whet, I detract my comment, but I guess the intent of my statement still stands - it's an inbred environment therein at the Reader, best exemplifed by Pat G who writes in such an obscure manner that I feel only Reader staffers are compelled to respond except for those of us who can't understand how this becomes relevant for publication.
Don't feel like you're the only one who thinks this way of Mr Graham. I have a master's in film and the only rebuttal I have to this guy's blogs is that he's a douche bag.
NO COUNTRY, along with ZODIAC are the two best films of the year (that I've seen)
Pat just can't seem to like things that are well crafted and entertaining.
To him I say, lame.
which creates a problem for the coens, since principles of destruction don't make for tangible human characters * implicitly bardem's assassin ought to be elusive, indefinable, maybe even wraithlike: a personification rather than a person * unfortunately that's not how he plays him, which is too stolidly earthbound, concretely "of the flesh" ...
but it's an adaptation, and the coens--obviously--aren't obliged to be faithful to what i'm only alleging is the author's original "vision" * but i do think the film's a little flat-footed ...